1975-11-28

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity arising from the suspicion of fraud and other irregularities in the letting of Olympic contracts, resulting in police raids on the builders of the Olympic Village, and continuing exorbitant and irregular expenditures by Montreal and COJO of funds generated by federally backed legislation. I move, for the sake of the helpless taxpayer, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That this House instruct the President of the Treasury Board to oversee and control any and all Olympic expenditures relating to funds generated as a result of federal legislation as well as direct and indirect federal financial commitments, and report back to parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I wish to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Since our outstanding national police force faces complex and demanding tasks at a time when the influence of activities of government is permeating every aspect of our lives, since the commissioner and all other officers of the RCMP are appointed by the government and since criminal investigations by the RCMP, now touching certain political and physical perimeters, must remain unstained by suspicions of political partisanship, with consent, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil): That the right hon. Prime Minister assure the House that the practice of appointing the commissioner from among members of the force who have risen through the ranks will continue.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, such motion requires unanimous consent. 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 Prime Minister. Pursuing my natural racist tendencies-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -I ask the right hon. gentleman whether he is now satisfied that the RCM Police, or an officer of the RCM Police, did not leak in advance the fact that the police would be seeking the assistance of the Minister without Portfolio in an interview yesterday?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I met with the commissioner yesterday and he was very distressed at the situation, as I had been. We both agreed that we would try to find out if there was any possibility that the leak had come from the RCMP itself. He was confident that the answer would be no. I must confess that that is my information also. However, I think it is something sufficiently serious to look into. As to the hon. member's racism remark, I do not know why he found it necessary to preface his question with that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If the Prime Minister wants to known why I prefaced my remark, he might ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare, not to mention the President of the Treasury Board.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Minister of National Health and Welfare, as I understood him, said something was below me. I heard him on television last night and I thought it was well below him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 28, 1975
Oral Questions


PERMISSION OF PRIME MINISTER FOR MR. MARCHAND TO SPEAK TO FORCE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: assume this to be the case, but I would like to make certain. Following the interview with the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police yesterday, does the Minister without Portfolio now have the Prime Minister's permission to meet with representatives of the police and to co-operate with them if he wishes?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, nobody in this country needs my permission to answer to the police.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REASON FOR FAILURE OF SOLICITOR GENERAL TO ATTEND
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have one final question. I understand that the Solicitor General, through whom the Royal Canadian Mounted Police report to parliament, was not present yesterday at the meeting which the Prime Minister and the Minister without Portfolio had with the Commissioner of the RCMP. Was there any reason for this? In view of the sort of comment being made these days by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I hope this does not show any racist tendency on the part of the Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty cheap shot, I must say. I do not know what kind of a fishing expedition the Leader of the Opposition is on, but I would tell him that he is very sadly misinformed.


REQUEST FOR LIST OF MEMBERS FORCE SEEKS TO INTERVIEW
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. It arises out of answers given by the Solicitor General in the House yesterday, particularly his statement that the RCMP planned to seek meetings with ministers and members on both sides of the House. Can the Prime Minister tell us if he has received from the RCMP a list of the specific members they intend to interview and the basis for seeking an interview with each of them and can he explain to us, in particular, the basis for the interest of the RCMP in talking to members on this side of the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I have no such knowledge nor have I seen such a list, but I can predict that if they ever ask a question over there, the attitude of the opposition will change dramatically from what it was yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Has the Prime Minister not read the record of the proceedings of the House of Commons about this whole unfortunate business? Is he

now saying that the opposition is being irresponsible for raising matters which have since come to light?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister arising from the $950 purchase which the Department of National Defence is making from the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation for the replacement of the Argus. In view of the fact that there have been reports that other companies such as Boeing Aircraft, and the Douglas Corporation have placed before the government various package deals which would result in a larger percentage of the money spent going to Canadian aircraft companies, I want to ask the Prime Minister what options were open to the government when they made the decision to grant the contract to Lockheed Corporation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As far as
details are concerned I would urge the hon. member to address his question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce when my colleague is here because it was principally his department which had the responsibility of studying the various options from the point of view of the industrial fall-outs for Canada, the offsets, the value of them, and so on. I am sure that within the bounds of whatever secrecy is involved in the bids by the companies, the minister would be more helpful than I. But I can correct the impression the hon. member has when he says that the offsets from one corporation would be considerably higher than from the other. I think that was the intimation in what he said. Both the main options put to us were extremely interesting; that is why it took a great deal of study to make a choice between them. The decisive factor was the figure of several hundred million dollars which it would have cost us more for the Boeing option than for the Lockheed option, and in times of reasonable restraint when we are trying to prevent our budget from going up, this was the decisive factor in our decision.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF AGREEMENT WITH LOCKHEED
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Dary Childs, the Regional Director of Export Sales for Lockheed, is quoted as saying that of the $950 million contract some $686 million will be spent in Canada, whereas the Minister of National Defence said yesterday that $283 million was committed in the agreement and that $285 million was to be a best effort, but there was no guarantee. This is nearly $120 million less than is being stated by the Lockheed Corporation. I want to ask the Prime Minister this question: in view of the disparity in the figures, will he undertake to see that the agreement between the
November 28, 1975

Department of National Defence and Lockheed Aircraft Corporation is tabled in the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will not give such an undertaking. I said earlier that the minister would, within the normal security provisions of commercial corporations, be as helpful as he can. I do not know what the figures are. I know cabinet had these documents and spent a good deal of time on them. I know there are guaranteed offsets and that others are to be best efforts. There may be another category the minister might wish to talk to the House about.


INDUSTRY
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: see the genial Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has just entered the chamber. May I ask him whether the government has yet made a decision with respect to exercising its option to purchase Canadair and whether Cana-dair will get any part of the $950 million contract which was let to Lockheed Aircraft Corporation by the Department of National Defence?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The answer to the second partkof the question is yes. There is a substantial amount of work for Canadair as well as for other Canadian sub-contractors. I am a few minutes late because I was hoping to put the final touches on the other aspect of the hon. member's question, namely that concerning the acquisition of Canadair. I find it will not be possible for me to do so in time to make an announcement today but perhaps I shall not be exceeding the restraints under which I am placed at the moment if I say to him that I think the answer I shall be able to give to him will be satisfactory to the hon. member with regard to Canadair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In the interests of providing the best battle tank at the lowest cost to the Canadian taxpayer, would the government give consideration to leasing the tanks that our forces in Europe need from the West German government, the Leopard tank, which is by far the best battle tank available to us, particularly since at the present time there are quite a number of Leopard tanks in western Canada which can be used without any further delay for training Canadian troops in the use of these very excellent tanks.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right. As he saw from the statement of the minister yesterday, leasing is one option, as well as the retrofitting of the present Centurion. But he is quite right in suggesting there is this advantage of training possibilities, since some of those tanks are in Canada, and this will be very much a part of our decision. I repeat that we will be guided by considerations of economy such as this, as well as considerations of a purely military and strategic nature.


INDUSTRY
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the genial minister who has just arrived. Now that the basic contract has been awarded, my question has to do with the protection of allied industries, such as IMP in Dartmouth and its predecessor Fairey Aviation, which have for a number of years been responsible for maintenance and certain basic aspects of the overhaul of the existing LRPA. What built-in protections for firms such as IMP have been considered in the awarding of the contract to Lockheed?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with the plant in question. I believe that there is some subcontract work related to the LRPA for IMP and for some other maritime companies as well. The larger question, of course, will be what will happen at the repair and overhaul stage after the phase out of one type of aircraft and the introduction of another. That is a bit down the road, but I have already given assurances to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who has an interest in this matter, that we will look into it in terms of seeing what kind of protection can be offered once the repair and overhaul operation switch is made as the result of getting the new aircraft.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Will the acquisition of a new tank imply a change of role for Canadian forces in Europe, which are now in the central region reserve role, and will the forces continue to be stationed at Lahr?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, there will not be a change of role since the present forces are using Centurion tanks. The reason that this decision had to be taken was that they are coming to the end of their normal life span unless they are retrofitted at considerable expense. There is no intention of changing

November 28, 1975
Oral Questions
the role; it will be pursued but with better equipment. As far as the station at Lahr is concerned, there is no implication in what was stated yesterday by the minister that we will in any way move from Lahr.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Acknowledging with thanks his efforts to arrange a meeting with the ambassador of Poland last Wednesday, may I ask the minister whether during this meeting he raised the matter of the list of 20 cases concerning reunification of families which I gave him before his trip to Poland in September, and in particular the case of Mrs. Psarska?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did refer to the list of family reunification cases which had been presented by the ambassador in Warsaw last Friday. That list was compiled as a result of, and after consideration of, the list which the hon. member had presented to me prior to my visit to Poland. I want to tell the hon. member that during that visit I raised the question of family reunification, including his list and Mrs. Psarska. That is a continuing process that is now being followed up by our ambassador. I followed that up last Wednesday. Quite specifically, I discussed in detail the case of Mrs. Psarska.


RUSSIA-POSSIBILITY OF INTERVENTION TO OBTAIN PERMISSION FOR MR. SAKHAROV TO RECEIVE NOBEL PRIZE IN OSLO
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the Helsinki Accord in which European communist countries promised to allow freer travel for their citizens is the Prime Minister going to intervene, along with other world leaders, with Secretary Brezhnev to allow Andrei Sakharov, the Soviet physicist, to travel to Oslo to receive his Nobel Peace Prize.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not considered making such an intervention.


RUMANIA-REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE IN HAVING FAMILIES REUNITED
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. At the present time in front of these parliament buildings there are three former Rumanian citizens, David Pompiliu, Julian Hertescu and Dimitri Moldovan. I apologize to my friend the hon. member for Edmonton Centre for my pronunciation of these names. They are pleading in front of these buildings for help. Mr. Pompiliu states that in 1973 he wrote to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: They are pleading for assistance in bringing their families to Canada. My question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs is, will he contact the Rumanian Embassy and ask them to uphold the universal declaration on human rights which states that every family has the right to live together in the country of their choice, and will he make a plea on behalf of these three citizens.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am not familiar with these particular cases.


An hon. Member:: You can see them outside the door.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am still not familiar with these cases. I will undertake to look at them and follow up in the way we customarily do in an effort to secure the reunification of families. That has been one of the major undertakings of the Government of Canada in the long meetings prior to the Helsinki Conference which resulted in the inclusion in that document of the text which makes it now possible to ask the signatories to that text to deliver on their commitment at the conference to accelerate the human contacts and reunification of families.


HELSINKI AGREEMENT-INQUIRY AS TO REVIEW PROCEDURE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, these cases bring up the whole matter of the review procedure. I would like to know what steps are being taken within the minister's department to have an on-going review of cases that are clearly in breach of the Helsinki Agreement, including the failure of the Soviet Union to allow the distinguished scientist Sakharov to go to Oslo. What review procedure is in place so that when Helsinki is tested we will not find that it is really only a piece of paper.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I hope that when the review process is undertaken in Yugoslavia it will not become a piece of paper. In the interim, progress will have to be made which up to the present has not been marked. I agree with my hon. friend to that extent. In so far as Canada is concerned, we have established within the Department of External Affairs, first of all a procedure to ensure that Canada is fully living up to the principles which it accepted at Helsinki. Of course, we intend to review all of these cases so that at the appropriate time we will be able to confront the other signatories with performance or lack of performance on these points.
sjc *	*


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Mr. T. Lefebvre (Pontiac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs
November 28, 1975

responsible for the National Capital Commission, or to his spokesman.
Is the minister aware of the announcement made yesterday by the National Capital Commission that the funds for highway network in the Outaouais area will be frozen, if the Ottawa Regional Board does not build a sewer system? If so, do the minutes agree with that policy which will prevent western Quebec residents from enjoying a modern and adequate road network?


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I understand the interest of the hon. member and I appreciate the fact that he draws it to the attention of the House. I will make my minister aware of the problem as soon as possible so that he may give a definite answer to the hon. member.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Since the producers of industrial milk have not yet received the subsidy on 75 per cent of their September production, could the minister tell the House whether the deductions for export expenditures have been made on the entire production for that month?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, my answer to the hon. gentleman is that we are only living within the agreement which we have. We said we had enough money for a hundred million hundredweight of milk. Producers are being paid for much more milk than they were supposed to deliver, they were above the quota. We do not have that much money to pay for the whole amount. If they want to produce it and take less money for it, that is up to them.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
May I ask the minister if this means that the subsidy for the month of October will be paid at a lower percentage than that for the month of September?


Eugene Whelan: What did he say?


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I apologize to the minister. He probably did not think I had a supplementary question. I therefore repeat it.
In terms of the answer he has just given, does it mean that, for the month of October, the percentage of the subsidy will apply to fewer pounds than for the month of September?


Eugene Whelan: It means that we have enough money to pay for a hundred million hundredweight of milk and not
Oral Questions
10 per cent or 20 per cent more than that. The money has to be distributed in that way. If farmers cut back their quota, they can still get paid for 95 per cent of their production by the end of the dairy year, at the end of March, 1976.


REASON FOR CUT BACK IN SUBSIDY ON CREAM PRODUCTION
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. In the cut back which the minister announced will take place in the September cheques for the subsidy to the dairy producers, why did we find it necessary to cut back also on the subsidy paid on 75 per cent of the production of cream producers? The cream producers are not responsible for any surpluses in the country. Butter is produced from cream and butter is not in a surplus position.


Eugene Whelan: They are all under the market quota system.


DATE OF DECISION ON ALLOWANCE OF INCREASE IN DAIRY PRODUCTS IMPORTS
Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, I have another supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. A few days ago the minister said that he was going to assess the decision of the government to allow increased imports of dairy products into Canada in view of the large production of dairy products in this country. Has he reassessed that yet, and what is the decision? It is a very important matter.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I agree it is very important, and that is why it is taking quite a bit of time to do a thorough assessment. Work is underway, but I am not in a position at the moment to say when I can inform the public on the question.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, as we enter the 40th day of the postal shutdown, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the hundreds of reports of hardship and economic damage received in response to a country wide appeal by this party, is the government able to report that it has made any attempts to assess the real damage inflicted on Canadians by the post office shutdown and, if so, would this information be made available?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know of no way in which an exact assessment could be made. I think the government is keeping very well informed on what is happening, but I would guess it is impossible to make an exact assessment. Even if it were,
9542

November 28, 1975
Oral Questions
the cost of it would be prohibitive. I think the hon. member should realize what the attitude of the government is, that it is not going to make any further offers and it is hoping the strike will be settled on the basis of the generous offer that has already been made by the Postmaster General.
STRIKE OF INSIDE WORKERS-ABILITY OF GOVERNMENT TO RESUME NEGOTIATIONS [DOT]


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: In view of the absence for five days of the Postmaster General and in view of union executive meetings now taking place, is the government willing and able to resume negotiations immediately if requested by the union?


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the Postmaster General has been present in the House two of the last three days. He is available at any time and is on call.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Are the reports on Wednesday that he is considering a very sharp change in the government's program of support for multiculturalism true, and will the new programs mean a downgrading of the grants which have been given to the ethnic communities which they already consider to be too little too late, and does it include a rejection of federal support for the teaching of languages other than English or French?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member has asked that question because it affords me the opportunity to clarify the situation. No, it is not a downgrading of the concept of multiculturalism, nor is it a downgrading of the grants to various ethno-cultural groups in Canada. What it is, what we are thinking about and what I have discussed with various ethno-cultural groups, including the Ukrainian community in Montreal, is whether it would not be worth considering shifting the emphasis in terms of combatting discrimination and breaking down some barriers which some of the minority groups and ethno-cultural groups are experiencing without withdrawing assistance to all ethno-cultural groups. The reaction I have been receiving has been positive, and it was in that context that I have been discussing this change of emphasis. I think, as the previous minister of multiculturalism will attest, it has always been an element of the multicultural policy to promote understanding and combat discrimination.


David Orlikow: Due to the fact that the combatting of discrimination has been traditionally part of the work done by other departments of the federal government, such as the Department of the Secretary of State, the Department of Labour and the provincial governments, and in view of fact that the minister's change in policy or change in emphasis does not seem to have been discussed at least 
with the chairman of the Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism, Mr. Koteles, who expressed shock when he heard of the minister's changed policy, can the minister explain whether his new approach has been discussed with the organization which the government itself set up to advise it on the kind of work which the government should be supporting?


John Carr Munro: I would advise the hon. member that I have been attending various meetings of the Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism and regional meetings. We have been discussing the various elements of the whole policy in terms of a review that I wanted to take forward to the government fairly soon. These discussions have been public in nature; there is no question about that. In terms of asking questions with respect to the direction of policy, I have already mentioned to you that I have done it with various groups. It seemed to have been well received by various groups. I cannot accept responsibility for Mr. Koteles, he will have to accept that on his own responsibility.
As far as teaching of third languages or, if you like, retention of languages, that has always been an element of the policy. We will continue to offer grants in that connection on the assumption and hope that it will be an instrument in itself to combat discrimination and to attain any understanding between ethno-cultural groups as well as to assist all Canadians in appreciating the contribution these cultural groups make to Canada.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and concerns that section of the Helsinki accord which was referred to earlier today, in particular-section VIII which reads as follows:
... all peoples always have the right, in full freedom, to determine, when and as they wish, their internal and external political status, without external interference,-
I bring to his attention the situation dangerous to world peace in Angola in which the U.S.S.R. flagrantly is breaking this section of the accord, either directly or indirectly, by puppets operating under its tutelage. Has the Canadian government protested to the government of the U.S.S.R. that this is wrong or does it intend to bring it before the United Nations? There is nothing more dangerous to world peace than what is occurring at the present time over there.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the right hon. gentleman that this matter was brought to the attention of the United Nations by the Canadian representative in his statement in which the attitude of the Canadian government was expressed in total opposition to outside interference, and armed forces from outside participation in events in Angola. We have not made the direct approach of protest
November 28, 1975

to the Soviet government at this point but we have made our position quite clear at the United Nations where all countries know where we stand.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. I realize it may have been done but it was not very effective the first time. I suggest again that action be taken and in particular that the ambassador of the U.S.S.R. in Ottawa be made aware of the strong feelings of Canadians as a whole who begin to believe, as Senator Forsey stated yesterday in the other place, that the Helsinki accord was a succession of amiable platitudes.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
With reference to the question I directed to him on Wednesday, November 19, and following the interventions of a number of my colleagues from this side of the House concerning the dispute in the pulp and paper industry, the many meetings we have had with the minister and above all the urgent appeal he has made to the industry to return to the bargaining table, could the minister advise the House whether he has received a positive response from the companies?


John Carr Munro: Not yet, Mr. Speaker. I would advise the hon. member, however, that I was talking to two particular labour ministers, those from Ontario and Quebec. I am advised certainly by the minister from Ontario that she has called the presidents of the companies together in Toronto and urged them to try to resolve this dispute as quickly as possible. I have publicly urged them to get back to the bargaining table in an effort to resolve this particular dispute. I am hopeful they will do so in the very near future. That is as far as I can go.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Yesterday he indicated to my colleague the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth that he might be able to make a statement with respect to the problems with Westinghouse Canada in the House today. In light of the fact that some 200 jobs are on the line in Orangeville as well as 2,000 in Hamilton, I wonder whether the minister could make a statement on this today.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, at ten o'clock this morning I
Oral Questions
met with representatives from the unions. I believe most of them, if not all, were from Hamilton but I am not aware if any were from the smaller operation. The Minister of Labour was with me at that meeting. I advised the representatives of the union that we were primarily concerned now with assuring the stability of the jobs in question and that we would make every effort within our power and jurisdiction to see what could be done along those lines. I also indicated that I had certain ideas which were being conveyed to the negotiating companies concerned. I hope over the next couple of weeks that these overtures which I was making would indicate whether there was ground for a negotiated end to the current situation. If there is not, at the end of the two weeks' period we would then obviously have to reassess the situation. I continue to be hopeful, however, that within the next two weeks if not before, a solution will have been found through the negotiating route.


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Sources within Statistics Canada have indicated that five senior officials of the department left last week for a government paid trip to a conference in the Barbados. Will the minister explain the purpose of the trip by these senior officials?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will have to make inquiries, Mr. Speaker. I will go down and check on them if the hon. member wishes.


FINANCE
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the projected deficit of upwards of $1 billion to finance the Olympics, has the minister had any discussion with the governments concerned as to what the deficit might be and how it might be covered and what effect this might have on our internal and external debt position?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: No,
sir.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS EFFECT OF QUEBEC'S OLYMPIC DEBT ON TRANSFER PAYMENTS
Otto John Jelinek: A supplementary question for the President of the Treasury
29956-52/4

November 28, 1975
Oral Questions
Board, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this week the minister indicated that he would check whether additional expense incurred by the province of Quebec as a result of assuming Olympic financing responsibilities will be considered when transfer payments from other provinces are considered. Could the minister advise the House of the government's position in this regard?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, transfer payments are based on the income level of a province, not on its expense level.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Otto John Jelinek: One supplementary to the right hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Some time ago the Prime Minister stated in this House that there would be no special assistance, no special financial aid, from the federal government to Montreal or to COJO for the holding of the Olympics. Since then, of course, he has somewhat altered his position in this regard. I should therefore like to ask the Prime Minister, since we cannot take his original statement as ongoing government policy just how far is his government prepared to go and in what roundabout way is it planning to bail out the province of Quebec as it inevitably will?


FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN FINANCING OF GAMES- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Lafontaine-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the President of the Treasury Board.
As the Quebec Minister of Finance, Mr. Garneau, replying to a question about the financial contribution of the federal government to the Olympic Games, said that it amounted to $100 million, at which point another member of the National Assembly called the minister a liar, can the President of the Treasury Board clarify the situation and tell the House to how much the direct financial contribution of the federal government amounts?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the federal responsibilities towards the Olympic games with regard to security, radio-broadcasting of the games and various related activities, will cost the federal government in the vicinity of $130 million. In addition, the federal government, thanks to the co-operation of all hon. members, was able to allow the setting up of self-financing programs such as the lottery, and the Olympic coins and stamps. Such is the federal participation to the games to this day. As usual, the hon. member concerned, Mr. Charron, proved his great ignorance.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I understand that representations have been made to the minister, or his department, by the Interchurch Council for Chile, asking the government to protest to the government of Chile the suppression of the Committee for Peace, which was created by Roman Catholics, Protestants and orthodox Jews to provide legal aid and moral support for political prisoners, their families and the families of those who have disappeared. Will the minister give favourable consideration to this request?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have not, to my knowledge, received those representations from the church leaders. If and when they arrive I shall certainly give consideration to what useful steps Canada can take to help the situation in Chile. At present, as my hon. friend knows, the leader of that particular committee, Cardinal de Silva, is in Rome, but will return to Chile to resume discussing with government leaders the question of the dissolution of that particular committee.


RAMBOUILLET CONFERENCE-NATURE OF AGREEMENTS AND CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN GATT CONFERENCE
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Has the government inquired officially on the results of the summit in Rambouillet and would the minister tell the House, first, when and how he will express his views on each point on which an agreement was reached and, second, whether this meeting produced guidelines which will influence the Conference Nord-Sud sur les matieres premieres in France in mid-December and which will have an impact on Canada's position at the 31st session of GATT as well as on the participation of Canada in this conference?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we have been informed of the results of the summit conference in France. The matter of the implementation of any of the conclusions, particularly with respect to the accord that apparently has been reached between France and the United States, will, of course, have to be submitted to the appropriate agencies, particularly within the International Monetary Fund. On the question of fluctuating versus fixed exchange rates, I suggest that there will be opportunity for Canada to take a position on these questions when they arise in these international agencies.
With respect to the north-south conference, we expect it to go ahead in the second week of December. The situation
November 28, 1975

at present is this: no formal invitations have been extended, certainly not to the eight industrialized countries which will attend the conference, but we expect to be present and are preparing our position on the various important subjects which will be discussed there, which include energy, development, raw materials and international financial questions.


INDUSTRY
Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In view of the restrictions proposed by the European Community and the United States during the current GATT session in Geneva, is the Canadian delegation maintaining a firm and unconditional stand towards the objective of international trade liberalization or is our country associating this position with the principle of some sound protectionism particularly with regard to our textile and footwear industry upon which, as it is known, many jobs in Canada are dependent?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in the Canadian attitude with regard to the so-called Tokyo round and subsequent discussions in Geneva. I will be meeting with the delegation there within the next week or so, to obtain a report on developments and the likely events which may flow from the incident to which the hon. member referred. Our policies on international trade and protectionism are well known and have not changed, and my only qualification is one with which the hon. member is familiar. We have a policy with regard to footwear, and the restructuring of the industry, which has some bearing on tariffs. That is, I suppose, the only real answer I can give the hon. member. If he will look at the footwear and leather goods strategy, he will see what is our tariff policy in this regard.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Will the minister advise whether the government has ever established a basis of net cost to itself for any contributions it may make to the financing of the Olympic Games? By net cost I mean taking into account the revenues which accrue to the government through sales tax, income tax, customs, and so on, arising out of the addition-
Oral Questions
al economic activity, regardless of whether it provided the money. If so, was it done with regard to Expo? My assessment is that the government was a clear winner with Expo. Has this been done with the Olympic Games and, if so, what may be the net cost to the government of Canada? [Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any information about that and we are not doing any particular study in that area at this time. I do not know if the study has already been done about Expo 67, but I shall inquire and give the hon. member an answer as soon as possible.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the postal strike and the possibility that postal service may not be available before Christmas, has the minister made arrangements to ensure that old age pension cheques will be received on time?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, new arrangements have been made for delivery of old age pension cheques in December of this year and, I hope, for all years to come. They will now be delivered before Christmas every year. This arrangement, I understand, will come into effect this December.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Will the minister be prepared to table or otherwise make available copies of the model agreements he submitted to the provinces in connection with Bill C-73?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, sir. I would have to obtain them and also seek translations. I will do that.


FINANCE
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and concerns the difficulty businessmen in Ontario experience in obtaining small business loans under the government's guaranteed

November 28, 1975
Textile and Clothing Board
loan administration. In view of the wide spread now prevailing between existing interest rates and the 8 per cent ceiling on guaranteed loans, will the minister consider making changes in the regulations to ensure that businessmen can obtain loans under this program?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for the question and will take it as notice.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Finance is based on the fact that the province of Saskatchewan has now opted out of the government's anti-inflation program, which means that there is now no national consensus involving the ten provinces and the federal government. Does he still hold that such national consensus of the ten provinces and the federal government is necessary? If so, is there any intention to call another first ministers' conference, in an attempt, again, to achieve consensus?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, to be fair to the province of Saskatchewan, the Minister of Finance of that province said that Saskatchewan was reserving its right not to participate in the program, but would not take that decision at this time. Perhaps the hon. gentleman's question is premature. I share the emphasis underlying this question. It is necessary to take the kind of national action against inflation about which provincial premiers were talking at the meeting of last September.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Ninth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Herbert.

[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works-Mr. Martin.
[Editor's Note: For texts of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I am tabling today a report, in both official languages, from the Textile and Clothing Board on broadwov-en filament rayon fabrics.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), I wish to table, under Standing Order 41(2), copies of the letter of resignation of Mr. Yves Pratte, chairman of Air Canada, and the letter of acceptance of that resignation signed by the Minister of Transport. Pursuant to the requirements of this Standing Order, these letters are being tabled in both official languages.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister in charge of multiculturalism made several statements during today's question period which many members from both sides of the House would like to see him make on motions. This type of thing takes up a great deal of time in the question period. Because we really do not have an opportunity to ask extra questions of the minister, I feel that the only time he should be making such statements is on motions.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,242, 3,271 and 3,479.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What length of time has the CF-104 Starfighter been operational?
2.	How many CF-104's does the government own?
3.	What is the annual average cost of maintenance and repairs for the aircraft?
4.	Is it expected that the aircraft will be soon phased out and, if so (a) on what date (b) with what aircraft?
5.	Of the 24 aircraft types that the Department of National Defence has operational, are there any of these aircraft in the process of being phased out and, if so, what types?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. Since, December 17, 1962.
November 28, 1975

2.	105 CF-104 aircraft (83 CF-104 single seat; 22 CF-104 dual seat). Of these 83 are in service.
3.	The cost of spare parts, repair and overhaul for 1975-76 for the aircraft in service is epxected to be $12,352,000.
4.	(a) The operational life of the CF-104 extends into the 1980's and no date has yet been set for phasing out this aircraft, (b) Replacement studies are underway but no replacement aircraft has been selected.
5.	No.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	On what basis was the import quota for cheese established in each of the past five years?
2.	Is the supply of Canadian cheese adequate to satisfy the domestic market?
3.	What percentage of imported cheese retails at prices competitive with or below popular brands of Canadian cheeses?
4.	From which countries do we import cheese?
5.	To which countries do we export milk powder?
6.	Are there any agreements which tie cheese import quotas to the import or export of other farm products?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. Cheese of all types have been on the import control list of the Export and Import Permits Act for the past five years. During this period, import permits were freely issued for all cheese imported for direct consumption except cheddar and colby. On June 6, 1975, a global import quota for all types of cheese was established. The quota amounts to 50 million pounds for 1975 and represents an increase of 2 million pounds over 1974 imports. The size of the quota was determined by taking into account the requirements of the Canadian market, recent performance of imports and the relationship of imports to the domestic dairy situation.
2.	Canadian cheeses supply 84 per cent of the domestic market. Cheese imports provide a wider selection of cheese to consumers as many of the cheeses imported are not manufactured in Canada. It is recognized by the cheese industry that the wide variety of imported cheese has stimulated consumer interest in cheese. This has been a major factor for increasing the consumption of all types of cheese.
3.	The retail prices of imported and domestic cheese are not monitored and statistics on comparative prices are not available. However, it is estimated that 50 per cent of imported cheeses retail at prices above domestic cheese and 50 per cent of cheese imports retail at prices competitive with Canadian cheeses.
4.	See below for a list of countries from which we import cheese.
5.	See below for a list of countries to which we export mills powder.
6.	Canada does not have any agreements which tie cheese import quotas to the import or export of other farm products. Countries from which Canada imports cheese: United Kingdom, Ireland, Austria, Belgium-Luxembourg, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany West, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland,
Order Paper Questions
Poland, Romania, Philippines, Australia, Argentina, Jamaica, United States. Countries to which Canada exports milk powder: United Kingdom, Belgium-Luxembourg, France, Sudan, Uar, Malawi, Mauritius Dep., South Africa, Zambia, Bangladesh, Hong Kong, India, Pakistan, Singapore, Afghanistan, Japan, Viet-Nam, Guyana, Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, Bahamas, Bermuda, British Honduras; Barbados, Jamaica, Leew-Wind Island, Trinidad-Tobago, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Netherlands Antilles, Nicaragua, U.S. Virgin Island, St. Pierre-Miquelon, United States.


Mr. Allard: 1.	Since inception of the New Horizons Programme, has money been allocated to the Constituency of Rimouski and, if so, in what amount?
2.	For each project in the Constituency, what (a) is the title (b) is the amount allocated (c) is the year of acceptance (d) is the name of the municipality concerned (e) are the number of jobs which have been created?


Marc Lalonde: 1.	$76,028.00
2.
(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)Nil Les Retraites a l'action	$15,317.00	1972-	73 1973-	74	RimouskiLe groupe des Aines de	St-Anaclet	1,226.00	1973-74	St-AnacletConfort et detente a	l'Age d'Or	3,873.00	1973-74	SayabecClub d'Age d'Or	1,075.00	1973-74	Ste-Angele de MericiClub de l'Age d'Or du Bic	5,200.00	1974-75	Bic"Les loisirs, les bons amis"	1,856.00	1974-75	St-Frangois-Xavier- les-HauteursClub de l'Age d'Or	St-Yves	4,400.00	1974-75	Rimouski EstLes BleS d'Or de la Metis	2,858.00	1974-75	St-Octave-de-MetisLes Dynamiques du	Foyer de Rimouski	3,118.00	1974-75	RimouskiClub de l'Age d'Or "La	Belle Equipe"	3,594.00	1974-75	St-DonatConseil Regional de l'Age	d'Or (Est du Quebec)	3,044.00	1974-75	RimouskiClub "Age d'Or" St-Cleo-	phas	2,175.00	1974-75	St-CleophasLes Aines de Ste-Odile	8,475.00	1975-76	RimouskiClub de l'Age d'Or "du	Bonheur"	3,040.00	1975-76	St-NoelL'Age d'Or de Luceville	4,615.00	1975-76	LucevilleClub de l'Age d'Or	4,785.00	1975-76	St-ValerienClub d'Age d'Or St-	Gabriel	5,175.00	1975-76	St-GabrielLes Personnes du	Troisieme Age	2,202.00	1975-76	Mont-Joli
2. (e) None. New Horizons is an activity-oriented program, not a job-creating one. It was establisshed to enable retired Canadians to participate in activities beneficial to themselves and to the community, and all participants are volunteers.

November 28, 1975
Order Paper Questions


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 3,477 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Allard: 1.	Since the inception of the Local Initiatives Programme, has money been allocated to the Constituency of Rimouski and, if so, in what amount?
2.	For each approved project in the Constituency, what (a) is the title (b) is the allocated sum (c) is the year of acceptance (d) is the name of the municipality concerned (e) are the number of jobs which have been created?
Return tabled.

[EnglishJ


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred questions Nos. 3,136 and 3,513?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	Have any countries during the years 1973, 1974 or 1975 expressed an interest in concluding a reciprocal agreement with Canada in respect of social security and, if so, which countries and, in each case, with respect to what branches of social security?
2.	Are negotiations in progress with any of such countries looking toward a social security reciprocal agreement and, if so, which ones?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows. 1. During the years 1973, 1974 or 1975, Belgium, Bermuda, Guyana, Italy, Jamaica, Malta, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States of America respectively have expressed an interest in concluding a reciprocal agreement with Canada with respect to one or more of the following branches of social security: Old Age, Invalidity, Survivors and Death; Sickness and Maternity; Work Injury; Unemployment; and Family Allowances.
2. Although technical discussions have been held with the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Italy, no formal negotiations have taken place with any of the countries interested in concluding such an agreement. Informal contacts, however, have been maintained. For

example, this subject was discussed in general terms in a most cordial and welcome visit this morning among the minister, myself and the new Italian ambassador, His Excellency, Giorgio Smoquina.


Mr. Lachance: Is it normal that a postal parcel without any market value, sent by air cargo from New York to Montreal, be subject, in addition to transportation fees, to custom clearance fees when it is taken in charge by the addressee and, if so (a) for what reason (b) does the government intend to apply the same rule with respect to travellers entering Canada and taking possession of their luggage at Canadian customs?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows; (a) Canada Customs does not levy a fee for clearance of postal parcels into Canada during authorized hours of customs business, other than duties and taxes. In instances where a written entry is required by customs, the importer is responsible for its preparation. However, he may have these formalities carried out on his behalf by a customs broker who will charge a fee for that service, (b) The entry of traveller's baggage is not normally documented at Customs and there is no clearance fee levied by Customs.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, November 27, consideration of 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, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture; and motion No. 5 (Mr. Benjamin).
Mr. Speaker:: Before resuming debate on motion No. 5, it appears that as a result of yesterday's discussion, in addition to motion No. 5, motions Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 remain to be discussed. We will now continue the discussion on motion No. 5. Motion No. 6 will have to be discussed and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 7 and 8 will be discussed and voted on together. Motions Nos. 9, 11 and 12 will be discussed and voted on separately. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on motion No. 5 to Bill C-41 respecting the stabilization of western grains. I am going to support this motion, which adds the following provisions to the bill.
(i)	depreciation on farm machinery and equipment used for grain
November 28, 1975

production or used in the farm business in respect of grain production and transportation;
(j)	interest charges incurred in respect of the production or sale of grain; and
(k)	producer levies in respect of this act.
These are to be added to the cost of production for the purpose of the Western Grain Stabilization Act. I am sure almost every member of this House will agree that interest and depreciation can be one of the larger costs of production. If we were going through this type of exercise of stabilization in business and in industry they would be very much in favour of including interest charges and depreciation in their costs. Interest is, of course, a real cost. In my opinion it must be included in any cost of production, whether it be farm, business or industry.
I want to speak about interest for a short while, and farm loans, especially those made to young farmers. The government has taken a good step forward in increasing the amount of these loans so that young farmers can more easily get into the business of farming. This is what we need in Canada-more young farmers. It has been shown that the average age of farmers is high. Therefore, as I say, more young farmers are needed. When a farmer goes to the farm loan people to get a loan, I am sure one of the main things they look at is the interest cost; how much interest he is paying on the farm machinery which he needs to operate his business properly.
When we look at stabilization bills we find the government does not believe interest rates should be counted as part of the costs of production. We went through all this in connection whith the stabilization bill which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) presented to us. Hon. members may recall that the Federation of Agriculture along with other farm organizations, made strong representations to the minister pointing out that interest charges represented a real cost and one which should be taken into consideration.
Consider what is happening to farming in Canada. Farming has become highly mechanized. The Minister of Agriculture himself pointed but that as a result of mechanization, farmers produce more than any other workers in Canada. This was made possible because of moving from a highly labour-intensive industry to a highly mechanized industry. In order to do this, of course, farmers had to borrow money, thus incurring interest charges which have been running at increasingly high rates. It is true that machines are labour-saving, but they represent a serious investment for the farmer concerned, and if we turn our backs on costs of this type when we consider any kind of stabilization bill, we are acting incorrectly.
If we follow this argument through, we find that depreciation becomes a more important factor than ever because of the high initial cost of farm machinery. Possession of one machine creates the need for another to complement the one you already have; the farmer immediately finds himself dependent on a series of costly machines and his concern about their depreciation is increased accordingly. While we are on the subject of depreciation, allow me to quote what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Goodale) said yesterday in
Grain Stabilization
response to the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin). Speaking on motion No. 5, he said:
There can be no doubt that if you were to ask a producer a very blunt and straightforward question about what he views as being one of his most important cost items he would probably reply that it was depreciation. It was not very long ago that western grain producers were literally living off their depreciation. It is an item which is first and foremost on their minds. When one looks at the particular provision in the context of the grains stabilization bill, one can see that the inclusion of depreciation is not one that will enhance the protection this bill offers western grain producers.
That is quite a statement. Ask any farmer whether he agrees with it. The only part I agree with is that farmers have sometimes had to live off the depreciation on their machinery. They did not want to do so because it is not a good position to be in. However, farmers in Canada were sometimes obliged to do it because they were not getting their cost of production, or enough money to live on, out of the market. It did not enhance their operation, because what they were doing was taking out the money they should have been using to replace their machinery.
What happens when farmers do not have the money to buy new machinery? They borrow more money for that purpose, thus increasing their debt and incurring further interest costs, which in turn means a higher cost of production. They are not using their depreciation allowance in the manner in which it is supposed to be used. The statement the parliamentary secretary made shows he knows very little, or nothing, about farming or about what farmers have to go through. The depreciation provisions are there to enable a farmer to replace his machines. They are a legitimate cost for which provision is made by the Department of National Revenue. This applies to farmers, to businessmen and to everyone else. The commercial world could not operate properly without it.
It would, of course, be very nice to be able to buy a machine and to write off its cost in the first year. But that is not the way in which the system is set up. As it is, the purchase becomes a legitimate cost of production in the total operation of the farm. Today, as I have explained, it is even more important than it was in the past. The parliamentary secretary was saying, in effect, the farmers are buying machinery so they can live off the depreciation, or else that farmers are overmechanized. Let me tell him that no farmer who buys more machinery than he needs, just to live off the depreciation will last very long. He should be using his depreciation allowance correctly so that he can replace his machinery as it wears out.
There is also the argument that farm machinery is in the nature of a long-term investment. A farmer uses his machines as long as he can; he does not dispose of them until they are worn out or have been superseded by other types which are much more efficient and cut down his costs of production. Anyone experienced in farming knows that many of the machines farmers buy do not last very long; they do not have a long life. Every hon. member knows about the life of a car and how long it can be kept before being traded in. Farm machinery suffers more abuse than cars, and as a result its life is short.
The minister used some examples showing western farmers what the stabilization act did between 1954 and

November 28, 1975
Grain Stabilization
1974, a period of 20 years. Not too many machines last for 20 years. They are more likely to wear out or have to be replaced within five years. It is not very often that you can fully depreciate a machine under the Income Tax Act before it is worn out.
I very much support the amendment which seeks to include depreciation in the cost of production. In addition, the amendment seeks to have producer levies included in the act. Once again, this is a very real cost of production for farmers. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport in his speech yesterday said they were going to be included, but if I heard correctly in committee I got an entirely different interpretation; I understood they were not going to be included in the cost of production. Even though it has been said that producer levies are to be included, this has yet to be determined. Certainly it is something that should be included in the motion.
When the agriculture committee toured the three prairie provinces to hear briefs on the stabilization bill and to talk to farmers, I did not talk to one farmer who told me that depreciation, interest and levies should not be included in the cost of production. Quite frankly, we did not find too many farmers hotly in favour of the stabilization bill, but nevertheless they said that if parliament imposed it upon them, they wanted everything included that it was proper to include. This is the reason I have taken a few minutes of the time of the House to speak to this motion.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Madam Speaker, I have very few comments to summarize the arguments on the government side of the House against motion No. 5 which has been debated rather extensively. As well, perhaps, I make the request for understanding on the part of the non-agricultural members of the House. This is a comprehensive bill which is of great import to western Canada. The measure has taken a good deal of time.
I should like to correct a misunderstanding that has been left-I say a misunderstanding rather than a misstatement-by my colleague, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale), who discussed this amendment in the House last night. Hon. members will find his speech reported at page 9527 of Hansard. Essentially, the remarks of my colleague from Assiniboia were correct with respect to paragraph (c)(i) of the motion we are debating, namely, whether or not to include depreciation. The hon. member for Assiniboia was also correct so far as paragraph (c) (j) was concerned respecting interest charges. Where the misunderstanding came about was in the hon. member's remarks that dealt with the inclusion of producer levies in this legislation.
I suppose that clause 8(3)(f), insurance premiums, at page 11 of the bill could be interpreted to include producer levies, and that was the understanding of the hon. member for Assiniboia. However, both he and I checked with the minister and his departmental officials, and that is not the interpretation to be made of that provision. In other words, producer levies are not now included within the term "insurance premiums". Part of the logic here makes sense, in that if producer levies were added as part of the cost, you would then have to consider any pay-outs that may be triggered by the bill as income, on the other side of the coin. While producer levies are not included as an expense
|Mr. Whittaker.]
under this provision in the act so far as area gross expenses are concerned, it is a deductible expense for income tax purposes for any individual farmer making payment.
I could spend some time responding to the remarks of the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) about depreciation. Certainly he does not have to convince any member on this side that it is indeed a very real cost. The idea of including depreciation in some way in the bill has been explored and examined pretty thoroughly. To come back to the point made by my hon. friends opposite, at the moment this bill is fairly complicated and it was felt that it would be complicated further by including depreciation, without bringing about the desired kind of action or response in terms of the plan itself. I can only inform hon. members that the officials were able to convince me that it was wise to leave it out. We are not saying that it is not an expense, but from the point of view of the bill it was felt it was better to leave it out. With these few words, I hope I have been able to clarify one misunderstanding that was left in the debate last night regarding producer levies being included as an expense.


Mr. Benjamin:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, before the parliamentary secretary resumes his seat I wonder whether he would permit me a question or two.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Yes, Madam Speaker.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In light of the parliamentary secretary's remarks, may I ask him whether the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) was correct, as he just now confirmed, on the question of interest charges incurred in respect of the production and sale of grain being eligible as an expense in computing costs of production under the bill? Could he tell me in which paragraph this is covered under clause 8(3) of the bill? Which of those paragraphs would allow interest charges to be calculated as an expense in arriving at the cost of production in respect of this bill?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: I understand it is included by implication, but I would rather not go too much further. Perhaps I could discuss this further with my hon. friend.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Madam Speaker, since you allowed a question by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), I wonder whether I might ask a question. When I heard the parliamentary secretary's statement about depreciation, I gathered he approved of the idea that depreciation is a legitimate farm expense but that the civil servants persuaded him it was better to leave it out of the bill. I should like further explanation on that matter.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: I am sorry if the hon. member misunderstood what I said. I said I recognized that depreciation is very important as a farm expense, but that for the purpose of the calculation in this particular legislation, and the manner in which it could affect the plan by triggering payments when payments were needed, it was just as well to leave it out of this bill.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, when the parliamentary secretary says that by implication interest charges are there, I presume he means that by implication the interest
November 28, 1975

on farm machinery, machinery parts, and equipment would be part of the cost of operation. I am not a lawyer. I know the parliamentary secretary is and that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) tries to be. As I understand it, the courts and those who administer the law do not accept-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member has already spoken on this motion. If he has a question to ask, perhaps he would put it now.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, Madam Speaker. Since the courts and those who administer the law do not accept what has been given as an understanding, I ask the parliamentary secretary whether he and the hon. member for Assiniboia would give the nod to the government House leader to accept that portion of my motion, namely, paragraph (j). While I do not like it, I would accept the elimination of the matter of depreciation, but I would ask that they at least accept paragraph (j) which relates specifically to interest charges.
I agree that interest charges would exclude any interest paid on land and would apply only to machinery, equipment and buildings. If the parliamentary secretary would give the nod to the government House leader, it would only take a moment to amend my motion to delete the first and third paragraphs if the government would accept paragraph (j) in respect of interest charges and make it specific in the bill. In that way there would be no doubt as to whether interest charges could be included.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Madam Speaker, I would like to accept the suggestion of my hon. friend, but I am afraid at the moment I cannot do so without further consideration.


William Gordon Ritchie: Madam Speaker, I should like to add some words in general agreement of the suggestion that some parts of this amendment are worthy of acceptance, particularly as it concerns depreciation of farm machinery. In the case of any farmer in western Canada, particularly a new producer or one who intends to farm for a number of years, most of his expenses are in farm machinery. I think it is significant that the value of his land is quite a bit less than the value of his farm machinery, compared to the situation 25 years ago. This means that the cost of farming has increased rapidly because of rapid increases in the price of farm machinery.
I think it should be realized that the market for farm machinery is continent-wide in North America and that the guidelines in respect of control may well have an effect, but the price of farm machinery will continue to rise. We have seen rapid increases in the price of farm machinery. We have seen the price of a tractor increase from $10,000 to $20,000 in a period of two or three years. If we take any fairly recent farm operation, say in the last five or six years, we may find that the cost of the land is less than the cost of the machinery.
In this bill, apparently, repairs will be counted as an expense but depreciation will not be so counted. It is said this is because it would be difficult to administer. However, income tax returns could be used in a general way. Statistics regarding the sale of new farm machinery are compiled by Statistics Canada. With regard to practically every aspect of farm input there is general knowledge
Grain Stabilization
through the reporting by firms, and so on. If fertilizer and oil, for instance, may be computed in the cost of producing grain, surely depreciation on farm machinery on a global basis would be easy to arrive at. Therefore, in respect of depreciation I do not think there should be any greater error in a global assessment of the total cost of machinery than there would be in a global assessment of the total cost of fertilizer, oil, gas, repairs to buildings and repairs to machines.
I might add that interest charges certainly represent a very great cost of doing business. This is recognized by the income tax department. When one receives a loan from a bank the banker, in looking at the viability of the farm operation or any other operation, recognizes the cost of interest as a cost of doing business.
This act is something of an experiment. It is an attempt to change the various programs that have grown up over the years in order to stabilize the western grain industry. If this legislation is to be meaningful in the future and of any value in the establishment of guidelines, it will have to be changed. About 10 per cent or 20 per cent of the farmers already established will avail themselves of this legislation. If we leave out depreciation on farm machinery, we will be leaving out perhaps 25 per cent of the total cost of a farming operation in any one year. If we include the interest, we are probably looking at another 10 per cent or 15 per cent.
In fact, without the inclusion of these items the plan will be grossly deficient in respect of assessing the actual cost of growing grain, particularly for the individual farmer. In the future, obviously, if this is to come directly to the individual farmer the cost of depreciation and interest will be very important matters to him.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those in favour of the motion 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:


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. It being after one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1.15 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the consideration of motion No. 6 appearing on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Regina Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) as follows:
Motion No. 6.
That Bill C-41, an act respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain and to amend certain statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in clause 10 by striking out lines 1 to 29 at page 15.
[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).]


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, we are putting forward this motion on the ground that payments from the fund ought not to be reduced after three successive years in which net income from grain was so bad that pay-outs were required. Obviously, that is not the time to reduce the amount of the pay-outs from 100 per cent to 90 per cent, because participants in the plan will be in pretty bad financial shape. There might be some logic in reducing payments when times are good.
The purpose of our amendment is to keep the level of support always at 100 per cent. It would strike out the provision which would reduce the level of payment to 90 per cent over the last five-year average when the fund has been in a deficit position for three years. This would serve to enhance the stabilization effect of the plan. I thought the government wished to do everything they could to ensure the very purpose of the legislation, namely, the stabilization of net grain income. Our amendment would have that effect. We believe payments should not be reduced when they are most needed. That is surely not the time to start picking on people who have already been kicked in the face by declining world markets, transportation problems or poor world prices. It is not the time to be reducing the stabilization effect of the program. Surely the pay-outs should be left at 100 per cent.
No doubt you could get into a situation where the fund would be in a deficit position, or have a slightly larger deficit than would be the case after three successive years of pay-outs, but there will be the good years so far as loans to the fund are concerned, and there will be a recovery in future years as a result of contributions by producers and government. We do not think it is fitting, fair or proper to start reducing the stabilizing effects of the plan after three successive bad years; we would like to see 100 per cent pay-outs.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: I should like to make a few comments in connection with the motion moved by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin). We have examined it in detail, as well as the clause in the bill. What concerns the members of our party is this: we feel the bill should be as actuarially sound as possible. I can see the reason for inclusion in the bill of a clause that reduces the pay-out to farmers when the amount of interest owing exceeds one-third of the aggregate of the annual levies. If we examine the statistics given to us in committee by representatives of the government, we note that for the period 1954 to 1974 this clause would take effect in 13 years. It is also interesting to note that in that 20-year period, for seven of the years there was additional money required to be put into the fund by the government, which led to interest of some $210 million, being charged to the fund, all of which had to be repaid by the producers.
I do not think it is fair to the producer to burden him with high interest costs. It is not fair to the taxpayers of Canada to be called upon to lend this money to the fund. I think it proves the fallacy of the actual program, which is supposed to be an over-all program. The plan is triggered when the net income over a five-year period is less than the amount of income in the year. This is the reason we proposed in the committee hearings an individual program that would provide for the producer to pay into an
November 28, 1975

individual fund $2 for every $1 put in by the government. This type of individual program would never require any loan by the federal government and would mean that the producer would never have to pay interest. He would have complete control of the plan and be able to adjust his income annually. If he did not need the money, he would not withdraw it; if he did need the money, he could. Ultimately, he could use it as a form of retirement pension if he chose, in the years that he was farming, not to draw from the plan.
These are the basic reasons we are opposing the amendment of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre. While we do not like this bill, we would like to see it kept as good a bill as possible and as actuarially sound as possible. To adopt the motion before the House at the present time would create problems which would deplete the plan and cause the individual producer to be faced with high interest charges, particularly if the historic figures between the years 1954 and 1974 were used.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a few words to this particular amendment. I completely concur with the comments made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) about the actuarial soundness of the plan. There are two provisions in the bill to ensure that the legislation is always kept reasonable and logical from that point of view.
The particular section of the bill to which this amendment pertains is one that affects the size of the potential payment out of the plan. The other provision in the bill to safeguard the soundness of the legislation is the one that is dealt with in motion No. 9 standing in the name of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin). I think the comments of the hon. member for Moose Jaw relate very much to that motion as well; it is very much on the same theme. I thank him for making the points he did; I think they were completely sound and reasonable. It is important that the legislation be kept as actuarially sound as possible. The provisions written into the bill in the first place are designed to do this. Unfortunately, the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre would tend to take away from that and make the plan less sound.
I might point out in passing that if my reading of the past 20 years' experience is accurate-I think the hon. member for Moose Jaw referred to this indirectly-if the plan had been in place for the past 20 years, although we would have gone through some bad years and some bad times which would have necessitated adjustment of the levy rates, I do not think we would ever have got to the point where there was an actual reduction in the payments. There may have been one year, but no more than one. I think this demonstrates the reasonableness of this kind of provision. To delete or negate it, as the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre has moved, would make the plan somewhat artificial and tend, in a distorting sort of way, to insulate the plan, indeed to insulate the prairies region from real and practical factors in the world of grain production that simply cannot be ignored. With those few remarks, I thank the hon. member for Moose Jaw for his comments and urge the House to defeat this amendment.
Grain Stabilization
Before I sit down, may I refer briefly to the comments made this morning by my hon. friend and colleague from Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac) having to do with the matter we were discussing yesterday, producer levies, and whether or not they could be classified as insurance premiums within the wording of the legislation. I thank the hon. member for clarifying that matter on my behalf. I should also like to apologize to hon. members if I in any way misled them in the comments I made in the House yesterday evening. If there was a misinterpretation on my part, it was certainly unintentional.
May I also, at this time, thank the hon. member for Moose Jaw and the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre for drawing this item to my attention and for accepting so graciously the explanation given earlier today.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of motion No. 6 will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 6 (Mr. Benjamin) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members are aware that I have put the motion. I waited a due time. If members, on reflection, wish me to call the vote again, I hope they will stand and make a formal request, otherwise I have declared the motion lost on division.
I wish to bring to the attention of hon. members that Mr. Speaker suggested this morning that motion No. 8 be grouped with motion No. 7. I now call motion No. 7 and motion No. 8.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (for the Minister of Transport) moved:: Motion No. 7.
That Bill C-41, an act respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain and to amend certain statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in clause 11 by
(a)	striking out line 41 at page 15 and substituting the following
therefor:
"all participants for those three years; and";
(b)	striking out lines 1 to 4 at page 16 and substituting the following
therefor:
"(b) in respect of each participant, multiply the aggregrate amount that"; and
(c)	striking out lines 9 to 43 at page 16 and substituting the following
therefor:

November 28, 1975
Grain Stabilization
"this subsection.".
Standing Order 75(6)
Recommendation
His Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons that Bill C-41, An Act respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain and to amend certain statutes in consequence thereof, now before the House, be amended
(a)	by striking out line 41 on page 15 and substituting the following: "all participants for those three years; and";
(b)	by striking out lines 1 to 4 on page 16 and substituting the following:
"(b) in respect of each participant, multiply the aggregate amount that"; and
(c)	by striking out lines 9 to 43 on page 16 and substituting the following:
"this subsection.".
Motion No. 8.
That Bill C-41, an act respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain and to amend certain statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in clause 11 by striking out line 10 at page 17 and substituting the following therefor:
"culated pursuant to paragraph (1) (b) in".


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, at this stage, before I speak, does the government representative have any explanation for these two motions?


Ralph Goodale: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Motions Nos. 7 and 8, in the name of the minister, have to do with a clause that was placed in the bill in the first place in response to the recommendations and suggestion of various farm organizations and spokesmen from western Canada. They have to do with a situation where a producer decides to opt out of the stabilization plan in other words, to exercise his option-and then at a later stage changes his mind, as is his right under the legislation, and decides to come back in.
The original draft of the legislation suggested that a producer could simply exercise his option in that way and immediately return to the plan as a full-time participant. Some producer organizations and others said that this was not fair. It was suggested that if a producer decided, in his own good judgment, that he wanted to opt out of the plan and then changed his mind, he should be free to do so but should not be able to re-enter the plan on a full-time basis the same as a farmer who had been in from the beginning and had toughed it out, if you like, through thick and thin, in good years and in bad.
That suggestion seemed to have merit, so we produced a clause which provides that a farmer re-entering the plan comes in, not as a full participant but as a conditional participant, meaning that if there is to be a payment made from the stabilization fund in the first three years after he has changed his mind, he will receive only 90 per cent of the payment which he received in the first three years. When the three years have expired, he will become a full-time participant as if he had been in from the beginning.
The amendments the minister is putting forward do nothing more than simplify the calculation of that 10 per cent value that is to be taken off the potential payment to a [Mr. Sharp.)
producer in that conditional category. The calculation, as hon. members opposite have taken some pains to point out, is rather complicated. The provisions proposed in these amendments make it a very straight-forward and rather direct deduction of 10 per cent, which is much simpler than the original calculation set out in the legislation. The royal recommendation which hon. members see printed with the motion is required because this payment has the potential of increasing the amount of money that would be paid by the treasury.
I suppose it is a matter of mathematics in comparing the calculation as originally proposed with the one we are proposing by way of this amendment to see where the additional dollars might come from; but in simplifying the formula, as we are doing in these two motions, there might be a chance that the payment out to a conditional participant would be slightly higher than under the more complicated formula. That is all these amendments do. They do not affect the actuarial soundness of the plan. The amendments, clearly, are very much in favour of the western grain producer.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) for his explanation. I support the view he has put forward. I think it points out what the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) mentioned earlier today, namely, that by placing this legislation in the area of a pay-out bill, whereby everyone knows what he pays in but does not know what he will receive in the form of a pay-out, we will run into the problems just described by the parliamentary secretary.
If we had a plan whereby each man put in his money and the federal government put its money into an individual plan, there would be no necessity for all these definitions and rules, we would have something much simpler to explairf to the farmers, and it would be easier to get the farmers into the plan. But no matter how hard one works on this type of legislation, it is so complicated that I am certain the selling job required to get the farmers to see the merit of the plan will be difficult.
These two amendments are a little fairer and, I would suggest, will add a burden to the treasury in that it may be paying out more than under the original statute. But in essence these amendments will make it easier to sell farmers the idea that they should get into the plan. We will support the government's amendments because they improve slightly what is very bad legislation.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a little ironic that when dealing with this bill, first of all the minister made some erroneous statements and then the parliamentary secretary made the same type of erroneous statements. Thank goodness we have the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac) who can try to clarify those comments, but if the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley should make an erroneous statement, I wonder who would correct him.
This is a simple bill. I should like to read a portion of the clause so as to put on the record what we are dealing with here. It is very simple and I am sure the House leader will be very happy to agree that it is simple. Clause 12(b) reads as follows:
November 28, 1975

(b)	in respect of each full participant, determine the amount of the stabilization payment that may be paid to him by multiplying the aggregate amount that may be paid as stabilization payments for the stabilization year determined pursuant to section 11, by the ratio determined pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection; and
(c)	in respect of each conditional participant, multiply the aggregate amount of levy paid under this act, prior to and for the stabilization year by the participant since he became a conditional participant, by the lesser of
(i)	the ratio of the aggregate of all amounts determined pursuant to paragraph (b) to be payable to full participants as stabilization payments in the stabilization year to the levy paid by but not refunded to all full participants for the two years immediately preceding the stabilization year and the stabilization year, and
(ii)	the ratio of
It is perfectly straightforward, understandable English. Is it any wonder that we find the minister is misinterpreting the provision, as is his parliamentary secretary? The ironical part of it is that, as a member of the House and formerly a grain producer in western Canada, I am very much aware of the fact that in order to stabilize the grain industry it is not necessary to bring in a complicated formula.
The parliamentary secretary to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Goodale) told us that the operation will only cost $300,000 a year. Why, then, do we have $300,000 in the present supplementary estimates with which we have to deal in the Standing Committee on Agriculture to cover the period from now until March 31? Also, we were told that probably other supplementary estimates would be coming before the committee prior to that time, so why is the whole amount included in the supplementary estimates if it is to apply to the whole period of 12 months? It seems to me that part of these estimates could be included in next year's estimates. I see the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley agrees with me on this, and it makes common sense.
One of our great concerns with this bill is that now another bureaucracy will have to be set up. We all know that the greater the bureaucracy, the more costly the operation for which eventually the taxpayers have to pay, which includes each and every one of us in the House. We are only trying to help the government to cut down their expenditures, but it is very difficult to get through to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) and make him understand it is difficult for the taxpayer to have continually to increase the amount he is paying to the Department of National Revenue.
We have just been through the exercise, in western Canada, known as the PFAA which was primarily set up to achieve the same objectives as those for which the Prairie Grain Stabilization Act was set up. I believe that this whole program could be run from Ottawa. If you want to find exactly what the cost of the operation of any farm in western Canada is, all you have to do is accumulate the total cost to the Department of National Revenue. Certainly, in this age of computers, it should not be difficult to do. Then average out the cost and, using figures from Statistics Canada on whatever increase there may be in production, you will arrive at a figure which will give you the cost factor acceptable to the producer and which will be of benefit to the government.
Grain Stabilization
It seems to me that this is a simple method of finding out the cost. If we cut down the cost, we will increase the return to the producer. I feel that there has been an oversight on the part of the minister and of his supporting staff in that they did not bring out a simple formula whereby the producers would know what they will receive in certain years when their income is lower.
The parliamentary secretary mentioned that those who opt out of the program and later come back in will be penalized. This is why we have the amendments that are before us at present. I agree that certain penalties should be established for opting out and then coming back in, as the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) suggested, but if the program is acceptable and benefits the producers, they will want to stay in it.
The value of this program is being questioned by western producers. Many of them feel they can take it or leave it; they couldn't care less. When you talk to people out there, you find they are not very interested in the program, primarily because they do not think it will be of much value to them. One of the great shortcomings of the program is that it brings no return to the individual who, after making premium payments for several years, decides to leave farming. That is one of the reasons older farmers do not wish to participate in the program. They cannot afford to take a chance on not getting any return on the premiums they have paid. Why should they pay into a program for three, four or five years, then leave farming and have no return whatsoever? There are other people who do not want to take a chance on participating in the program because they fear because they will not get any return on the money they pay in.
This is not an acceptable program, and what I regret is that it will probably take the place of what could be an acceptable program some time in the future. It is always very difficult to change these schemes once they are put in place. After a producer pays into a program for five, six or even ten years, if a new one is brought in surely he should not lose the money he paid under the first program. Farmers should not be penalized because new programs are introduced. Once a producer participates in a program, it becomes very difficult to bring in another sound, acceptable one. Provision must be made in any new program which will make it acceptable to the producers.
That is why I believe the minister and his parliamentary secretary have short-changed the western prairie grain producers in this bill, although they had a golden opportunity - probably there will never be a similar opportunity for years-to bring in an acceptable program which would be of benefit to producers, one that they would want. As I said earlier, if you speak to the producers you will find that many of them couldn't care less. What can we in the opposition do? We have to support this bill because there is no better program to support at this time. Surely somewhere down the road we will have the opportunity of establishing a program for the grain producers which will be of benefit to them and, ultimately, to Canadian taxpayers.

November 28, 1975
Grain Stabilization


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) and pleased that he took the time to read one of the sections of the bill to put on the public record its complicated nature. It is all very well to have statute books, but not too many people, except lawyers, read the statutes. When something like this is recorded in Hansard, however, it gets very wide public coverage.
On two or three occasions I have asked friends of mine in the legal profession to look over certain sections of the bill and, like me, they found many of them almost incomprehensible. Our committee travelled for one week last summer in western Canada. We went to the three prairie provinces, to the major cities, accepted briefs and heard presentations by various farm organizations, such as the wheat pools and the Palliser group and others. Almost every organization that presented a brief spoke of the complexity of the legislation. It had been placed in their hands a considerable time before, and I understand that a briefing team from the Department of Agriculture travelled to western Canada to meet with executives of the farm organizations. Those executives told us that despite the briefing they still thought the bill was so difficult and complex that they were not able to cummunicate with their grass roots people in order to get an expression of opinion from them.
I think it is important that producers in Canadian Wheat Board regions understand what the legislation is about. If they do not understand it, they are certainly not going to participate.
It is important that the government put out a brochure on this bill, explaining it in layman's terms so that farmers will know what their contributions will be as well as the government's contributions, and they will know the penalties if they decide to opt out of the program and then opt into it. If that is not done, I am afraid a great many producers in western Canada will not participate in the plan, and unless the majority participate it will not work. Despite what I have just said, I am afraid that even with explanations the producers of western Canada will not accept the plan as satisfactory.
I mentioned earlier today, and I want to repeat it, that we on this side believe in a program of individual participation. We submitted a fairly comprehensive paper to the committee setting out in detail what our program was. The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board did not see fit to accept our proposals. He said that perhaps some time in the future such an individual plan could be worked out, but in the meantime he was going to proceed with the complicated piece of legislation that we have before us. We suggested that perhaps the legislation could be delayed and, after further consultation with representatives of the producers in western Canada, a satisfactory plan could be worked out. He did not see fit to do that; consequently, we are faced with this legislation which will shortly become law.
As far as the amendment is concerned, it is to a very complicated clause and I accept the explanation of the hon. member for Assiniboia as to its intent. I shall leave it at that.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 7 and the decision on that motion will, at the same time, dispose of motion No. 8, as suggested by Mr. Speaker this morning. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 7 (Mr. Lang) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: At the same time, motion No. 8 is adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 8 (Mr. Lang) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will now proceed to the discussion of motions Nos. 9, 11 and 12, but the vote will be taken separately, I gather from the remarks of Mr. Speaker this morning, unless the House has any disagreement? Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I want to indicate clearly that there will be a separate vote on each of these three motions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I understood that Mr. Speaker provided for those three motions to be dealt with separately both as to discussion and as to vote.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I believe I misunderstood. We will proceed with one motion at a time and will now take motion No. 9.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 9.
That Bill C-41, an act respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain and to amend certain statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in clause 16 by
(a)	striking out line 31 at page 20 and substituting the following
therefor: "16. The";
(b)	striking out lines 36 to 40 at page 20 and lines 1 to 51 at page 21
and lines 1 to 18 at page 22.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment and another one we submitted were an effort to reverse some of the backward provisions of the legislation. The legislation rewards fortune and penalizes misfortune. Those who have the highest income in the year of the pay-out get the highest pay-out; those with the lowest income in the year of the pay-out get the lowest pay-out. That has to be a backward principle.
Similarly, years of a deficit positions for the fund will obviously be years when grain producers are in the worst possible circumstances, or there would not be pay-outs to
November 28, 1975

cause deficits in the fund. Obviously, they are not in a financial position then to be assessed extra charges for expenses or anything else. What the government proposes to do in years of financial difficulty when the grain and income stabilization fund is in deficit is to increase the levy. That is the worst possible time for them to be paying out more money, so the purpose of the amendment is to make the levy a constant 2 per cent.
Variability based on the fund's surplus or deficit position could have a destabilizing effect contrary to the intention and purpose of the legislation, which is to stabilize. To reduce the levy when the fund is in surplus means the grain producers are in good financial shape, but that is when they can afford to pay a higher levy. When the fund is in deficit and farmers cannot afford the extra cost, the government proposes to raise the levy. Really, that is when farmers cannot afford to pay extra money for anything. That is when farmers will be in the worst position. This proposal is therefore backward.
Would it not be more logical to increase the levy when the fund is in surplus, thereby making the surplus even larger, so that when farmers draw on the fund in adverse years it will not go into deficit? Farmers, I am sure, would be willing to pay higher levies in good years and build up big reserves which will earn interest and further swell the fund, so that in bad years payments out can be made from the fund without incurring any deficit. The farmers could draw on the reserves which had increased in good years and to which both the producer and the government has contributed. You should not call on the producer to pay more into the fund at the worst possible time, when the fund is in deficit. If a fellow has been kicked in the face, why add to his troubles?
Why can we not turn this proposal around? Let the government accept half a dozen amendments which would make certain that a good principle is not applied backwards; I will put it that way. I would much rather the bill provided for levies to be higher in good years so that surpluses could be increased. It is time we built up our reserves so that when the fund is drawn on in bad years it will not be necessary to increase levies.
If I cannot persuade my colleagues on all sides to support my suggestion, I hope at least they will agree to allow the 2 per cent levy to remain constant. Two per cent should be the constant rate, at least until we have had several years' experience with the collection of levies and the government's contributions. After we gain experience with the workings of the fund and know whether the level of contributions is sufficient or insufficient, it will be possible for the government to come before the House and say, "We must make the following changes, based on experience." The present proposal calls on producers to make larger contributions to the fund when they can least afford to do so. I hope this motion commends itself to colleagues on all sides. I hope the minister likes what I propose and accepts the amendment, as that will save time, to the great relief of the government House leader.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I have examined the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin). He said, I think, that
Grain Stabilization
his amendment would not turn around the provisions of the clause being discussed, although that is what he would like to do. Perhaps if he had introduced an amendment of that kind, my party could have taken a hard look at it and considered supporting it.
Basically, the clause as it now reads provides for a levy of 2 per cent on grain sales up to $25,000 under normal circumstances. The balance of the clause, which the hon. member proposes to amend with a deletion, would reduce the levy from 2 per cent to 1.5 per cent in any year when the interest to the credit of the producer exceeds one-third of that annual levy. Later there is provision for reducing the levy to 1 per cent. The final portion of the clause would increase the levy to 2.5 per cent in years when the interest charged to the fund by the government for moneys lent to the plan exceeds one-third of the annual levy. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre proposes to fix the rate at 2 per cent, without variation. He suggests this will not create hardship for producers, as in years when the crop is good they should pay a higher levy, and in years when the crop is bad, a lower levy.
Possibly his suggestion has merit. On the other hand, he proposes a reduction of one-half of 1 per cent which, in concrete terms, involves at most the sum of $125 in a year in which the producer sells $25,000 worth of grain. In these circumstances, I feel members of my party cannot support this motion. I hope the government will take a hard look at the bill in the immediate future. Let it glean from the various representatives of the farm organizations who may appear before the Standing Committee on Agriculture their ideas on how the program is working. After it has gained one or two years' experience of the program, let it tell parliamentarians what amendments it thinks ought to be made to the act, in order to make it more equitable for producers.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the misgivings of many grain producers at the government bringing in a bill of this kind when grain sales are at an all-time high at all-time high prices. There is no guarantee that these sales will continue. The reason is drought in many other parts of the world which has created a shortage of grain supplies and driven up the price of grain.
It seems ironic that the very minister bringing in this bill wants to keep his fingers in the pockets of grain producers and acquire some of the dollars coming their way. He is doing exactly that under this bill. For that reason, we cannot support the amendment moved by our friend from Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) even though he is a good fellow. I cannct agree with his philosophy, that the government, or an agency of the government, knows a better way to spend money than the producers. He was putting forward one of the fundamental principles which divide political parties. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre is advocating a socialist policy. That is fine and dandy. But we on my side, who believe in the free enterprise system, do not want to take the cream off the top and thereby destroy the initiative of producers, to the detriment of the economy, the agricultural industry and the whole of Canada.

November 28, 1975
Grain Stabilization
I do not believe that it is in our best interest to tell the prairie grain producers that any agency of government, or any government bureaucrat, is in a better position to spend the money. Actually this program put forward by the government would have been more acceptable had it been brought in at a time when grain was not selling at an all-time high.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, this amendment put forward by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) bears very heavily on some of the evidence we received from the farmers when we met with them over the week of meetings held in the west by the standing committee.
As I read the farm evidence and heard the farmers speak, they were putting forward a philosophy that when things were going well for the farmers they wanted to put more into the fund, and when things were going badly for them, they hoped they could put less into the fund. This is what I think the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre is trying to put forward. However, in amending the government's legislation the best he could come up with was a 2 per cent constant levy.
In support of what the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) said earlier, I suggest very strongly that if the government had the wits that it should have had when it saw what the farmers were saying, it should have changed this variable levy from the way it has it, and reversed it.
At the present time under the government legislation, whenever the fund is doing well-in plain language there is a lot of money in the fund-and collecting too much interest from the government, it reduces the levy. Whenever the fund is doing poorly and there is not enough money to meet the interest requirement that the federal government loans to it, it raises the levy.
What the government has done in this legislation is the exact opposite of what the farmer wants. The farmer would not mind paying more money into the fund when he has the money, in the hope that he would not have to pay as much in when he does not have it. This is the philosophy of the motion of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre that we support. However, the way it comes out in his amendment, he wants a fixed levy year in and year out. This makes the proposal of the hon. member for Moose Jaw very practical and acceptable. He is proposing that as soon as possible after you put this bill in you see if you can work out a proposal to make it a variable levy, and reverse it to the variable type of levy you now have.
I agree that that approach is better than what the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre is proposing. However, I come back to the basic criticism that this proposal made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw, which is acceptable to the farmers much more than what the government is proposing and what the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre is proposing, will only work if it is an individual plan. An individual farmer then knows that if he puts more money in, he individually, some time in the future, will get more money than he needs. This buttresses the feeling of the Progressive Conservative party on this legislation. If this legislation is going to work and do any good, it must
|Mr. Towers.]
eventually be wiped off the books and replaced by the type of stabilization income legislation which is based on the individual farmer.
I would like to emphasize this to the government members even though we cannot do too much about it at this particular stage of the bill's procedure through the House. In this debate they have heard it clearly debated by the hon. member for Moose Jaw and the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre. On the basis of philosophy the government's position is the worst position of all.
We are supporting the government position because at least in the mathematics of the scheme it is closer to what we want, which is a variable type of levy. However, the variation should be in reverse. It does not do much good to propose this at this stage, but at least any person who reads this debate will know the difference.
In essence, we will support the government position because it is a variable. On the basis of the mentality that they use in the civil service to judge these plans, it is more actuarially sound. However, it does not meet what the farmer wants. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre is trying to get what the farmer wants, but does not know how to do it. We have proposed ways in which it can be done. However, to make it work, I suggest it will have to be made into an individual plan.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments on this. The Conservatives have said that they will support the government. The government position is not to have this on an individual basis. If there is to be an increase in the levy obviously it should be in a good year when the farmer is capable of making the payment, and not the reverse. It is stupid to say that because the farmer is having difficulty we will raise the levy. The members of the Conservative party see some merit in making it equal, so that it will at least not work in reverse.
I may have failed to realize something in the same way as did the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin). It is my opinion that the way it works is that where the expenses are the highest, you have the highest levy, and where your income is the highest you have the lowest levy. That seems to be a complete reversal of stabilization. You make the highest payment when you have the least money and the lowest payment when you have a lot of money. That seems to be backwards. I cannot see any reason why the Conservatives are not in favour of stabilizing it so that we understand what happens from year to year, and we can look at the over-all payout.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) referred to the individual farmer. If the government were not so pigheaded, that is the way it would be operated.
We heard from the Manitoba deputy minister of agriculture, Mr. Janssen, a very astute economist and very practical person in terms of agriculture. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain may be interested in knowing that he suggested this should be on an individual basis. He said that in Manitoba all they had to do was add another three columns to their crop insurance program because they had already worked out the inputs into the cost of production. They were also aware of the inputs to the
November 28, 1975

income side. This is all worked out. All they need to do is add another three columns and they will be able to keep the books for the federal government at absolutely no administrative cost. This would mean that the more you put into the program, the higher your withdrawals could be. It would in effect change this to an income stabilization insurance rather than the net income .that we are trying to stabilize for all agriculture.
If we were really interested in individualization we would be concerned about the individual pay-in, the levy. This could be varied. I am sure the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain would agree that in that case the higher a person's income the more he would be paid-it would be a cash flow related to the situation of the individual farmer rather than one affecting the whole of western Canada, or at least that part which is covered by the legislation before us. I am sure most members would agree that this would be a more logical type of stabilization program upon which to embark.
I should not be surprised if the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) agrees with me that we are not likely to accomplish much with this bill. There is not much merit either in defeating it or in passing it. It is not really important one way or the other. It really affects the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) most because, being of German descent, he had the idea a long time ago that he would do something about stabilization and now he intends to do it, even if it is only to give a title to a bill. I have no doubt he is aware that if it is the intention to stabilize farm income in any effective way it would be necessary to call for heavy deductions when income is hfgh and reduce the levy as income falls. Then, when income reached a certain level we would begin making a payout. Thus, over a ten year period, we would have stabilized income at a certain level. But this is not what is being done.
My hon. friend, through trying to make the best of a bad arrangement, said we would stabilize the levy so that at least the same amount is paid all the time. This is an accepted practice. We have always done this in the past. A farmer who insures his barn pays the same amount whether he is expecting it to burn down or not. If we are to operate on this basis let us at least keep the levy stable so that farmers know what it is. To make the levy highest just when the farmer is reaching the point of a payout is an odd way of bringing about stabilization. It seems to me there must be a break-even point at which the payout would equal the premium.
The amendment is a good one though, because it equalizes the premiums as between good years and bad years. Anyone familiar with farming is aware that when the net cash flow decreases to a point at which costs are higher than receipts, farmers go to the government and to all government agencies asking for moratoria on the payments due on their land, machinery, and so on. Parliament has provided such a moratorium on a number of occasions, and we asked the farmers to make two payments on their land, machinery, and other debts when their cash flow was sufficiently high to enable them to do so.
Grain Stabilization
The farmer is likely to think we are more foolish than we are if we believe that when we give him a moratorium on everything else we can continue to charge him an insurance premium higher than that levied in the years when he can afford to pay it. At least it would be better to adopt a neutral position by maintaining the premium at 2 per cent in good and bad years alike.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I want to make three points briefly in response to the comments made on this motion. First the point raised by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) and others about the provisions in the bill to ensure the actuarial soundness of the plan. Actuarial soundness is very much adhered to here, and that is why the provisions to which he and others referred have been included.
I have been asked to predict what the rate is likely to be in the future, say, five, 10 or 15 years down the road. Let me point out that the bill does provide for the establishment of an advisory committee of producers with a mandate to look at anything in the legislation, or in the regulations and their administration, to ensure the plan is functioning well and in the best interests of the grain producers. That advisory committee could well look into the level of levy rates applicable. Indeed, I hope they could take this matter under early advisement. At any rate, provision has been made for the consideration of this question of fees paid by producers.
I wish to make one comment about the individualization of the plan. It seemed to me that in the course of our discussions in the committee stage two different concepts of individualization were advanced. One of them was put forward on behalf of the New Democratic Party, and observations of a similar vein were made by the National Farmers Union. What they were talking about boiled down to a plea for a kind of guaranteed income provision. Such a proposal is really quite different from a plan to stabilize proceeds from grain production. A guaranteed income scheme may be something that is a very laudable objective [DOT] for the future, but it does not particularly or peculiarly relate to the grain industry. It is a concept which, I suggest, embraces broad social policy; it is not one of narrow economic import having to do with one particular economic activity, namely, the grain industry.
On the other hand we have a proposal for individualization, which is the complete reverse. I think the hon. member for Moose Jaw as well as one of the witnesses before the committee, if I am not mistaken the Manitoba Farm Business Association, referred to the keeping of individual accounts, and this is something quite different from a guaranteed income program. If I may paraphrase the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), it boils down to a situation where each individual farmer bets against himself and his own abilities. This is quite different, I suggest, from the proposal that some of the New Democrats and others who appeared before the committee made.
My only comment about this final approach of keeping individual accounts is that, from the best investigation that we have been able to make in calculating what this

November 28, 1975
Grain Stabilization
means in terms of government payments in and payments back to producers, the level of payment provided under the plan would be considerably less than that which is presently proposed in the legislation. This is why that approach has not been adopted.
To return to the major point, this amendment would take away from the actuarial soundness of the plan, and for that reason alone I would thank hon. members of the opposition for agreeing with us that this particular proposal should be defeated.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the parliamentary secretary a question before he sits down. He says that the actuarial soundness of the plan will be destroyed by stabilizing the levy at 2 per cent. Is he indicating that there are more lows than highs in the cash flow of western farmers, or that there are more years when the cash flow is below the cost of production than there are when it is above it? If they were even, 2 per cent is what we would come up with, because there would be stabilization. Is he indicating that there are more years when the farmer is in difficulty than there are years when he is in an advantageous position, or is he saying that the dips are more extensive than the rises in farm income? I am curious to know which of these two created the actuarial difficulty.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, to respond briefly to that question, it seems to me that in putting in this particular provision we are not pre-judging the operation of the plan one way or another. We are simply adding a safeguard provision preventing the fund from becoming unreasonably large, and therefore being a burden on producers because their money is tied up in it for no good reason. At the same time we are preventing an inordinately high deficit so that the producer is not burdened with high interest payments; it is as simple as that. In putting in the safeguard provision we are not attempting to pre-judge how the plan operates.


William Arnold Peters: Have we in fact carried out an actuarial study? This raises another point. The hon. gentleman indicated that the 2 per cent, which I gather is the mean, does not necessarily, spread over the last 20 years, cover either the highs or the lows. It seems to me we are not going to have too much, that we may have too little, which would mean we would have to change the amount being paid in. The hon. member says that the mean will not produce the kind of fund we need either for covering the deficits or for creating surpluses. I think the actuarial work could be done in order to indicate whether or not we have arrived at the mean.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, we have in fact done some very careful actuarial studies, and this is why we have a provision in the bill that deals with the situation in that way. This whole discussion was carried on at some considerable length in committee. At that time we covered the point to the satisfaction of most members there.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of motion No. 9 will please say yea.
|Mr. Goodale.]


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 9 (Mr. Benjamin) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to consideration of motion No. 11, in the name of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I will move it on his behalf, Mr. Speaker.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 11
That Bill C-41, an act respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain and to amend certain statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in Clause 17 by striking out lines 42 and 43 at page 24 and substituting the following therefor:
"maximum amount prescribed by subsection (6), with a view to
including 90 per cent of eligible grain sale proceeds within the plan
and, in such case, the maximum".
He said: Mr. Speaker, according to my understanding- which may be insufficient, but to the extent that I do understand this part of the bill-I believe it was the stated intention of the government with respect to coverage of the plan that the consequent maximum eligible grain sale proceeds for each producer was to be 90 per cent of the grain sold up to a ceiling of $25,000. I believe that was the stated intention of the minister in committee.
I am certain the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) and other hon. members opposite will appreciate how helpful we are in making sure that what the government says it intends should be in the bill is in the bill. Thus I assume that this amendment will be accepted by the government, and that hon. members opposite will welcome all the aid and comfort that we have given them in this particular instance.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to what the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) said he thought was the intent of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). It is very unfortunate that the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville is not in the House to explain his motion, just as it is unfortunate that the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board is not here to explain some of his amendments.
I have looked at this amendment, as have other members of our party, but for the life of me I cannot understand what its effect is. The clause that it attempts to amend provides for the governor in council to increase the maximum beyond $25,000 if the governor in council thinks, under the circumstances, that it would be in the interest of
November 28, 1975

the producers to do so. This amendment, as I read it, limits subparagraph (7) to 90 per cent of $25,000. Unless we can have a further explanation from someone, I cannot see for the life of me that this amendment makes sense, and we certainly cannot support it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, is there going to be a statement from the government side on this, because we are a little in the dark about the meaning of this amendment?


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) has properly dealt with this amendment in a reasonable fashion. He explained that over the long haul we would like to see this bill cover something in the range of 90 per cent of the grain sale proceeds in western Canada at any particular moment in time. That would be a worth-while objective. Of course if there should be 100 per cent participation I suppose to some extent that would be absolute perfection, but our initial and, as the hon. member said, our publicly stated target for the legislation is that it will include something in the range of 90 per cent.
If hon. members would look back at the legislation they will see, if they study sub-clause 7 of clause 17, that the particular sub-clause with which we are dealing relates to consultations between the governor in council and the advisory committee of producers, and really I suppose this particular amendment does nothing more than give some guidance to the advisory committee. It certainly also gives some guidance to the governor in council in terms of the adjustment in this level of $25,000 referred to in sub-clause 6 of clause 17. It is really nothing more than an attempt to make explicit in the legislation what had been our previously stated objective. There is there, I submit, some guidance and instruction for those who later on may come to the conclusion that the level of $25,000 is too low.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the parliamentary secretary? I assume his statement means that the amendment therefore is acceptable to the government.


Ralph Goodale: Yes; we can support this type of amendment, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Is the
House ready for the question? The question is on motion No. 11. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: declare the motion carried.
Motion No. 11 (Mr. Nystrom) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: We
will now proceed to the consideration of motion No. 12.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 12.
That Bill C-41, An Act respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain and to amend certain
Grain Stabilization
statutes in consequence thereof, be amended by adding the following new Clause immediately after line 9 at page 42:
"45.1 The Minister shall, within three years after the coming into force of this Act, undertake a comprehensive review of the operation of the Act and its effects on western grain producers, and shall forthwith submit a report to Parliament thereon."
He said: Again, Mr. Speaker, we are trying to be very helpful to the government and to assist the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board to make certain that this legislation, if and when it becomes law, is reviewed and examined carefully and as often as possible. Therefore we are adding a new clause to the effect that the minister shall, within three years after the coming into force of the act, undertake a comprehensive review of the operation of the act and its effects on western grain producers, and shall forthwith submit a report to parliament thereon.
Personally I would have preferred something a little more specific in the amendment which would provide that parliament shall debate that report for a period of two or three days. However, I suspect that had we gone that far the minister would have become balky and would not have looked with pleasure upon the amendment. Therefore we have worded it in this manner so that the requirement on the minister will be to submit a report to parliament. Since the reports of many boards and commissions are submitted to parliament annually, this should not be a problem for the government.
I hope my confidence is not misplaced in that the government will see to it that the report not only is submitted to parliament but that it will ask for a reference of the report to the Standing Committee on Agriculture so that the committee can review the report and make an assessment with regard to the efficacy of the program, reporting back to parliament in respect of any changes which should be made to the program. This amendment would provide the avenue by which to do this. We must leave it to what we hope are the good intentions of the government in respect of this legislation.
We hope the government will do more than just submit a report to parliament. We hope it will ask the committee to comment on the report after giving it a thorough study. This is undoubtedly one of the most complicated pieces of legislation that has ever been brought forward. I find the income tax law even more understandable than this bill, and that is saying quite a bit because my comprehension of the income tax law is not too good. For that reason, if nothing else, the experience gained in the first three years both by the farmers and the government will need to be examined and assessed very carefully.
I predict that the minister himself after that experience, and the report he makes to parliament, will be anxious to make some pretty fundamental changes to the legislation because, unless I miss my guess, a large number of grain producers after being in the program for two or three years will decide it is not really accomplishing what all of us desire, namely, the stabilization of the net farm income from grain sales. It will not accomplish this for those who need it the most, the small and the middle sized farmer. It will not make too much difference to the well-to-do large farmer. Our concern must be for the small and middlesized farmer who has the most difficult row to hoe when his net income drops drastically in two or three years out of every five or six years. So I commend this motion to the

November 28, 1975
Grain Stabilization
House, and I hope the parliamentary secretary to the minister will be good enough to respond and say that this motion is acceptable to the government.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there will be any question about the government's willingness to accept this amendment because I believe when the three years are up the amendment will be redundant. There will be a new government sitting on the right of Mr. Speaker, which will bring in a proper income stabilization bill based on the right of the individual farmer to have an income stabilization fund into which both he and the government can contribute.
This bill is primarily and almost completely designed in the interests of the Department of Finance. If it brings any benefits to any farmer, they are only accidental. Therefore if we review it in three years we will probably find that the bill is bad.
I honestly hope that the viewpoint of the prairie farmers who are affected by this legislation will be accepted by people in all of Canada, in the rural areas as well as in the cities, and that we will get rid of this government which has been cluttering up the landscape for the last 12 years and not doing a single thing to help agriculture. All its members have given us is promises, roaring and bellowing, pawing of the ground, twisting and shaking of tails, but no record of performance.
This bill is a classical example. The rigidity and inflexibility of the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board is so clearly apparent in this bill that it is a wonder his colleagues let him bring it back to the House. When we took this bill to farmers in western Canada, every group of farmers spoke in favour of an individual approach to this type of legislation, not this area payout concept under which you pay in a known amount but you do not know what your return will be. The kind of program that farmers accept today is one in which they know what they will pay in and what the return will be.
This bill is based on a complicated formula which the farmer will not be able to understand, and I doubt if there is a single person sitting in the House today who understands it. The only person who seems to understand the bill clearly is the minister himself, but when he says he understands it I really become worried.
So the first point I want to make is that we should accept the motion which calls for a review of the legislation in three years to try to improve it. But I hope and trust that three years from now a new government will be sitting on the other side which will get rid of all this complicated stuff and simply put forward a bill under which farmers will pay in their dollar, the government will pay in its contribution, and farmers will know what they will get when they need it because they themselves will decide what they want, and they will not be able to take out any more than they have put in. Under this type of individual approach the farmer will accept the program, and the government will benefit from it. Because farmers will get their money during periods when the economy is poor, it will do a lot to stabilize farm incomes in this country.

Farming is no longer a small item in the economics of our country. Today farming is a large item in the total income, and 10 or 15 years from now it will play an even larger part than it does today. Certainly by the end of the century the great resource industries of Canada will be many times greater than they are today.
If the government does not move now to stabilize incomes, not only of grain farmers but of all producers whose income goes up and down in wide fluctuations, the country will suffer. This bill was supposed to be an effort on the part of the government to try to stabilize this volatile grain activity. I will suggest right now that we must do our best to try to improve the program to make it acceptable to farmers so that they know what return they will get on the money they paid in. When they buy crop insurance, which is an insurance against weather, they know on an actuarial basis that is sound what they must pay in, and they know what they will get out of it.
According to this bill, farmers will get paid under a formula. Some year when they need the money desperately, they will not get it because the formula will say they are well off, and in other years when farmers have all the money they need, they will receive a payment because the formula will say they are broke.
This formula is just academic nonsense put into legislation which we in the House have to swallow. I certainly support the idea of reviewing it in three years, but it would be simpler to throw it out in three years' time when we form a new government and put something better in its place.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I think it is of fundamental importance that we have an opportunity to review this legislation in three years, but it is unfortunate that the government should bring in legislation which needs to be reviewed in three years. This demonstrates its weakness.
One of the shortcomings of the plan is that the $300,000 to which I referred earlier today will be used in large part on inspectors travelling to western Canada to assess the income and expenses of prairie grain producers.
We tried to tell the minister that he should bring in a program that would be closely integrated with crop insurance, because we all know that in the three prairie provinces and in British Columbia inspectors are ready and available to go out into the field to make an assessment of whatever damages have occurred in farming.
I suggested to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) that there is irony in the fact that the legislation before us is being proposed by the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, but that it comes under the administration of the Minister of Agriculture.
I also suggested to the Minister of Agriculture that he will have to exercise a great deal of care in the administration of this legislation primarily because of the fact that western Canadian producers guard their privacy jealously. As I said, there are inspectors going on farm premises from the Prairie Crop Insurance Commission, and now other inspectors will be going there under the new stabilization program. I fear that farmers will become very irate at that.
November 28, 1975

I also suggested that unless the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) takes all the guns away from prairie producers, they will start shooting and, since the Minister of Agriculture is somewhat bigger than the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, he might make a better target and might be the first one to be shot. It is not because we on this side are particularly benevolent people that we would hate to see the Minister of Agriculture get shot, but because the next minister might be worse.
It would be a great advantage if the government would accept this motion and allow the survey or a reasonable debate to take place in three years' time, so that a proper assessment of the program could be made. By then farmers and producers would have an opportunity to make their views known in a firmer manner than they have to date. I hope the government sees fit to accept this motion.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Mr. Speaker, the motion we are now debating is one that I can support despite the fact that it is rather unnecessary. I think it is superfluous; I think it is irrelevant and redundant. The entire clause 45 states clearly:
The minister shall, on or before the 31st day of August next following the end of each year . .. submit to parliament a report on the administration of this act including a report on the state of the stabilization account as of the end of that year.
The provision is in there now; there is no question about that. Clause 37 of the bill deals with the advisory committee. This is made up of producers, and it will be their responsibility to examine the operation of this plan as it gets under way.
I agree with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) who used the word redundant. The rest of his speech was a rehash of the debate on second reading. Certainly by the end of three years we will have debated this bill and will have subjected it to a thorough review in terms of the next federal election. I am sure by that time some of our friends in the official opposition will regret the negativism that they displayed in dealing with this bill and the whole concept of stabilization of farm income.
I was surprised and disappointed to hear the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain say that financing is a small item in the economy of our country. I am sure he misstated what he knows to be a fact about western Canada. This bill is aimed at bringing stability to the entire western economy, but the whole problem starts in the west with the agricultural economy. His plan as far as an individual insurance plan is concerned is another alternative and it may be a good one, but it is totally different from the plan before us in this bill.
If my hon. friends in the New Democratic Party want to debate this very small motion which really adds nothing, if it will make them feel any better for having gone around Saskatchewan four or five years ago condemning this bill or anything along these lines, if it will salve their conscience by debating this motion, I will be pleased to support it.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I rather enjoyed the debate we had today. I was disappointed at the
Grain Stabilization
last minute when the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac) had to bring politics into it. Until then it was a good and comprehensive debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Charles Neil: He used some pretty strong adjectives and spoke of the amendment as being superfluous, irrelevant, and redundant. Then he want on to say that he and his party were prepared to support it.
Certainly we on this side of the House are prepared to support the amendment because it refers to the review of a bill that is very complicated and is almost incomprehensible to the farmers and producers of western Canada. I think it is important that some time in the next three years the various farm organizations have an opportunity to appear before the committee and review what has taken place and whether the bill is serving its purpose or not. I am pleased that the government is prepared to support this, notwithstanding the hon. member's remarks. I see it is two minutes to four o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and in these last moments I would suggest that we proceed with the voting, dispose of the bill at report stage, and speak on it later at third reading.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac) made the remark that we have talked against the bill and the idea of stabilization across the country, I would have been quite happy to have stayed in my seat and let this go to a vote. Now I have no intention of letting it go to a vote.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: I do not care if it ever passes, Mr. Speaker.


Ralph Goodale: You never did.


William Arnold Peters: That is perfectly true, I never did. The remarks that were made about this particular amendment are probably true, that it is a minor amendment, that farmers would have an opportunity of looking at the legislation again, and that in the light of that examination there would be a change. But the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley indicated that we have been opposed to the idea of stabilization.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) has the floor. If other hon. members want to talk they should get behind the curtains.


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member indicated that we were opposed to the idea of stabilization of incomes and I think that has to be answered. I agree that this bill does not do that. The statement was made that we were opposed to subsequent bills, which is true, but we had a very good reason for being opposed to them. We eliminated one bill which the courts found to be unconstitutional. It had something to do with PFAA funds. For that reason I think there should be more discussion of this bill. I am sure there is going to be opposition to this bill in western Canada.

November 28, 1975
Items Stood
It would take me more than a few minutes to indicate the differences between this bill and the actual stabilization or equalization of income over a given period of time, Mr. Speaker, so I would therefore call it four o'clock.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House would give its unanimous consent for dealing with and disposing of the clause previously being discussed, as that would save lots of time.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's point of order is constructive, and the official opposition is prepared to prolong this debate for the period necessary for dealing with that particular clause.


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


William Arnold Peters: Speaking on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to give consent to completing the bill at report stage without further debate, but want the right to speak on third reading as I am surprised at some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Battleford-Kinders-ley (Mr. Mclsaac).


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Is the
House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 12 (Mr. Nystrom) agreed to.


Mitchell William Sharp: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Walter David Baker: At the next sitting of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBER'S PUBLIC BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Item 8, in the name of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Item No. 34, in the name of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Item No. 4, in the name of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Item No. 10, in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton-Went-worth (Mr. O'Sullivan). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Item No. 24, in the name of the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Item No. 37, in the name of the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Item No. 38, in the name of the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Item No. 41, in the name of the hon. member for Toronto-Lake-shore (Mr. Robinson). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: I see
the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore rising to speak on item No. 42.


NON-SMOKERS RELIEF ACT MEASURE TO PROVIDE RELIEF TO TRAVELLING NON-SMOKERS
William Kenneth Robinson: that Bill C-242, respecting relief to non-smokers in transit, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note that Bill C-242 has finally come before the House of Commons for debate. We are to discuss a measure respecting relief to non-smokers in transit.
The purpose of this bill, as set out in the short and long title, is to give relief to travelling non-smokers by stipulating that ?ailways, planes and buses under federal jurisdiction be required to provide them with separate seating accommodation, since there is medical evidence to the effect that secondary smoke inhalation not only causes distress to the non-smoker but could jeopardize his health, particularly if he suffers from heart disease or a respiratory ailment.
The purpose of this bill is simply to insist that nonsmokers actually have rights, that they are not second-class citizens and that they should not be forced to breathe
November 28, 1975

in somebody else's tobacco smoke. Obviously my bill, which specifically seeks to protect non-smokers by requiring that all air, marine, rail and road carriers under federal jurisdiction be required to provide non-smokers with separate seating accommodation, will not by itself guarantee the rights of non-smokers, for we again come up against the old problem of jurisdiction, and I think it is generally agreed that most of the legislative efforts on behalf of non-smokers must come at the provincial or municipal level. Nevertheless, this bill does strike at an area which is within federal jurisdiction and should, hopefully, set an example as a step in the right direction.
I would like at the outset to pay tribute to the former member from Surrey-White Rock, Barry Mather, who introduced a similar bill during the last parliament. I had the pleasure of serving with the former member on the Health, Welfare and Social Affairs committee during the twenty-eighth parliament and I came to know his deep concern for the subject. I am sure he would be extremely pleased by any action this House may deem to take with regard to providing relief to non-smokers.
This bill should not be interpreted as an anti-smoker or anti-smoking bill. It is not designed to try to prevent those people who wish to smoke from smoking, nor is it an attempt even to warn those who do smoke about the dangers of smoking. The Department of National Health and Welfare has for the last several years been conducting a program in this area. Bill C-242 is concerned solely with the non-smoker and the effects tobacco smoke has on him. For years almost no attention was paid to the plight of non-smokers and, indeed, the non-smoker himself did little or nothing in his own defence.
In the past few years we have seen a drastic change in attitude. No longer are non-smokers suffering in silence. The numerous non-smoking groups and their spin-offs which are now peppered across Canada and in the United States are testaments to this fact. These groups such as ASH, action on smoking and health; FANS, fresh air for non-smokers; GASP, group against smokers pollution; and the Non-Smokers' Rights Association were not even in existence before 1970; but now every province has at least one such group actively operating.
Undoubtedly one of the main reasons for this tremendous growth of militancy among non-smokers has been recent scientific studies which have shown tobacco smoke to be injurious to the health and a source of distress and illness not only to smokers but also to non-smokers. The effects of tobacco smoke and of the pollutants it contains on non-smokers can be influenced by many factors, such as the amount of pollutants found in the air; the ventillation available for the removal or dispersion of smoke; the proximity of an individual to the source of pollution; the length of exposure to the pollutants; or the health of the person so exposed. It is therefore impossible to say what the effect of tobacco smoke will be with regard to a particular individual. However, broad generalizations are possible.
Besides the general discomfort suffered by many individuals exposed to an atmosphere contaminated with tobacco smoke, diminished vision, short breath upon exertion, psychologic stress on patients with heart diseases, and allergic and irritative reactions may result.
Smoking Ban
Perhaps one of the most important sources of information on the effects of tobacco smoke on non-smokers has been a yearly report of the United States department of health, education and welfare on "The Health Consequences of Smoking", commonly referred to as the Surgeon General's report. The 1975 report which has been just released devotes an entire section to what the report refers to as "Involuntary Smoking."
Although the report discusses the subject using the most technical medical terminology, one point was made which I feel is very pertinent to this debate today, that is, that a survey conducted on symptoms experienced by travellers on both military and commcercial aircraft showed that over 60 per cent of the non-smoking passengers and between 15 per cent and 22 per cent of the smokers reported being annoyed by other passengers smoking, even though the aircraft were well ventillated and the level of measurable pollution low. This really confirms something which I long suspected, that is, that tobacco smoke in many cases is found to be annoying even by those who smoke. For this reason I believe that most smokers are themselves sympathetic to the kind of legislation this bill proposes.
I know that a number of hon. members, including the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), wish to speak this afternoon on this subject, so I will conclude my remarks not wishing to be accused of talking out my own bill. However, I would like to add that if members should decide to send my bill to committee, this would provide the opportunity for both members and ordinary citizens who have expressed a keen interest on this subject to make their contribution.
Finally I want to mention my intention of putting forward a couple of amendments to the bill as it now reads. These would cover responsibility for enforcement and penalties, and also a provision to ensure a reasonable minimum size for the non-smoking area. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would again like to stress my belief that this type of legislation is not only wanted, indeed demanded, by many non-smokers today, but is also completely acceptable by most of those who do smoke. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I happen to be a non-smoker, and will therefore be affected as much as any by this legislation.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity today to take part in the debate on this very important bill that has been presented by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson). I have known the hon. member for many years prior to the time that both of us came to this House. It is interesting to note that the concept of the bill provides some balance in terms of recognizing rights, using that word in the broad sense.
The bill, and I think the hon. member put it very forcibly, recognizes that non-smokers are not second class citizens. They have a right to comfort in terms of travel and in the use of accommodation. The bill implicity recognizes the fact that there are some in the community who use tobacco and who, by legislative enactment in terms of the areas within which this bill is designed to operate, might have that right, again using that word in a broad sense, taken from them.
9566

November 28, 1975
Smoking Ban
It is very interesting that this bill should have the balance it does. I commend the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore for displaying this sense of balance and justice.
The hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore is a very distinguished member of the bar of the province of Ontario. For approximately two years I had the very distinct privilege of living in the same house as the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore. I found him at all times concerned about the rights of his neighbours. His habits were sometimes strange. He was somewhat nocturnal. He used to come in at varying hours of the day and night and would awaken all of us when he came in. However, he recognized that those of us who did not have the same habits should indulge ourselves in awakening him the next morning. He never chastised us. On all occasions he was a very balanced, hard-working individual. He has carried that into the House of Commons. I particularly commend him today with regard to the balance in terms of rights which this bill represents.
There are members of the House of Commons who adversly feel the effects of tobacco. We who smoke, and I have to identify myself as one who smokes, have to recognize this among our colleagues. The hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) is known far and wide for his delicate nasal passages. I am always prepared not only to recognize his right to speak but his right to breath in comfort, and to participate in the work of the committees of this House in comfort. That is a right we should recognize.
We cannot legislate good manners. We cannot legislate consideration for others. However, the way in which this bill has been presented goes some way in the public sense of indicating the concern of this, the highest court in the country, in recognizing certain basic rights.
It is interesting to note that Air Canada and CP Air have in relatively recent times adopted the practice of recognizing the right to comfort of non-smokers. This bill, balanced as it is, will further that cause.
I have received a large number of letters from my constituency expressing interest in this kind of legislation. I do not want to gainsay the efforts of the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore, but enforcement will be a problem. I am glad that amendments will be considered.
Many of my constituents have expressed great concern about this problem of recognizing one's right to comfort in a public place. I have brought this interest to the attention of the minister. I have a large number of letters. I do not intend to read all of them. However, I wish to refer to a letter from the office of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) replying to some earlier correspondence with regard to support of this kind of legislation.
Referring to my constituent, the executive assistant to the minister commended my constituent for her interest in the creation of non-smoking areas in air terminal buildings, and indicated that this has been recognized by the Minister of Transport. My constituent was further advised that the Director of Administration and Research had indicated that the matter was being studied by the department. However, there was a certain amount of hesitancy expressed in the letter as follows:

It should be emphasized that there is no quick or easy solution to this problem.
I suggest that all hon. members, whether they smoke or not, and whether they accept or do not accept the hon. member's statement about the injurious quality of tobacco both to the user and those in close proximity it really makes no difference. I suggest that all hon. members should support this legislation. This is a step in the right direction because it considers certain basic rights, the right to comfort, and the right to enjoy a public place without inconvenience or danger to health, if there is a danger in terms of a person being in close proximity to a smoker.
Having a firm knowledge of the backgroud of the hon. member who proposed this piece of legislation, his concern for the rights of others in terms of his work at the bar, his work as a trained and highly qualified social worker, his work as a municipal politician before coming to this place, and now knowing him as I know him here, I commend him for the foresight he has had and the great public spirit of concern he has exhibited in bringing forth this piece of legislation. I am happy to support it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as another of a rapidly growing majority of nonsmokers I am reluctant to make remarks that might sound like a lecture to smokers. However, I am happy to endorse the views that have been expressed by both the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) and the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker).
This bill, as the previous speaker said, contains in it a commendable element of balance and fair play. I am pleased to understand that the government is willing that the bill go to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. I hope it will be the bill itself that is sent and not just the subject matter of it.
I appreciate the reference that the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore made to our former colleague, Mr. Barry Mather, who represented the constituency of Surrey-White Rock in this House. I know he will be pleased to learn that he has been extended this compliment by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore in presenting his bill. He will be even more pleased if it receives the approval of this House this afternoon.
It is interesting that despite all the money spent in advertising smoking as though it were helpful and pleasant-and we do live in a society in which advertising appears to have many unfortunate effects-there should be a growing consciousness with respect to the other side of the coin. I hope a piece of legislation such as this will not only provide both smokers and non-smokers with cleaner air to breathe when they are travelling, but that it will increase the realization that one does not have to smoke in order to be a part of twentieth century society. To avoid any risk of talking this out and preventing the bill getting to the committee, I shall keep my remarks very short.
However, may I say that it puzzles me when getting on an Air Canada plane to discover there are non-smoking areas in the economy class but not up front where the wealthy sit.


James Aloysius McGrath: Now we know you travel first class.
November 28, 1975


Stanley Howard Knowles: Usually I know what the first class section is like because I have to move through it, but there have been occasions when Air Canada has oversold its economy class seats and I have been put up front, as have other hon. members. But if you travel in the economy section you drink only what you can pay for and, in certain seats, you cannot smoke. But if you are wealthy enough to ride first class you can have all the free drink you want and there is no restriction on smoking.


James Aloysius McGrath: How would you know?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am being asked how I would know. Well, I have eyes. I can see. I can also smell the air when it goes bad. In any event, this is one anomaly I hope will be straightened out.
I can see some difficulty respecting this legislation because of the overlapping of federal and provincial jurisdictions, but that sort of thing can be resolved. Once again, I am glad this measure has been brought up on a Friday afternoon when the House is in a mood to pass things, and I congratulate the hon. member on getting his bill through this afternoon.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, in joining hon. members who have already spoken in congratulating the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) on introducing this bill I should like to give a clear indication that the government will support it. I hope the House will find it agreeable to let the measure go to committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: This is one of several bills the government has indicated its intention to support in the course of the present session. Some are from opposition members. Others are from supporters of the government. This is an indication that the government will, increasingly often I hope, encourage private members to put forward bills in the expectation that those bills will find their way into legislation eventually.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Barry Mather left about ten other good ones behind.


Marc Lalonde: I should like to put a few facts on record for the benefit of the House and of the public generally, though I want to be sure I do not talk out the hon. member's bill. For more than a decade the Department of National Health and Welfare, in co-operation with other groups, has conducted a nation-wide program aimed at warning the smoker and those considering picking up the habit about the effects of smoking. In fact, I wrote to hon. members a couple of days ago telling them that we have a few of these buttons available for them to wear, or for others to wear. You will note that I am wearing one today. However, until recently little attention was paid to the effect of smoke on others in a room or area. Now these people have begun to draw public attention to their predicament and it is evident they should be protected in some manner.
At first the public tendency was to shrug off the nonsmoker as a nuisance minority. Some 70 per cent of the people in Canada are non-smokers. That estimate, of
Smoking Ban
course, includes children, who can also be harmed by inhaling tobacco smoke produced by others. Based on the 1967 U.S. National Health Survey there are probably at least three million Canadians suffering from a pre-existing susceptibility to cigarette smoke.
Non-smokers have formed a number of local groups in Canadian centres to promote the control of tobacco smoke. I understand there are some representatives of such groups in the gallery today. They suggest designating smoking and non-smoking spaces, smoke breaks during long meetings, and placing smokers nearest ventilation exhausts and non-smokers nearest ventillating air outlets, among other such techniques. The Department of National Health and Welfare together with various interested organizations and voluntary groups is also calling public attention to the plight of the non-smoker. Last spring the deputy ministers of my department sent a memo to each employee urging voluntary tobacco smoke control techniques in confined or crowded spaces. We hope there will soon be general acceptance of such practices.
Scientific testing has provided evidence of problems connected with the inhalation of smoke by non-smokers, so the people concerned have a legitimate complaint. The evidence indicates that individuals with asthma, allergies, advanced emphysema or advanced coronary arterial disease can be seriously troubled by inhaling cigarette smoke, especially in closed environments over a period of time.
As well, a smoke-filled room can often cause short term eye irritations to contact lens wearers. Moreover, preliminary studies indicate that respiratory ailments are more common among children whose parents smoke than among those whose parents do not. Another study has reported that infants in their first year of life are more prone to bronchitis and pneumonia when parents smoke.
Let me pose this question. If any hon. member was about to enter into a confined space-room, plane, bus, car or boat-where he would have to remain for some length of time-and was told in advance that the space contained nicotine, tar, carbon monoxide and other toxic gases, would he feel up to staying there? Would he enjoy a meal in such an environment? Yet time after time people are compelled to do something very similar, whether they smoke or not.
I should also like to call attention to studies of the chemical composition of tobacco smoke which have shown the presence of numerous toxic compounds, among them many irritants and cancer-producing substances. These compounds are sent into the air wherever tobacco is smoked. Their most objectionable emissions occur when the lighted tobacco is left to smoulder between puffs. The irritating, harmful substances in this sidestream smoke hover in the air and the non-smoker cannot help but inhale them. The non-smoker does not produce any of the pollutants, yet he must live with them, or try to.
There is one fact which bears further attention. The closer a non-smoker sits to a smoker, the greater the amounts of such pollutants as carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen he is exposed to. To a person who is allergic to the elements of tobacco smoke and to persons suffering from such ailments as asthma or emphysema, this concentration of smoke substances may be not only uncomfortable but agonizing. Even to healthy individuals, tobacco
9568

Smoking Ban
smoke hovering around their faces can be more than annoying. It can produce eye and nose discomfort, coughing, nausea or headache, or interfere with breathing. For the non-smoker sitting next to a smoker in an aircraft, train or bus, there may be no escape.
With transportation facilities more and more catering to family travel, we must also consider the small children. They should be protected from the chemicals in tobacco smoke, particularly when they are subjected to them in hours of travel.
How can all this be dealt with? Substantial ventilation can reduce the levels of irritants and noxious elements in confined areas. But ventilation costs money because of the added heating or cooling required, and it does not remove the damaging chemicals rapidly enough to relieve all sensitive non-smokers.
Some smokers are considerate and will curb their habit when they know they are in the company of non-smokers, and in particular in the company of those who indicate that tobacco smoke disturbs them, or brings them harm. There are smokers who will abstain when they are in a room or on a public vehicle because they themselves cannot tolerate the discomfort of sitting in a pall of tobacco smoke. But not enough can be accomplished by a simple appeal to the smoker. Unfortunately many of them are unresponsive to the need of the non-smoker to breathe uncontaminated air. Therefore there is a definite need for regulation of smoking in public places.
Some air carriers already designate areas for non-smokers. Early in the summer of 1974 Air Canada increased the number of "no smoking" seats on its aircraft. Depending on the number of seats and type of aircraft, the seats devoted to non-smokers were increased from 43 to 50 per cent. Air Canada said this increase came as a result of passenger demands.
At the present time "no smoking" areas are set up and policed by the carriers themselves. Recently the Civil Aeronautics Board of the United States expressed the belief that such self-imposed rules of the carriers were not an adequate remedy and that the voluntary efforts to segregate non-smokers and smokers were not effective. They reported receiving many letters in which passengers objected to being told that the non-smoking section of a plane was full, or being seated in a non-smoking section only to find no effort was made to prevent smoking by any of its occupants. On top of that, a joint survey by federal bodies in the United States reported more than 60 per cent of non-smokers who used air travel said they were bothered by tobacco smoke and urged either a ban on smoking or segregation of non-smokers and smokers on commercial flights.
Considerable correspondence received by non-government and government agencies in Canada and the United States has urged the complete banning of smoking on carriers. This correspondence did not come from cranks. The writers are genuinely concerned with their own comfort and health, as well as with the comfort and health of all who may be adversely affected by smoke. None the less, the U.S. Civil Aeronautics Board observed that, just as the attitudes of many smokers appeared to be insensitive to

the rights of others to be relieved of the annoyance and discomfort caused by smoking, so does the attitude of many non-smokers appear to be insensitive to the rights of the smokers.
After all, smoking is a lawful activity and to deprive smokers of this right could cause them severe discomfort. The U.S. board did not believe that the discomfort caused by smoking aboard aircraft could be reasonably dealt with by an absolute ban. The board believed that the segregation of smokers and non-smokers could establish an equitable balance. Consequently, on May 7, 1973, the U.S. Civil Aeronautics Board adopted a regulation requiring certificated air carriers to provide designated no smoking areas aboard their aircraft.
The U.S. Interstate Commerce Commission subsequently enacted a similar regulation respecting smoking on interstate passenger carrier vehicles. That arrangement appears to be the purpose of the hon. member's bill, Bill C-242.
I might add that some problems that could arise from such legislation should be considered in committee. For example, the bill calls for separate accommodation where smoking will be prohibited. It must be clearly indicated that this should not be interpreted as requiring any operator to permit smoking of cigarettes, cigars or pipes aboard the vehicle. Another problem could occur when the plane, train, bus or ship is faced with peak travel periods. At times like this it is quite possible that the number of seats available to either the smokers or non-smokers in the vehicle will not be enough to meet the demands. When such shortages occur there must be nothing to prevent the attendant-steward, stewardess, conductor or driver-setting up a temporary exchange of seats to achieve the correct balance.
A passenger must be given every opportunity to know of the existence of areas where smoking will not be permitted. For example, a passenger planning to travel by commercial aircraft must be advised when he makes his reservation that a non-smoking area is available in the aircraft. When he reaches the airport and checks in, his preference should be made known to the attendant. Then, when the attendant makes the customary announcements before take-off, specific reference should be made to regulations that exist regarding smoking and to the specified areas for non-smokers, what the regulations mean, and how they operate.
The procedure outlined here could be expanded by a variety of other means and be made known to the travelling public. In the 1969 report of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs on tobacco and cigarette smoking, it is observed:
Your committee recommends that, out of consideration for the majority of Canadians who do not smoke, a gradually increasing number of no smoking areas or sections be provided in places or facilities used by the general public.
The committee noted there was increasing public recognition of the rights of non-smokers.
Attention should also be paid in legislation of this kind to the situation in smaller commercial vehicles, and I am glad that the hon. member has said he will entertain amendments on this particular subject.
The advantage for smokers of separate accommodations are twofold. The first is freedom from the increasing number of objections from non-smokers. In other words,
November 28, 1975

they would be assured of hassle-free smoking areas. Secondly, a smoker who is trying to quit the habit would be able to obtain social support for his changed lifestyle by using no smoking areas wherever they are available.
My department believes that there is a need for legislation in this area. While it cannot speak for other ministries which may be concerned with or even involved in this matter, there has been no objection to date to such legislation raised from those contacted. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, we have confidence that extensive benefits will result from legislation such as is outlined in Bill C-242.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I too should like to congratulate the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) on his courage in bringing forward this bill. I do not know whether he polled his constituents to find out the proportion of non-smokers to smokers; one would hope that he had not and that it was purely on the principle involved and his interest in the subject that he has introduced this bill.
I join him in his recollection of the former hon. member for Surrey-White Rock and his long campaign. I note that when that constituency changed its politics it held firm to the non-smoking principle in sending the present member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) to this House.
There are many aspects to a bill such as this. It is easier to present the matter in the form of a bill, and one feels that it might have tremendous public acceptance, but one cannot always tell. I recall the moves made by the former premier of the province of British Columbia to ban the advertising of cigarettes and alcohol in publications in that province, and the great outcry that arose as a result of a move that I suspect he felt was going to meet with tremendous public acclaim. Once in effect, the reaction was other than what he expected.
I am a little concerned about this question of separate accommodations. It would seem simpler and more economic to ban smoking altogether, particular on air flights that are of fairly brief duration these days. The existing situation on Air Canada, for example, leaves something to be desired because there is no partition separating the eighth row from the ninth row, so the cut-off point between smoking accommodation and non-smoking is rather arbitrary.
Having listened to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) I think we might end up by dividing accommodation in aircraft of necessity into four separate compartments-first class smoking and non-smoking, and economy class smoking and non-smoking. This might add considerably to the expense of altering the aircraft. One would have to be reassured in this regard and perhaps an amendment could indicate just what would be acceptable to the mover of this bill as separate accommodation.
It is essential that we know what penalties are envisioned here because certainly enforcement is the key. I know it cannot be left up to the non-smoker to defend himself because very often a situation arises where the smoker is a very powerful and burly person while the non-smoker is not, and therefore there is a hesitancy to object vigorously to the presence of the smoker. I find that
Smoking Ban
far too often the staff of the vehicle or the plane will evade the responsibility and fail to be firm with some rather flagrant breaker of the rules.
I have heard a person in the non-smoking section ask the attendant if he could smoke, and the attendant has said to him that he may do so if no one objects. In that case the person proceeds to light up and the non-smokers are faced with the onus of preventing something that has already been allowed by the staff of the mode of transportation. So it is essential that there be enforcement, and that penalties are provided and are seen to be imposed and carried out.
I do not wish to be accused of talking out this bill. I think the categories covered here generally are satisfactory. There might be some difficulty in the case of a shared taxi to Hull because this would involve a very small vehicle. Again some passenger aircraft are very small.
There is one serious omission. I think the mode of transportation that can impose perhaps the severest penalty on the non-smoker is the elevator. In this institution, the House of Commons, I find that a vigorously puffed cigar in one of our elevators is about as extensive a hazard to one's health as one can be subjected to. I suggest the hon. member might give some thought to that very small but terribly confined form of transportation which is such as essential part of our life these days.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, there is no danger of my talking out the bill because I wish to go on record in support of it. However, I have one qualification. The bill does not go far enough. It is about time the House of Commons started to give a little leadership in respect of what I consider to be a very serious health hazard in this country.
The statistics given this afternoon point out the dangers in respect of smoking and the necessity for education of our young people in respect of the repercussions of smoking. In looking at the bill, and having thought about it for the past few days, I would say that the phrase "separate seating accommodation" gives me some cause for concern as to whether or not any realistic form of separation can be developed, especially on airplanes.
As the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston) pointed out a moment ago, the fact that smoking is permitted in row number nine but not in row number eight does very little for the person sitting in row number eight, or whatever the arbitrary line is, because of the very nature of smoking. If we do not put up a physical separation I have some doubt, speaking as one of many members of the House of Commons who have experienced the long suffering of air travel, about there really being sufficient help given to non-smokers.
As I think about the whole question, as I often do in my worst moments while being trapped in a seat beside, or even in, a smoking section, I have to consider which is the greater right-and I hope the committee will give a little thought to this-the freedom from smoke or the freedom to smoke. It seems to me that in modes of transportation the rights are irreconcilable because of the very nature of the beast.
I would say that if I were to give an opinion on this in the committee I think the freedom from smoke is a greater right. Therefore when I said a moment ago that the bill

November 28, 1975
Smoking Ban
does not go far enough what I have in mind is that I should like to see some experiment in which no smoking at all would be permitted. I have seen far too many examples of children becoming sick, and non-smokers and people with allergies being inconvenienced because they could not get into the non-smoking section of a plane since it is too small. Even having in mind what the minister just said about the non-smoking arrangements being enlarged, nonetheless they are too small.
I can assure you from bitter experience, Mr. Speaker, that very often the non-smoking section is filled up first. Even if one boarded the plane at a reasonable time one often ends up sitting in the smoking section. So I have some reservations about separate accommodation unless there is a physical separation involved. I doubt that this will happen, that is, that there will be consideration given to flights with no smoking permitted. This brings back the question of the greater right. There are some great questions at stake here. I hope the committee will give these serious consideration.
Finally, one of the things that will happen is that the public will become concerned about the effects of smoking as the committee begins its hearings. I believe some consideration should be given to the accommodation of patrons of a restaurant, people in theatre lobbies and, as the hon. member who just spoke mentioned, elevators. There is also the matter of smoking in hospitals. There are numerous cases in which members of the public are more or less forced to accommodate themselves to a given situation.
There is also the educational aspect of what we are discussing here. I think we must help more Canadians realize not only the dangers of smoking but also how the rights of non-smokers have been trampled on for far too long. It is about time we took some positive action in this regard.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I see we are running out of time and I would certainly not want to be accused of talking out this bill. However, I would simply want to add to what has been said, being
myself an addicted smoker-up to two or three packs of cigarettes a day-that I can now say that it is quite true that smoke-I will be older Sunday so I feel I must make a small confession today-is really damageable, that it is really unpleasant to go in public vehicles, by plane or train, and have to smell the smoke that people just blow in your face.
I share the opinion of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) about the efforts that his department is undertaking to carry out a greater education campaign to prove to people that it is really damageable to smoke. I share the reserves of my hon. friend and colleague from Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) when he says that the bill perhaps does not go far enough but I think it is a step in the right direction and I join all my hon. colleagues on this Friday afternoon to congratulate our colleague from Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) for having had the wisdom to introduce this legislation. I think we will agree to vote this bill this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Is the
House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Is it
agreed to call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, December 1, 1975