1975-05-07

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that a $4 million loan in addition to a $1 million subsidy have just been granted to Jamaica for a 30-year period at a 3 per cent rate,
Considering that our government contributes very generously to the development of other countries,
Considering that it is a very commendable action, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the government of Canada take the necessary steps to make such handsome loans available to Canadian municipalities, cities and provinces in order to lessen the tax burden and enable Canadian citizens to be treated on the same standing as foreign countries, thus contributing to reduce the effects of inflation and unemployment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent; therefore, the motion cannot be put.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 to seek leave of the House to propose a motion, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) as follows:
In view of the absolute necessity of preserving a high morale among career personnel of the Department of External Affairs and in view of the absolute necessity of maintaining the right of such persons to work towards promotion to the top positions in Canada's diplomatic service, the House requests the Secretary of State for External Affairs to confirm whether or not the government will not proceed in the very
near future with the appointment of a former Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Jean-Luc Pepin, as Canadian ambassador to Tokyo succeeding Ross Campbell, and the appointment of the Minister of Communications, Gerard Pelletier, as Canadian ambassador to Paris succeeding Leo Cadieux.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact the Canadian Transport Commission approved an application for an 11 per cent rate increase by CN-CP Telecommunications in 1974, and in view of the fact that CN-CP Telecommunications has announced a policy of one-man offices in Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie and North Bay while the quantity of business is increasing in these offices, and since this policy means the loss of two or three jobs per community, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan):
That this House instruct CN-CP Telecommunications to maintain present staff levels in all northern Ontario offices, reopen the office in Kapuskasing which was closed last month and institute a program designed to expand services in these areas.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The Minister

Oral Questions
of Transport (Mr. Marchand) in January or February promised in Halifax that he would soon be presenting a new transportation policy which he claimed would be an important instrument for regional economic development. We have waited patiently for the minister to present this new transportation policy. I move:
That we now get agreement that the minister table this policy no later than this month.
This motion is seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I would ask leave to present a motion of urgent necessity and of vital interest to the Canadian economy and to the already over-burdened taxpayers of Canada.
Pursuant to ominous warnings in today's media pointing out that CIDA conceals the full amount of its huge aid package to Cuba, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That all payments of the soft loan to Cuba be now terminated and no more money on such lax terms be granted that country.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister who I am sure will now agree that whatever stage the consensus discussions may have reached, at this time they have certainly reached a stage of utter confusion. Now that the government has received a response from the CLC-and I am not asking the Acting Prime

Minister to comment on what the attitude of the government may be in this regard because it has not had time to consider it-will the government disclose quite frankly to the Canadian people what proposals the government has put before the CLC and other groups concerning the consensus program.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance said yesterday the government has been in discussion with various groups in the community in an effort to arrive at some consensus concerning what kind of national action, participated in by all groups, would be appropriate. The papers that were circulated, one of which got into the press, were working papers. At this stage the government is not committed to any particular proposals.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, is the Acting Prime Minister now agreeing that the papers published on Monday called, "Proposals for the First Year of Consensus", and "Machinery for Administering a Voluntary Restraint Program", are in fact the working papers or proposals put before the CLC and other groups with whom the government is having discussions.


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Mr. Speaker, in the course of any discussion or consultation of this kind, which is extremely complicated, it is necessary from time to time to put down certain working papers for discussion purposes. I emphasize what the Minister of Finance said yesterday in the House. The government is not committed. These are working papers on which we are seeking to get some reaction and in respect of which we hope to have a continuation of the consultation and which I hope my hon. friend will agree with me, should be successful in the national interest.


Mr. Speaker:: A final supplementary by the Leader of the Opposition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister who is telling the truth, the Acting Prime Minister who today admits that the documents published Monday were in fact the documents sent out, or the working papers sent out, or the Minister of Finance who yesterday pretended that these must have been earlier working papers that were sent out.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there have been several working papers. I do not think there is any conflict between the two statements.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I express the hope that the government is dealing more honestly with the CLC in this connection than it is with the opposition.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I express the hope that the Leader of the Opposition agrees with us that it is desirable to reach a national consensus.
May 7, 1975


INFLATION-INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT MADE PROPOSALS TO PROVINCES CONCERNING APPROPRIATE INCREASE IN MONEY SUPPLY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Acting Minister of Finance. In the documentation sent out during the consensus discussions, would the Acting Minister of Finance indicate if there was any documentation supplied especially to the provinces concerning what the government felt would be a suitable increase in the money supply during the restraint period and if so what percentage increase does the government propose? Is it 4 per cent, 8 per cent or even higher?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Acting Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think this present line of questioning indicates the difficulty of achieving a consensus and conducting negotiations. If the government is to behave intelligently it must make proposals without thereby being bound by them. A variety of proposals have been made to a variety of groups. We are now in the process of getting the reaction of these groups and are trying to synthesize and to resolve the conflicting interests. I do not think it would be particularly helpful to deal in detail in the House at this juncture with the initial proposals made.


INFLATION-REASON FOR LARGE INCREASE IN MONEY SUPPLY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, since the Acting Minister of Finance does not appear to wish to deal with the future, and in view of the fact that the Wood Gundy, May, 1975, publication reviewing the economy states that our money increased by 33 per cent, annualized in the first quarter of this year, compared with 4 per cent in the United States, would the minister indicate why such a staggering increase in our money supply was felt justified in the first quarter of this year?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think that on a number of occasions the Minister of Finance has pointed out the hazards of endeavouring to project performance in a relatively short period to an annual or continuing basis.


INFLATION-INCREASE IN LABOUR COSTS-POSSIBILITY OF PROPOSALS TO BUSINESS AND LABOUR TO REVERSE TREND
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Considering that the Department of Finance review for 1974 notes that labour costs per unit of output are rising more rapidly in Canada than in the United States, did the government discuss the need to maintain Canada's competitive trade position in their consensus talks with business and labour and, if so, did the government offer any program to help reverse this undesirable trend in the nation?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Obviously one of the fundamental purposes of the exercise is to achieve just those objectives.
Oral Questions HOUSING


RENT INCREASES FOR SENIOR CITIZEN UNITS-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PREVENT
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Considering that the documents that were sent out to both organized labour and to provinces-which they received last week and which were the only written documents sent out in this exercise, and as far as the provinces and the organized labour movement are concerned it is their understanding these are the only written documents they will get from the government-contain no provisions for dealing with rent increases, would the minister say, in light of the announcement that CMHC will permit an increase in the rent for senior citizens in metro Toronto of between 21 and 59 per cent effective on August 1, whether he has any plans which he intends to implement to head off what could be a disastrous increase in rents for senior citizens in that area?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the rental increases to which the hon. member referred are under the limited dividend rental program. These are the only rents to be increased that I know of and they are carefully observed by the corporation to make certain that they reflect only actual increases in operating costs and nothing more. I believe it would be wrong to have one segment of the population paying less and others paying an undue amount more. We are trying to achieve equity in this situation for all Canadians, and these increases reflect actual increases in operating costs.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, just to ensure that I understand what the minister is saying, is he saying that it would be inequitable for the government to take steps specifically to keep down the housing costs of senior citizens, or is he saying that such a selective move would be unfair?


Barnett Jerome Danson: No, Mr. Speaker, we do it all the time through senior citizen housing, through section 44(1) of the National Housing Act under which we subsidize those people who need it and where high priority is given to senior citizens, and for those in low income groups this is also done in other ways. In this situation for limited dividend housing, if the rents did not reflect the real increase, no more apartments would be built. The fact is that we have more than double the number of calls for building new rental accommodations at low rates for Canadians as a result of those programs and of keeping the rents low, but allowing them to reflect an actual increase in costs.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT PLANS TO INCREASE NUMBER OF STARTS
John Edward Broadbent: Specifically on the issue of increasing the housing supply, the figures released just the other day show that there was a decline in starts for the last month of some 25 per cent compared with the same month a year ago, and we now have a cumulative decline in housing starts in 1975 for the first
5548

May 7, 1975
Oral Questions
four months of some 40 per cent compared with last year in urban areas. Could the minister inform the House at long last what he soon plans to do to increase the supply of housing in urban areas of Canada?


Barnett Jerome Danson: As the hon. member will acknowledge, the rate of starts is up from 138,000 to 185,000, an encouraging increase. That is not as far as we would like it to go, and if I am asked what I am going to do, the answer is plenty.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Transport.
Surely the minister is aware of the very serious problem situation which has existed at both Val d'Or and Rouyn airports ever since the withdrawal of the National Defence component. Air traffic at both these airports is so heavy that it has become a major source of danger for aviation in general. Could the minister advise the House today whether his department is taking the necessary steps to install navigational equipment so as to ensure safety as soon as possible both in Val d'Or and Rouyn?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think I already answered a somewhat similar question last week. Following the removal of the radar station at the military airport, we have sent investigators in the field-they are probably still there-to study the issue of air traffic. If they should report the least possible danger, as suggested by the hon. member, we shall see to it that navigational equipment is in operation to prevent any possible accidents at both these airports.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.
Could the minister advise the House whether these people are now carrying out their investigation in Val d'Or and Rouyn at the same time?


Jean Marchand: I think so, Mr. Speaker, but I would rather find out first before saying "yes".


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Solicitor General a question, but I will wait until he gets to his seat.
Many statements have been made since the leader of the Social Credit party asked the minister questions yesterday. Violent crimes are on the increase in Canada, and the minister is blamed for many things, including the housing

situation in Canada, where starts are down 25 per cent. Is the purpose of the extension date of the penalty in reference to capital murder to bring in new legislation to ban capital punishment, or is it to bundle all capital murder convictions-and there may be seven or eight-together and have one political smell at one time?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What then is the purpose of the
extension?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it was impossible to deal properly and fully with the question of Mr. Vaillancourt before May 15, the day set for execution. The case was quite complex, and there were implications which went beyond that one particular case. We wanted to consider it in depth.


SUGGESTION SOLICITOR GENERAL POSSIBLY MISLED HOUSE WHEN INTRODUCING LEGISLATION ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Could the minister advise the House if his attitude and philosophy at the time he produced the legislation banning the death penalty for capital murder was the same as the philosophy and attitude he exercises now where he says he will not under any condition agree to having the penalty for capital murder carried out at this time? Does he feel under those circumstances, particularly with his colleagues from the province of Quebec and other provinces, that he misled the House?


William Warren Allmand: With the information I now have I am completely opposed to capital punishment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: However, as a Liberal I believe in reasonable discussion with people who hold other views and I will continue to do so. If they put forward other arguments I will take those under consideration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in light of the answer the Solicitor General has given and with reference to his change of attitude, does he then agree that he should support the 30 per cent of the people and object to the 70 per cent and is he prepared to listen to that 70 per cent or is he only prepared to listen to the 30 per cent?


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Can the minister clarify the statements
May 7, 1975

Oral Questions NATIONAL PARKS
made by this special assistant about the firing of the Toronto Harbourfront chief, Mr. Miskiman, as a result of the unsuccessful attempt to date to develop the 1972 Liberal election campaign promise, which was one of many? Can the minister also tell the House what steps are being taken by his department to bring some semblance of order to the chaotic situation which now exists surrounding this election "goodie"-some goodie it was, too.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, there is no chaos. It is only in the mind of one journalist who seemed to have the situation totally confused. Mr. Miskiman is still there and I hope he will continue to be. He is a very able person from the executive exchange program. He is running the show and doing an excellent job and we are behind him 100 per cent. I will meet with the mayor of Toronto on Friday following the regular weekly meeting with the intergovernmental steering committee which meets regularly. There is complete co-operation and understanding between the city, Metro, the province and ourselves and we are producing what will be an excellent program of excellent planning for this park which will be for all time.


Otto John Jelinek: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious there exists a lack of communication within the minister's department. Can the minister explain why the $30 million original estimate for the park has skyrocketed to some $100 million with very little to show for it? I have personally inspected the site, as have many others. Can the minister assure the House that closer consultation will take place with Toronto city officials who have objected that there has not been enough consultation with them in the past?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, the elected representatives have not made that objection to me, that there has not been sufficient consultation. Certainly, consultation has been continuing and positive between those people and myself. As I mentioned, I will be meeting with the mayor, to whom I spoke twice in the last couple of weeks, on this subject. There is continuing dialogue and we want to see continued co-operation. As far as the cost of the land is concerned, that is within the province of my colleague, the Minister of Public Works. This is perhaps one of the most valuable sites in Canada and I understand expropriation is proceeding.


Otto John Jelinek: A final short supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise the House why it is taking so long to have any obvious development on the waterfront park when it was promised that the date of completion would be earlier?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that this is probably one of the most valuable sites in Canada and that is why we are taking time in the preparation and planning so that the people of Toronto will have a park that is for all time. It should be developed well and I think we should show a considerable amount of forethought. In the meantime, activity is taking place. Over half a million people visited the site last year and that is a lot of people, even for Toronto.


FUNDY NATIONAL PARK-REQUEST FROM ALBERT COUNTY TOURIST ASSOCIATION TO DISCUSS ENTRANCE FEE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I tried to widen the perspective from Hamilton to the Bay of Fundy and today I find that Toronto is occupying a good deal of the time of the House, as usual. I have a very important question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has the minister responded to an urgent request from the Albert County Tourist Association in New Brunswick to visit Fundy National Park and the adjoining village of Alma to discuss the hardship anticipated by the new fee schedule?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, some representatives from the Albert County Tourist Association met me when I was in Cape Breton a couple of weeks ago and indicated their concern. I told them that we would watch the situation closely, and if it had an adverse effect would be prepared to see what modifications we could make. Our experience in other areas has been that where similar fees have been imposed, tourism has continued to go up rather than to decrease.


ENTRANCE FEES-POSTPONEMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR ONE YEAR IN PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Now that the minister has been to Prince Edward Island and held discussions with the premier and government of that province, has he changed his mind and given the right answer to their representations on this matter, which were very, very correct?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, because of the particular situation in Prince Edward Island we agreed to defer the fee there for one year. However, we pointed out to the people of the area that the fee is to apply to vehicles, not individuals. We are looking at the possibility of building parking sites in several areas so that there will be access by foot to the beach.


HOUSING
Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Has he asked or will he ask Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to review proposed rent increases in limited dividend apartment buildings and consider tying those increases to income?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, we are reviewing this on a regular
29561 - 8V2

May 7, 1975
Oral Questions
basis but I will have the corporation look at any increases that seem out of line. There is provision for those who are tied to income under our rental supplement program and other programs. The limited dividend provision works a little differently, but I accept the hon. member's representation and will check any specific ones which seem to be out of line.


John Edward Broadbent: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for V ancouver-Kingsway.


INCREASED RENT FOR SENIOR CITIZENS UNITS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA-REQUEST MINISTER INTERVENE TO REDUCE
Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question which is supplementary to that of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby to the minister responsible for housing and urban affairs. As the people's government of British Columbia froze all rent increases in the private sector to 10 per cent but raised the price of federally funded low cost housing for the aged by about 45 per cent, will the minister intervene and give the aged of British Columbia the same break as others are getting under federal housing programs, where increases and set at about 6 per cent?


John Edward Broadbent: They have the best deal in Canada, and you know it.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, sometimes it would seem more appropriate for some members of the House to ask their colleagues in the provinces the questions they ask me. These rents, of course, are entered into on the basis of agreements with the provinces. The provinces have jurisdiction in the specific area. We share those rent supplements, but if the province wants to do it another way there is little we can do about it except discuss it with them, which we shall do.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby on a point of order.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my point of order pertains to an earlier question and answer.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Remember the new rules!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have lots of time. My point of order refers to an answer made by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs to the hon. member for Parkdale. If I understood the minister correctly, he said something contrary to what he had said to me earlier. I asked the minister about rents for senior citizens and he at that time said-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. member would be good enough to raise his point at three o'clock.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce? As a former employee at Microsystems recently purchased at an incredibly low price equipment from Microsystem analytical chemistry laboratory, would the minister assure the House that this equipment was not part of the equipment which belonged to the government by reason of loans to that company which are still outstanding?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to make inquiries and reassure the hon. member on that point. I think I should take the opportunity of drawing his attention to a letter from the president of Microsystems to his leader, which was made public today and which should set at rest some of his concerns and concerns of his leader with respect to so-called missing equipment.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, if I must choose between the word of the president of Bell and the word of my leader, I will take my leader's word.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


MICROSYSTEMS-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE WHEN EQUIPMENT SOLD IT WILL REMAIN IN CANADA
Max Saltsman: May I ask
the minister this supplementary question: As several microelectronic firms have expressed interest in buying the processing equipment which this government helped Microsystems to acquire, and as these companies intend to use this equipment to employ people in Canada, will the minister assure the House that he will make it a condition of sale that the machinery is to be kept in Canada and that whoever buys it will use it for the manufacture of semiconductors?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly raise that question with the officials. Indeed, we have already done so. I should make it clear to the hon. member that the loans made to that company were secured by this equipment. If those loans are fully repaid, that equipment will belong to the company, and in law they have the right to use that equipment or dispose of it as they see fit. Notwithstanding that, I assure the hon. member we will do everything we can to make sure the equipment is used for Canadian industry in Canada.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. On April 29,
May 7, 1975

in responding to my question, the minister indicated he would conduct an investigation into circumstances surrounding the theft of grenades in Chilliwack. Can the minister now say what were the results of the investigation?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, a few days afterwards I met with Mr. Bandeen, president of the CNR, and asked him how this incident had happened. He was to inquire into the system they were using for the transportation of explosives or grenades. Now, they are looking for a better way, because it is not necessary to have-

May I be allowed to say it in French, Mr. Speaker: to have the whole grenade, or the fuse and the grenade, and to transfer them together. In other words, any of the two parts, either the grenade without the fuse or the other part, that is the fuse, could be moved separately in safer conditions.

CN is now trying to find out what happened in British Columbia.


GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ENCOURAGE HIGHER PROPORTION OF FABRICATED PRODUCTS FOR EXPORT
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As figures published by the Department of Science and Technology indicate that the trade deficit in high technology products approached $7 billion in 1974, can the minister explain what progress has been made to date and what action is planned toward the goal of encouraging a higher proportion of fabricated products in total Canadian exports?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, this has been done by a variety of programs, through PAIT grants, through research and development grants, through DIP grants, by measures to assist those entrepreneurs in Canada who want to develop and specialize in new technology products, and through other measures such as the negotiated undertakings under the Foreign Investment Review Act.


WHEAT-SUGGESTED EXTENSION OF DELIVERY QUOTA DATE
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the Wheat Board's announcement that quotas on red spring and Durum will be closed effective May 16, and as road bans will stop many producers delivering before that date, would the minister inform the House if he intends to ask the Wheat Board to extend delivery quotas beyond May 16?
Oral Questions


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions with the Wheat Board about this problem, relaying to them many requests from farmers which I received while I was in meetings in the prairie provinces a week ago and since. The board has confirmed its usual position that it will try to be as reasonable as possible. It will consider the appropriate steps to take to ensure that all farmers who do not otherwise have reasonable opportunity to deliver will in fact have that opportunity before their quotas terminate.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. All across this strike-ridden country people are asking why it is that when the Supreme Court of Parliament spoke and gave its direction to the longshoremen on the St. Lawrence that they must go back to work that no prosecutions for this flagrant contempt of parliament have taken place. What is the reason for that?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the right hon. gentleman's analysis of the situation. Having said that, I would tell him that everything is being done-


John George Diefenbaker: What?


John Carr Munro: Let me just tell you what is being done. The matter is coming before the courts in Montreal tomorrow with respect to the application for an order under the act of parliament. That is as soon as the Justice officials can get a hearing before the judge. I believe the right hon. member will agree there is no question that we must pursue the legal sanctions of the act of parliament and that is what we are doing. The unions have a right before the courts of this land to contest the legislation if they desire. They will have this opportunity tomorrow.
While that course of conduct is being followed, I would advise the right hon. gentleman that investigations are taking place with regard to accumulating evidence necessary to lay charges under the Labour Code and possibly the Criminal Code. I hope to be able to report, not only to the right hon. member, but to parliament that charges will be laid against certain individuals in the near future.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the minister any assurance that these lawbreakers will obey the direction of a court of law while at the same time contemptuously treating parliament? Has he any such assurance? Also, why has it taken ten days or more to investigate wrongdoing that is so apparent even a blind man could gather together the necessary evidence to prosecute these people?


John Carr Munro: To start with, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member should reassess the number of

May 7, 1975
Oral Questions
days that have elapsed. The employer is not overburdened with work, particularly in the port of Montreal where most of the longshoremen are hired, and did not call the workers into work until several days after the law had passed.


Mr. Fairweather:: Ships were being diverted.


John Carr Munro: That is right. As a result of the delay in asking the men to come to work, there could be no evidence to gather as to the refusal to work. That is most definitely an element in the situation. On the other point, I am satisfied, and I hope I can convince the right hon. member of this, that the Justice officials are doing everything they possibly can to get the necessary evidence and the court time to hear it.


John George Diefenbaker: As a lawyer, does the minister not realize the fact that these people have not obeyed the order is sufficient to take proceedings without any further investigation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


SOCIAL SECURITY
[Stage Direction]
objected to arguments brought forward by the NDP and the Creditistes, when they wanted old age security pensions increased and not let us do anything for those under 65 who were in need.
* *
*

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister now say when he expects to receive the report of Dr. Noel Hall, the commissioner appointed to examine all aspects of railway pensions?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have been advised by Dr. Noel Hall that he is having hearings all across the country. This is taking time. We want him to do a thorough job. He is inviting briefs from everyone who is interested. The latest report I have is that the exercise he is now going through will be completed relatively soon and we might expect the final report around mid-July.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare concerning the difficulties experienced by senior citizens under 65 who must rely on welfare benefits.
For example, in the province of Quebec, two people under 65 are allowed approximately $250, whereas at 65, they will receive at least $400 if they have no other income. In the discussions which have been held with the provincial ministers of social affairs could the minister say whether the possibility of raising welfare benefits was considered, at least up to the amount of the old age security pension?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, that question was not considered as such, but I had already suggested in February and at the last conference, that a guaranteed income program for those unable to find work, should be implemented as soon as possible, even as soon as 1976. As my hon. colleague knows, certain provinces, especially the representatives of the province he is from, objected to our proceeding too fast in that field.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
The minister says that this question has not been raised, but would he tell us whether he feels this is a normal situation when, for instance, a couple aged 64 who receive benefits in the amount of $250 will receive $400 next year when their needs will be the same.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter about which I made many speeches in this House, specially when I


SUGGESTION COMPANY INDEX PENSIONS WITHOUT WAITING FOR HALL REPORT
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that Canadian National Railways escalated the pensions of its retired employees for three or four years but has not yet indexed them in 1975, will the minister make representations to the CNR to do this for 1975 without delay and without waiting for the Hall report?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, that is a very appropriate question. I have already discussed this problem with the Minister of Labour. I will discuss it with the authorities of CNR so that the employees will not be frustrated as they have been for many months.


SUGGESTION CANADA NOT EXPORT URANIUM OR THE CANDU TO COUNTRIES NOT SIGNING NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Given the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said that Canada is one of the strongest supporters and advocates of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, can the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that Canada will not under any circumstances export any uranium or nuclear related
May 7, 1975

products to any country that is not a signatory to that agreement?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I can give that undertaking. However, we certainly will not ship any technology or uranium to any country that does not observe the safeguards that we consider necessary.


James McPhail Gillies: Can the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that if Canada engages in any deals to sell the CANDU to any country that is not a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty that we will insist on on-site inspections by approved Canadian inspectors to make sure that the tragedy that happened in relation to our dealings with India does not happen again?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that the arrangement that was made which led to the Indians using our reactor in a so-called peaceful nuclear explosion occurred before there were any international safeguards in place. Since that time, however, we have always insisted that India observe international safeguards. That has been our position and it continues to be so. I am not absolutely sure that we can enforce a rule about nuclear proliferation treaty signature or ratification, but certainly we will insist on there being adequate safeguards either in that form, or in the form of the international safeguards with international inspectors or Canadian inspectors.


CANDU REACTOR-POSITION OF INDIA ON ACCEPTANCE OF SAFEGUARDS AND INSPECTION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Could the Acting Prime Minister indicate whether India has presently accepted the International Atomic Energy Agency's safeguard of on site inspection, and would the minister confirm whether or not India has the right to inspect Canadian installations on Canadian soil if, for example, Canada wants to send spent fuel cells to a country that has adopted the IAEA regulations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, that is a very complicated question for the question period. I would remind the hon. member that when we entered into our agreement with India, which antedated the international system that was later established, we had a system of mutual inspection in which India had certain rights as well as Canada. I am sorry I cannot answer the question specifically. I will have to take it as notice and I will undertake that either I or the Secretary of State for External Affairs will provide an answer.
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


VIET NAM-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON GOVERNMENT ACTION TO SECURE RELEASE OF CANADIAN MISSIONARIES
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the commitments given the government that non-combatant, non-political civilians would not be held captive in Viet Nam by the communist occupation forces and that any Canadians detained would be released as soon as they were identified as citizens of this country, would the minister advise whether there is any progress to report regarding efforts to secure the release of seven missionaries held in a prisoner of war camp at Dak To, including a five year old girl and two Canadians from Hamilton, Ontario?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. gentleman I have been receiving many letters on this subject, particularly from residents of Hamilton. I can assure the hon. member that we will do everything possible to secure their release.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that this is not a new issue but one with which the minister has been involved for at least a couple of weeks, perhaps several weeks now, would the minister advise what substantive efforts, if any, the government has taken to secure the release of these people who are being held captive in direct violation of the Paris peace agreement?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought the Paris peace agreement, which was between the various parties involved in the Viet Nam war, has now been superseded by events. I think we shall have to depend upon other means to secure their release. I would hope that in the near future we will have established relationships which will enable us to make direct representations, and I hope we will have the hon. member's support if we do establish those relationships.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Transport. On April 30 I raised the question of possible danger to the air travelling public as a result of other than the English language being used in air to ground communications in Quebec. My question at that time was based on the fact that the Ministry of Transport has itself investigated and reported on two recent Canadian aircraft accidents in which English French language usage and confusion were contributing factors. The minister promised to meet with members of the Canada Air Line Pilots Association. My question today is: Can the minister now inform the House of the results of that meeting, and is he now in a position to reverse government policy on this matter regarding the safety of Canadians?

May 7, 1975
Oral Questions


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we did not have one meeting but we had several meetings on that question. The officials in charge of the department met not only with the CALPA group but will also meet with the national organization early next week, I think, in order to receive their representations and to try to define a policy that will ensure there is no risk for those who are travelling as a result of the use of two languages.


THE ARTS
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State and concerns the desperate state of the Canadian feature film industry. Is the minister prepared, either directly or through the provincial governments, to offer concrete support to the industry in the form of quotas, levies and/or distribution controls?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, officials of my department have now completed or have almost completed a series of meetings with the provinces on the matter of quotas and levies. There have been meetings with nine provinces; we are meeting with the tenth on Friday of this week. The legislative jurisdiction in this field is clearly provincial. I am simply making representations to the provinces on behalf of the industry in regard to both the question of quotas and levies.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State who is responsible for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. My question arises by virtue of representations received from the Saskatchewan division of the Canadian Cancer Society relating to the proposed reshowing on CBC of the program "Encounter with Cancer". In view of the fact that the Canadian Cancer Society had some serious misgivings with respect to the promotion on that program of a wonder cure drug for cancer, laetrile, would the minister be prepared to have the CBC reconsider, or would he ask them to reconsider, their proposal to reshow this particular documentary?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I have received representations from many private organizations and from members on both sides of this House. I have also had representations from the Minister of National Health and Welfare which support the position taken by the hon. member. These representations have been made to the CBC on behalf of those who have made them, and I am now awaiting a reply.


HOUSING
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs responsible for housing. Earlier the minister seemed to indicate his satisfaction with the present rate of housing starts. Is the minister aware that total starts for the first four months of 1975 are more that 40 per cent below those for the same period last year; and is he yet prepared to announce any new measures that would accelerate this retarded growth rate?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, but I do not know what the word "retarded" refers to. I said quite clearly that I was deeply disturbed and I was going to do plenty about it. I cannot make an announcement now but I will at the appropriate time.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The "retarded" refers to starts being 40 per cent below this time last year. Given the critical need in the housing sector, would the minister say when these new measures will be implemented, or are we to expect that they, too, will be implemented on a stage by stage basis?


Barnett Jerome Danson: No, Mr. Speaker; they will be as soon as it is possible to do so. I have spoken with the housing ministers of all the provinces in the last few days, and I am hoping to speak to another minister today. Another is away in Europe. There has been close consultation throughout. They are aware of the urgency, the government is aware of the urgency, and we are proceeding with all haste.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order, to which I referred earlier, concerns an answer given by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson). I know Your Honour is not concerned with the quality of answers given in the House; if I may say so, that would be entirely inappropriate. But there is some concern that the minister not misinform the House, and I should like the situation clarified.
When I asked the minister about the increase in rents for senior citizens in Toronto from 21 per cent to 59 per cent, the minister told me that the matter was proceeding and that they were going to pay this increase. In fact, he went further and said that the government did that all the time. Then when the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) asked the question about the possibility of having rents geared to the income of these people, if I understood him correctly the minister said the government would consider that possibility.
My point of order is that those answers, if I understood them correctly, are contradictory. Either they are going to pass on the increase, as the minister said to me, or they are going to consider making the increase dependent on income level. I should like the minister to clarify the situation.
May 7, 1975


Barnett Jerome Danson: I acknowledge the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe the hon. member has misunderstood me. Since he has, I would expect him to be concerned-as he always is, anyway. There were two different questions, as I understood them. We were dealing precisely with limited dividend section 15(1) rental accommodation, where rents are allowed to reflect the actual increase in cost. If I understood the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) correctly and they were not properly reflected, those increases would be looked into.
In so far as senior citizens' accommodation, per se, is concerned, we have other and special arrangements there. Even in respect of limited dividend accommodation-I must say this is further than I went in the previous answer-and the new call for $200 million, which produced some $540 million in responses, we require that the entrepreneur allows at least 25 per cent of those units for low-cost housing, much of which is senior citizens' low-cost housing where there is aid for other forms of housing as well.


Mr. Speaker:: I express my gratitude to both hon. members for clarifying that very difficult point.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order or a question of privilege. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whit-by (Mr. Broadbent) has just raised a question about the quality of answers; I in turn should like to raise one about the quality of questions. Yesterday the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) asked a question about nurses in Yukon. In his question, at page 5505 of Hansard, he said:
By way of enlightenment for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, even the designated nurses in the Yukon are on strike.
I certainly would not want to believe or to lead anyone to believe that the hon. member would have wilfully misled the House. I have carefully checked this matter and think, for the sake of the reputation of the nurses who are working for the federal government and doing an outstanding job, I should point out to the House that there is no evidence at all that designated nurses in the Yukon have not obeyed the law. They are respecting the law as it exists- No designated nurses are on strike in the Yukon.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, as one who is just as concerned as the minister with the reputation of Yukon nurses, let me say at once that I am prepared to accept the results of his investigations and concede that my information may have been inaccurate.
Privilege-Mr. McKenzie MR. McKENZIE-CIDA FINANCIAL AID TO CUBA


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is directed to the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp) and is in respect of a front page story in today's Ottawa Journal under the headline, "CIDA conceals full amount of huge aid package to Cuba". The article in part states:
Top Canadian International Development Agency management has agreed to keep $11 million earmarked for Cuba hidden to avoid conflict with other government departments, the Journal has learned.
I raised this matter last Friday in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. I asked the president of CIDA, Mr. Gerin-Lajoie, to tell me the exact amount of aid to Cuba and he said; I quote from the evidence of that committee hearing at page 19:19:
That is the past, and for the future as from the present year and the coming three years, the answer is $10 million if the form of a loan and about $3 million in the form of grants.
In the minutes of the president's committee that was held at Montebello on December 2 to December 5, we find at page 6 the following:
After involved discussion of the Cuban program it was agreed that as a tactic in presenting the reviews interdepartmentally reference to a $23.5 million program would be changed to a $12.5 million program.
They were not going to publicly announce the full amount of the loan because of the outcry and apparently some difference of opinion between the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen). The minutes went on to state:
It was felt that interdepartmental-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am having difficulty grasping the nature of the hon. member's question of privilege.


A. Daniel McKenzie: The question of privilege is that the Journal has already obtained the minutes of these meetings which state that the actual loan is $23.5 million, and they are not going to announce the full amount but conceal $11 million. This is taxpayers' money, and this is a Crown corporation. There is no way this development agency should deliver $23.5 million to Cuba and publicly state it is only $12 million. In addition, in other minutes of their meetings-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think, in fairness, the hon. member may have a very valid point of concern or of debate, but surely this is a question which he ought to put before the standing committee or during consideration of the estimates. The fact of the matter is that the hon. member must surely realize that while this is a valid point of concern for discussion, it cannot be considered a valid question of privilege in any sense of the language.


A. Daniel McKenzie: In view of the conflicting statements in those minutes and in the newspaper, and the conflicting statement to the external affairs committee last Friday, I would ask the Acting Prime Minister to conduct an independent inquiry into these allegations to find out whether this loan to Cuba is $23.5 million or $12 million. We are entitled to a correct answer as to the amount. That is my question of privilege.

May 7, 1975
Order Paper Questions


Mitchell William Sharp: Like yourself, Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the question of privilege is. If the hon. gentleman or one of the spokesmen for his party decides that they would like to have the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) before this House on one of the allotted days when these questions could be put, then his curiosity could be satisfied.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 535, 1,536 (Supplementary), 1,806, 1,863, 1,995, 2,110, 2,112, 2,150, 2,159, 2,223, 2,224, 2,244, 2,275, 2,294, 2,348 and 2,359.
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 2,284?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Broadbent: What were the total amounts received by Canadair Ltd. and De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd. in (a) TIP grants (b) DREE grants (c) IRAP grants (d) PAIT grants (e) ESP grants (f) DIR grants (g) DIP grants (h) IRDIA grants for the fiscal years (i) 1965-66 to 1969-70 (ii) 1970-71 to 1974-75?


Mitchell William Sharp: 
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,536-Mr. Broadbent: (Supplementary)
How many Air Canada employees at the senior management level (a) took early retirement (b) were dismissed during each year 19701971 to 1973-1974?
Jean Marchand: The
management	of	Air	Canada	advises	as follows:	The
number of 22 for 1973 was given in error. Following is a corrected reply.
Early Retirements
1970	5
1971	7
1972	5
1973	6
1974	2
Total	25	Early Retirements
Dismissals 0


Mr. Huntington: Since 1945 and by year, how much money does the government receive as rental fees for the use of the oil pipeline running through the Yukon and British Columbia to Haines seaport from Fairbanks?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: None. It should also be noted that the Haines-Fairbanks Pipeline Agreement consists of an exchange of notes between the government of Canada and the government of the United States, dated June 30, 1953. It was mutually agreed at that time that the pipeline be built for common defence needs and that the USA would be granted without charge an easement for the pipeline for the duration of the agreement. The pipeline is no longer in operation.


Mr. Jones: 1.	With reference to the implementation of the metric system, what consideration was given to housewives?
2.	What discussions, if any, were held with housewives to assist them in cooking problems, particularly in view of the fact that all recipe books, to date, are not based on the metric system?
3.	Does the government propose to have all recipes for good food rewritten under its auspices and, if so, will it underwrite the cost?
4.	What is the total cost for implementation of the metric system for both the public and private sector?
5.	What other nations in the North American continent are implementing the metric system?

May 7, 1975

6.	What inconveniences will result to the average householder and housewife, landowner, the municipal government, manufacturers, consumers, etc.?
7.	What input has there been by the citizens of Canada to implement the metric system?
8.	What group, if any, requested the change to the metric system at this time when our economy is so strained?
9.	Does any particular group stand to benefit financially by the implementation of the metric system and, if so, which one?
10.	(a) Who is responsible for the educational system to convert to the metric system (b) what action has been taken in this regard and in what way (c) in what locations has such action been taken (d) at what cost?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. Some of the ways in which housewives are represented in the committee structure of the Metric Commission are through the Consumers' Association of Canada, the Canadian Home Economics Association and the Canadian Dietetic Association. These association members of Sector Committee 9.5 participate in the investigation, planning, scheduling and implementation of metric conversion in their own specific and related sectors. They also assist in informing and educating the general public, and in particular, housewives.
2.	As representatives of housewives and consumers, the Canadian Home Economics Association and the Consumers' Association of Canada have participated in the development of the metric standards for kitchen measures on which new recipes are now being based. They also contribute to the preparation of information and in the defining of guidelines for housewives as metric conversion is being implemented.
3.	Canadian housewives have traditionally measured their cooking ingredients by volume, and Sector Committee 9.5 of the Metric Commission has recommended a metric standard of 250 ml to replace the 237 ml(8 U.S. fluid ounce) measuring cup used throughout Canada. This is an increase in the size of the measure of only 5 percent and in most cases will allow either old or new recipes to be used interchangeably. So long as housewives keep their present measuring equipment, they can continue to use existing recipes and it is anticipated dual reading equipment will be available in the future.
4.	Since metric conversion, well under way in some sectors, will proceed over a number of years, in others, in ways to be determined by the needs and opportunities in different sectors of the economy, the cost of conversion is, by that fact, undeterminable at this time. Its magnitude will depend on the pace and the phasing of conversion adopted within and without the respective sectors.
5.	In the United States, Congressional Committee hearings scheduled for April 29 and 30 and May 1, 6, 7 and 8, will deal with the passage of metric conversion legislation in the United States Congress. Industry, coordinated by the American National Metric Council, has for about two years been proceeding with metric conversion. Many multi-national corporations in the United States are converting. An amendment to the United States Education Act has been passed by Congress to promote the use of the metric system in educational agencies and institutions. Mexico has used the metric system since 1862.
Order Paper Questions
6.	Experience abroad, particularly in South Africa, New Zealand and Australia, indicates that a well planned, speedy metric conversion supported by timely amendments to legislation will create an environment conducive to a minimum on inconvenience to the general public and economic sectors.
7.	In the White Paper on Metric Conversion in Canada of January 1970, representative national organizations put their views on metric matters before the Government and suggested courses of action ranging from initiation of studies to immediate adoption. Subsequently, all the national representative organizations were requested to respond to a survey prepared by the Metric Commission. These organizations participate directly in the planning, scheduling and implementation of metric conversion in Canada through the committee structure of the Metric Commission.
8.	The White Paper on Metric Conversion of 1970, setting out the policy of the Government and the background for its decision, was placed before Parliament and received unanimous endorsement. The program of guideline dates for metric conversion has the unanimous support of all provinces and of all sectors of the Canadian economy represented on the Steering Committees of the Metric Commission. The adoption of a resolution, approving the program of guideline dates, was introduced by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, on March 17, 1975.
9.	Canada wants to make the change in a manner that will produce the greatest net benefit to the Canadian economy.
10.	(a) The governments of provinces are responsible for metric conversion in the educational system, (b) At a meeting on March 20, 1974, an agreed method of liaison was established between the Metric Commission and the Provincial Departments of Education through the Council of Ministers of Education. Associations related to elementary and secondary, post-secondary non-university, and university and college education are all represented on sector committees within the committee structure of the Metric Commission. The representative committee members of the respective groups and the provincial governments carry out investigation, planning and scheduling towards metric conversion in the educational system. The actual implementation phase is being carried out as described in (a) above, (c) Each provincial government has jurisdiction over its own education conversion plans, and the locations where action is being taken, (d) Not available.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	How many steps in the tendering process are designed for contracts under the $10,000 figure?
2.	How many steps are necessary for amounts over this figure before a contract is proven successful or unsuccessful?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1 and 2. Regardless of value, the following steps apply: (a) Establish list of eligible sources of supply; (b) Bid solicitation (competition or single source); (c) Receipt

May 7, 1975
Order Paper Questions
and opening of bids; (d) Bid evaluation; (e) Contractor selection.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What was the percentage of the population working on farms in or near the years 1945, 1955, 1965, 1970,1971, 1972 and 1973?
2.	What was the approximate number of farm families or family-owned farms for the same years?


Gaston Clermont: Statistics Canada reports that: 1. Agricultural labour force as a percentage of total population. Note: The data given is for Census year.
Number in	Total	Per cent of Total Population inAgricultural	Population	AgriculturalYear	Labour Force	(Estimated)	Labour Force1973	467,000	22,496,000	2.11972	481,000	22,095,000	2.21971	510,000	21,724,000	2.41970	511,000	21,569,000	2.41965	594,000	20,015,000	3.01955	819,000	16,081,000	5.11946	1,186,000	12,551,000	9.52.	Farms have not been classified as to whether they are family-owned in the Census of Canada. However, in the 1971 Census of Agriculture 336,175 census farms of a total of 366,128 were classified as being operated privately by an individual. The number of rural farm families (families residing on a rural farm as defined and tabulated in the Census) was as follows:
Rural Farm Families
Year	Number
1973	not available
1972	not available
1971	305,155
1966	399,886
1961	428,808
1956	548,696
1951	601,622
1946	not available


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	How many persons were refused unemployment insurance allocations (a) for lack of documentary evidence attesting that they tried to find work (b) because they had not tried to find work (c) because they had not made enough applications?
2.	How many applications must a claimant make for a period of unemployment of (a) one month (b) three months (c) six months?
3.	Does UIC provide applicants with weekly reports on the number and types of vacant positions in their area and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. During 1974, 93,133 claimants were denied some unemployment benefits with respect to periods during which they failed to prove that they had made reasonable and customary efforts to obtain employment. The Commission does not maintain statistics permitting identification of claimants subject to disentitlement for reasons listed as a, b or c.
2.	The number of applications considered a reasonable and customary effort to obtain employment depends on the state of the labour market in the claimant's area. Therefore, the answers to a, b and c would vary depending on the extent to which opportunities of employment were available to the claimant. Generally speaking, the Commission expects claimants to widen their search for employment as their period of unemployment lengthens provided there are job opportunities.
3.	UIC does not provide applicants with weekly reports on the number and type of vacant positions in the area since this type of service is the responsibility of the Canada Manpower Centres. However, the Commission does maintain general statistics on the labour market by occupation and advises claimants when suitable employment opportunities exist in the area in order that they may carry out a job search appropriate to their situation.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Has CBC found it impossible to find or allocate prime time for the showing of the film of the 1974 Canada-Russia series "Hockey vs Xokken" and, if so, was the difficulty connected to the need for or the lack of a sponsor?
2.	Is a sponsor essential for such a showing on prime time?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. A very high proportion of the prime time schedule of the CBC television network is devoted to NHL hockey play-offs and finals in the spring season. As for the summer schedule, the CBC believes such a production would have a larger audience in the autumn months. The price being asked at present for the film is such that a sponsor would be necessary to meet that price.
2.	If a sponsor was not available the CBC would still be interested in purchasing the film but the price would have to be lower. The Corporation is, however, very hopeful that negotiations can be concluded successfully.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): In 1974, what amounts were paid in benefits by each UIC district and regional office in the Province of Quebec?


Robert Knight Andras: Alma	$ 20.7 Million
Baie Comeau	20.5 "
Chandler	22.1 "
Chicoutimi	21.6 "
Drummondville	15.3 "
May 7, 1975

Hull	24.4	"Laval	15.3	"Levis	39.5	"Longueuil	55.2	"Montreal Centre North	25.4	"Montreal Centre South	25.3	"Montreal East	37.5	"Montreal North	39.4	"Montreal Northeast	25.1	"Montreal West	36.5	"Quebec East	36.9	"Quebec West	27.5	"Rimouski	28.4	"Riviere-du-Loup	15.0	"Rouyn	21.1	"St. Jerome	44.6	"Sherbrooke	34.6	"Trois-Rivieres	40.0	Total Region	$671.9	"
The above figures represent the net total of benefits after the deduction of income tax.


Mr. Korchinski: With reference to the CBC series "Performance" (a) which programmes are mentioned as most objectionable (b) what are the reasons for the objections?


James Hugh Faulkner: (a)
Of the plays in the Performance drama series which had been shown as of the date of the question, the ones receiving the most unfavourable mail and telephone response were "Baptizing" by Alice Munro and "Ten Lost Years" by Barry Broadfoot. (b) The reasons given for objecting to these plays included the following: sexual references, profanity, not entertaining, unsuitable for family viewing, not up-lifting, treatment of social conditions and issues too realistic, inaccurate depiction of history, unfair to religious group.


Mr. Korchinski: 1.	How many letters has CBC received protesting presentation of the series "Performance" as indecent?
2.	Does CBC acknowledge receipt of such letters and, if so, is each letter dealt with on an individual basis or is an acknowledgement provided by way of a form letter?
3.	Are letters of protest addressed to the President of CBC dealt with in a different manner than those addressed to the Corporation and, if so, in what way?
4.	(a) Do responses to letters receive the personal attention of the President (b) are they turned over to another authority within CBC and, if so, what is the name and position of the individual?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Not all CBC locations maintain mail records in a way which would enable a comprehensive count to be made. However, there have been about 1,040 unfavourable letters regarding Performance in those locations where the count is available. This figure includes comments about all
Order Paper Questions
aspects of the plays, since it is impossible to sort out those which complained that the plays were indecent. See the answer to part (b) of question 2,223 for reasons given for complaint.
2.	The CBC receives a great deal of mail at its various locations and endeavours to answer each letter individually. On occasion there are more letters about a specific program or subject than can be handled within a reasonable length of time by staff already engaged in handling the regular mail load. At these times a form letter giving the CBC's position on the most often repeated points can be sent with the minimum delay.
3.	Letters addressed to the President of the CBC are received in his office and, if they do not require the President's personal attention, are sent to the appropriate department for reply.
4.	(a) In some cases, (b) Yes. Letters addressed to the President are sent to the department in the best position to provide the requested information or deal with the points raised.


Mr. Forrestall: Is it the intention of the government to establish an interdepartmental group to examine the impact upon Canadian shipbuilding, ship repair and merchant seamen and officers, of the possible ratification by Canada and sufficient others of the world community, of the proposed Code of Conduct for liner conferences flowing from the UNCTAD meetings in 1974 and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, on what date?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This question was raised on December 11, 1974 as No. 1,130, Order of the Day No. 51. The answer subsequently provided by the Ministry of Transport still holds true. In addition it should be noted that on January 30 Cabinet decided that a full scale review be undertaken of the Canadian international shipping policy. A Shipping Advisory Board has been established under the chairmanship of the Ministry of Transport and the implications of the Code of Conduct for Liner Conferences will be examined within this context. Pending greater clarity as to the likely effect of the Convention, and the likelihood of its implementation and acceptance by Canada's major trading partners, interdepartmental working groups have not been assigned to the specific subject areas in question.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	In the Constituency of Bellechasse, as redefined in 1968, do any employees of Unemployment Insurance Commission help beneficiaries to fill out their application for benefits and, if so, how many?
2.	What are their names, addresses and annual salaries?
3.	On what dates did they commence employment?
4.	In what municipalities are they employed?


Robert Knight Andras: See question No. 1,595, tabled April 10, 1975.

May 7, 1975
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Fairweather: Will the government intercede with the Ambassador of the Philippines on behalf of the welfare of Senator Benigno Aquino, Jr., who faces trial by military tribunal which violates universal declaration of human rights?


John Mercer Reid: The trial of Senator Benigno Aquino, Jr., is a matter falling within the domestic jurisdiction of the government of the Philippines and as such the government of the Philippines has no obligation under international law to accept representations from a foreign government on this or any other domestic matter. The proceedings of the Military Tribunal on the Aquino case were suspended April 8, 1975, following the issuance of a restraining order by the Supreme Court of the Philippines pending a ruling by the Court on the question of whether the Military Tribunal had the right to try Senator Aquino on the charges laid against him. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the case.


Mr. Cossitt: Have or will arrangements be made by CBC to provide coverage in colour and in both official languages of the official opening of the $200,000 swimming pool being constructed at the Prime Minister's official residence on Sussex Drive (a) how many personnel will be assigned to cover this event (b) what are their names and job designations?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: (a) and (b) Since there has been no indication that there will be an official opening of the swimming pool, the question is hypothetical.


Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier): With reference to the dismissal of the Centre culturel et linguistique Fares Ltee teaching staff and the inquiry requested by Treasury Board language training authorities (a) who presided over the inquiry (b) what were his terms of reference (c) on what date will the report be submitted (d) will it be tabled and, if so, on what date?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows:
(a)	and (b) See document following, (c) Not later than May 15, 1975. (d) The report and recommendations will be submitted to the Public Service Commission and it will then be up to the Public Service Commission to take whatever action it sees fit.
[Editor's Note: Document above referred to follows.]
March 25, 1975
To Whom It May Concern
Pursuant to the powers and duties conferred on the Public Service Commission under the Public Service Employment Act, the Commission authorizes Jack Vinokur, former Director, Appeals Branch, Public Service

Commission, and now retired from the Public Service, to hold an investigation under Section 7(2) of the said Act, with all the powers of a commissioner appointed under Part II of the Inquiries Act, into the operation of staff training programs in the Public Service in so far as language training is concerned, and more particularly into circumstances pertaining to the following matters, and to make such a report and recommendations to the Commission as deemed appropriate, namely:
1.	The procedures followed by the Staff Development Branch, Public Service Commission relating to the award of contracts for language training services to private institutions.
2.	The award and administration of contracts for the provision of language training services to the following organizations:
(1)	Centre culturel et linguistique Fares Inc.
(2)	Institut de Langue Feuille d'Erable Inc.
(3)	College Algonquin, and the
(4)	Berlitz School of Languages.
3.	The performance and manner of execution of the duties of those employees of the Staff Development Branch of the Public Service Commission who were and are responsible directly or indirectly for the awarding and administration of language training contracts.
John J. Carson, Chairman.
Irene E. Johnson, Commissioner.


Mr. Brisco: For each province and community, by year and by month, under the Accelerated Coverage Programme of CBC, what is the installation schedule for each (a) English-language radio transmitter (b) French-language radio transmitter (c) English-language television transmitter (d) French-language television transmitter?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: The CBC Accelerated Coverage Plan is a large, complex and highly integrated five-year undertaking involving 300 locations and 600 engineering projects. Names of the locations and the nature of the service to be provided are made public, step by step, as applications for licences are made to the Canadian Radio-Television Commission.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, would you be so
May 7, 1975

kind as to call notice of motion for the production of papers No. 39?


Mr. Speaker:: Stand. Shall the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, May 6, consideration of Bill C-19, to provide for payments in respect of wheat produced and sold in Canada for human consumption in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture; and motion No. 1 (Mr. Horner).
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, to continue the debate on the amendment, I think first of all I should make the House fully aware that Bill C-19 is a bill to allow Canadian millers to buy wheat at $3.25 a bushel while the government subsidizes the consumer to the tune of $1.75, making the total price received $5. When wheat sells at above $5 a bushel-as the Canadian Wheat Board is pricing wheat now, or at other times above $5 or $6-the farmer, in essence, subsidizes the consumer. My amendment suggests that it might be all right today, but the bill really establishes an agreement that would be in effect for a period of seven years from 1974 to 1980.
My amendment suggests that while it may be all right today, with the cost of production accelerating at the rate it is, we should not lock the farmers into this agreement any longer than 1977, because with inflation and the cost of production rising the farmers may find themselves subsidizing the Canadian consumers more than they can afford. I stated that the Federation of Agriculture certainly agreed that there should be some indexing built into the guaranteed price. They say that if this bill were effective in 1974, and if one took the average increase in the cost of production of 14 per cent last year according to Statistics Canada, the base price should not be $3.25 but $3.67. The Palliser Wheat Growers' Association appeared before the committee. At page 5 of committee report No. 10, Mr. Nelson had this to say:
We discussed it at a directors' meeting two weeks ago and I will tell you what the representative of the wheat growers came up with, a $4.25 floor. We will take a $5 ceiling knowing that we are taking 80 cents, 90 cents to $1 less than the world price-
So, the farmers are fully aware how much they are asked to subsidize the consumers in this issue. The point is that all the farmers are not particularly satisfied with the concept of no indexing in this bill. Mr. Nelson goes on to say at the same page, in reply to a question put to him by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
Wheat Payments
That is right. You cannot really rationalize what is going on and what has taken place in the past 12 or 18 months. It would not be inconceivable that we could go to $10 a bushel before spring or in the next two or three years.
They can hardly determine what the price of wheat will be, but every farm group that appeared before the committee wanted the indexing. Mr. Atkinson, of the National Farmers' Union, had this to say:
I think it is rather dangerous to establish policy for seven years on any matter, given current economic conditions. I think it would be most unsatisfactory and it would be more desirable to approach it, at first, from a more enlightened point of view. The seven-year period could be handled if they had an adequate indexing system.
In committee we attempted to index the price of wheat, but that was ruled out of order. We all know that members of the opposition cannot increase government expenditures, so we could not move an amendment to that effect. The best amendments I could come up were the two I filed. We cannot index unless we bind the farmers to a very limited period. In my amendment, the period would be three years which is longer than the period in any agreement signed by workers; at the very most, their agreements run for two years and sometimes 30 months, but rarely for three years.
In what I believe is a reasonable amendment I am suggesting a three-year period from 1974 to 1977, rather than a seven-year period. To give the committee some idea of the situation, I should mention that a similar piece of legislation is now before the Senate of the United States. In the farm prices bill in the United States the Senate has set a floor price for wheat of $3.41. Therefore, it is not out of line to suggest that if we cannot have indexing we should certainly shorten the period concerned, for the benefit of the farmers in this period of rising costs of production.
I think it only fair to point out that the interesting thing about the price of wheat to the miller is that it has not controlled the rise in the price of bread to the consumer. It has not accomplished what was intended. I believe a very comparable study would indicate that in recent years the price of wheat in the United States dropped 30 cents, but the price of bread in the United States increased 15 cents. While we have had a drop in the price of wheat to the Canadian miller, the price of bread has continued to go up in two or three stages. I am not asking for any great changes in the legislation.
If the government's guarantee is any good, if the price of $3.25 is a guarantee to the millers and there is a guaranteed subsidy of $1.75, why should we sign up the farmer for a period of seven years? There could be reinstatement for another three years after 1977 if the costs of production should not go up. There is no need to lock the farmers in for such a long period. In fact, if I were looking at it from a strictly political point of view, I would think the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) is making a grave political error in attempting to treat the farmers so callously by locking them into a period which is longer than the period involved in any collective bargaining agreement today, or even in attempting to negotiate this agreement for a period of anything approaching seven years.
Once again the minister is treating the farmers with a callous disrespect for their intelligence and well-being. In

May 7, 1975
Wheat Payments
this amendment I am offering a logical "out" for the minister. If he accepted the amendment he might gain some respect from the farming community. Personally, I would like to think that he would accept this amendment. I do not think that everyone in the House of Commons should be so political that good ideas which originate on this side cannot be accepted by the other side. I believe that the minister should accept suggestions which are put forward from this side from time to time.
Sometimes government members suggest that we criticize but never offer suggestions or solutions. From time to time the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) asks a member of the opposition, "What is your solution? What would you do?" Now I am putting forward what I would do. I would limit the time period during which this act will be in effect from 1974 until 1977. I think it would be a major improvement because this legislation does not take into consideration the cost of production. If it did, I suppose it could be, in effect, in perpetuity; but since it does not take the cost of production into account, the life of the legislation should be limited so that we could reappraise the situation in 1977, at which time we could adjust the floor price.
Members of the committee have suggested from time to time that the minister would automatically adjust the floor price when he found it justifiable to do so. But there was no doubt about the minister's view on this subject; he left no doubt that the ceiling will not be adjusted and that it will remain set.
With regard to the over-all wheat situation, hon. members might have noticed a story in yesterday's newspapers which stated that the prospects for a bumper crop of winter wheat in the United States are good, but that stocks on hand in the five major exporting countries are 300 million tons less than last year. So it appears that prices will remain relatively high. Of course, when one starts to price wheat internationally, one finds that much depends on the U.S.S.R. and China and that it is very difficult to gauge exactly what prices will be before one knows the intentions of those two countries. In any case, it appears that prices will remain high this year and possibly next year, and if that is so farmers will continue to subsidize the Canadian consumer.
With regard to prices remaining high, I should like to quote Mr. Vogel, chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board who was before the Standing Committee on Agriculture on November 14. As recorded at page 15 of committee proceedings No. 7, Mr. Vogel said:
It would then take probably one year at least to replenish supplies to a point where most people in the world would feel comfortable, which tends to say that prices would remain relatively firm even next year, even though perhaps not as high as they are now. That would take us until at least 1976, maybe even 1977. To the 1980s, though, you would be really crystal-balling.
I say that the amendment which would limit the life of the bill until 1977, at which time we would be better able to gauge whether we want to tie farmers down to this floor price and to the ceiling of $5 a bushel on wheat consumed in Canada, should be adopted. The Wheat Board price, it seems to me, is still $5 a bushel although the

international price is below that. To be exact, the asking price for Canadian wheat is still $5.16.


Otto Emil Lang: You are out of date.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is interesting, because the Wheat Board had an offer recently of less than $5 and they might have taken it. Certainly the price of wheat has come down on the international market to about $2 a bushel. But never mind what the price of wheat will be; we all know that costs are going up considerably so long as this government has no control over inflation. That is where the problem lies. We believe that rather than accept a fixed floor price of $3.25, we should be able to pass on additional costs to the Canadian bakers and consumers. Everyone else is passing on their costs, so why should not the agricultural industry do the same?
I really believe that the price of wheat does not greatly affect the price of a loaf of bread; it is only about a 3 per cent factor in the price of a loaf of bread. Most of the cost is in other ingredients and in the labour that goes into baking the bread. It is demonstrated in an American study that the price of wheat on the U.S. market has dropped 30 per cent from a year ago, but the price of a loaf of bread is up 15 per cent. We have had a similar increase in Canada. I believe that limiting the price of wheat until 1980 would not really keep down the price of bread to the Canadian consumer; bread prices will continue to rise. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) can make all the noise he wants, but sometimes an inflationary economy justifies an increase in the price of bread.
So I urge the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board not to be so political in his actions, to look at some of the ideas put forward by members on this side of the House, and to accept what I am certain most members of the opposition parties agree is a very good suggestion which will improve the bill before us in the interests of farmers caught in a price squeeze.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I second the motion now before us, because if you look at the two motions under consideration you will see that the amendments moved to this bill by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) cover the basic objections of this party to the legislation.
Quite frankly, I am somewhat disturbed by the attitude of the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang), of stubbornly refusing to incorporate an indexing system to reflect the increase in the cost of production, a system which has been applied in many other programs of the government, such as agricultural programs, pension programs and others. Pension programs, of course, take into consideration the increase in the cost of living. I want to make it abundantly clear that we as a party have always supported the principle of a two-price system for wheat, but in saying that I emphasize that it must be a two-price system that is adequate and will accurately reflect the increase in the cost of production. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has always argued this rather forcefully and we agree with that position. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) indicated in a recent communique that the prices which farmers are getting now are somewhat below the cost of production.
May 7, 1975

This fact should be recognized. But what have we here? We have nothing more than a bill which amounts to a seven-year freeze. We oppose that concept.
I sincerely think that the minister should recognize the fact that if he were to incorporate an indexing provision, or if he were, so to speak, to shorten the contract which would provide an opportunity for reviewing the pricing structure, this bill would be accepted not only by parliament but by the producers of Canada. I am sure that was the major objective in drafting the bill. As the hon. member for Crowfoot pointed out, surely no union involved in the collective bargaining process would accept a proposition such as this. The incomes of most people are based upon anticipated or projected costs of living. Most manufacturing firms base the cost of their products on anticipated cost of production. But here we have a situation where the cost of production factor is not taken into consideration and no adjustment is allowed for: there is a seven-year fixed price.
We had similar objections to the grain stabilization bill, which we have just concluded. But it, in effect, averages farmers' incomes on the previous five years, so surely it is time we became a little more forward-looking in our approach to agriculture, particularly in the grains industry. It is time we dealt with it in such a way that we can effectively and realistically consider those elements which go toward the production of that commodity.
The minister's position on this bill is inconsistent with stated government policy. As the hon. member for Crowfoot pointed out, in the absence of an over-all anti-inflationary policy or pricing and incomes policy, the government has embarked upon a program of indexing to protect the purchasing power of Canadians in reflecting the cost of living and, indeed, in areas of production in agriculture to reflect the increases in the cost of production. It has been stated that many elements of inflation are beyond the control of this government. I believe that a great deal of the inflationary pressures are domestically created and that effective measures could be introduced. Failing that, the government has undertaken to ameliorate or to try to cushion the effects of inflation, so we have the program of indexing.
It is rather amusing to note that that is the nature of the stabilization bill the Minister of Agriculture recently introduced: it took into consideration the cost of production. In other words, guaranteed floor prices would be adjusted to reflect changes in production costs. That is an agricultural bill and it was proposed by this government. The beef stabilization plan is another program in which provision is made to index production costs. A whole host of similar measures have been brought forward by this government. They take into consideration provisions for increases in the cost of production, and it seems to me it is rather unrealistic on the part of this minister to deviate from that stated government policy. It is difficult for me to understand, and it seems that by acceptance of either one of these amendments, if the minister refuses to incorporate an indexing system, parliament or the government will have an opportunity to review this seven-year contract and adjust it as may be necessary.
Wheat Payments
We all know that input costs are generally increasing. The Edmonton Journal of January 20, 1975, reporting on the agricultural outlook conference, said the following:
The Canadian farmer is being warned to brace himself for a year of reduced profits from the fruits of his labour.
Federal agriculture officials predict another large increase in farm operating expenses will wipe out a slight rise in revenues in 1975 ...
Last year, gross farm income climbed nearly 26 per cent to $9.2 billion, according to preliminary Statistics Canada figures. But a $1 billion jump in operating costs meant net farm income increased only $50 million, to $3.39 billion.
It seems absolutely ludicrous for this government to disregard this important element in a so-called effective two-price wheat system. We are talking about the increase in production costs over a period of seven years. I have before me a table which outlines the increase in production costs, a five-year record of list prices and 1975 projections in respect of key inputs, dated May 1, in central Saskatchewan. These are largely inputs which go toward the production of grain. It is an article printed in the Free Press Weekly Report on Farming of November 16, 1974, and it cites the tremendous increase in basic commodity inputs which have been registered over a five-year period. For example, 11-48-0 fertilizer, 50-pound bags, per ton in 1970 cost $103; in 1975, the projected price is $200. The price of 128-ounce 2-4-D Ester, per five-gallon pail, in 1970 was $24.95; in 1975, $70. Carbyne, in 1970, cost $59.90; in 1975, $75. I could go on with grain bins, baler twine, diesel tractors, combines and diesel fuel: all these items have increased tremendously over a five-year period.
We need only consider the tragic change which occurred in the last year. For example, the farm input index from 1972 to 1973 rose 19 per cent, and the 1974 index rose by 15 per cent. Surely, with that type of historical pattern, it is only natural, if this government believes in stabilization and in producing a reasonable income for prairie wheat farmers, particularly when we consider the domestic price, that some means should be found to compensate and adjust for realistic input costs. Failing that, the bill does not really get to the principle and the heart of the subject.
It seems that there are many arguments for acceptance of these two amendments. I am sure the hon. member for Crowfoot would have no objection to acceptance of either one, because I think the principle embodied in both of them meets our major objection to this legislation. Quite frankly, I do not think this bill is worth the paper it is written on unless one of the amendments is accepted. I see no reason why the government should not accept one or the other, because the bill as it stands is a complete contradiction of and total deviation from stated government policy.
All I can say is that if the government and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, who is the person who has to pilot this bill through the House, fail to recognize this inherent deficiency, that will reflect the intransigent attitude of the minister. We have a Minister of Agriculture who accepts indexing, and we have a minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board who does not accept indexing. Mr. Speaker, I say there is a glaring deviation and a glaring inconsistency in the views of the cabinet and the government. All the farm organizations support the two-price system. The 1975 policy statement of the western agricultural conference recommended at page 5:

Wheat Payments
An adequate two-price system for all grains used for domestic human and industrial consumption, including grain used for distilling, brewing and malting, miscellaneous chemicals, explosives, etc.
That the Government of Canada amend the current price arrangement with the Canadian Wheat Board respecting wheat for domestic human consumption, which would provide for an annual review of the guaranteed floor price, so that the floor would reflect changes in the index of farm input costs.
That sums up the situation quite well, Mr. Speaker. A press release issued before the minister in charge of the Wheat Board headed west to talk about transportation boasted about the importance of communicating with the farm community and quoted the minister as follows:
During my 5!d years as minister responsible for the federal government's programs and policies affecting the western grain industry, I have found these encounters with producers to be both informative and productive. I am looking forward to this next week in the same light.
Surely, if that dialogue is to be meaningful, the minister should pay attention to the wishes of the body of agriculture represented by the major farm organizations such as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the National Farmers' Union. In this regard, the minister should immediately consider one or both of the amendments. It is interesting to notice that there is a degree of consultation taking place at the moment on the government benches, Mr. Speaker. Maybe the hon. member for Battleford-Kin-dersley (Mr. Mclsaac) and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) can pool their wisdom for the minister and help him see the light.
I hope the minister will stand in his place and at least recognize the deficiency in this bill which has been echoed by members in this House and in committee. If he has the interest of the grain producers at heart, surely he will see fit to accept the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, this issue, as well as the one arising under the subsequent amendment, was thoroughly discussed in committee. It seems to show that hon. members opposite are in some doubt about where they stand on such things as guarantees and long-term agreements for the sale of grain. I would remind hon. members that, as I made clear in committee, the question of how long the agreement or price relationship between the Canadian Wheat Board and the domestic market should be was put to the Wheat Board before it was adopted in the present form by the government.
As the body which can ordinarily enter into long-term and short-term contracts for farmers, the Canadian Wheat Board was asked if, with a price range lower than the one before us now, they would prefer an agreement for five, or seven, years. They opted for the seven-year period because of what they saw as a protection in the floor price of $3.25. The Canadian Wheat Board confirmed this at the time of its appearance before the chief commissioner. It is essentially the business of the Canadian Wheat Board to enter into contracts like this.
The principle of long-term contracts and international wheat agreements is one which is ordinarily applauded by hon. members opposite. Certainly, it is consistently

applauded by members of the New Democratic Party and in the rather more traditional way it is applauded and not applauded by the more inconsistent members of the Conservative Party who always seem to be on all sides of any issue.
The other day the agriculture critic of the Conservative Party, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) came down emphatically in favour of long-term agreements, international agreements, firm agreements. Obviously, in those circumstances we have to make some judgment about price. There has to be a price range with that kind of agreement that will balance the forces at work. We cannot expect a price range where the minimum is somewhere near the maximum of history. What we have here is a very good arrangement. This is the first time that the price of wheat in Canada has moved above $3 except for the very special circumstances of one wartime occasion. For the first time in history, the price has moved rapidly above $3 and we have a seven-year agreement with the price in the range of $3.25 to $5 in terms of the return to the producer. Surely that is to the advantage of producers. The Canadian Wheat Board saw that advantage.
The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool over the years has consistently favoured international agreements and recognizes their value. That is why, in a statement of policy which followed their last meeting, they indicated support for international wheat arrangements with firm prices. On page 8 of the statement they indicated that they liked having the principle applied here and that they liked the idea of an annual review. In fact, an annual review was included in this legislation in the course of committee hearings.
Hon. members opposite like to take the view that ministers, perhaps myself in particular, are inflexible. I may be inflexible when dealing with certain of the very political pressures and doctrines of the parties opposite when they are as inconsistent as members of the official opposition, but my record shows flexibility in response to reasoned arguments, particularly those from farmers and farm organizations.
In this particular case I could have said that an agreement for seven years of $3.25 to $5 looked very good in September, 1973, and that price should be binding over the whole seven-year period. I could reasonably have taken that position. If the Wheat Board had entered into a similar agreement with the principal buyers in other countries, it is likely that nothing more than that would be said about the prices within the agreement. Both would want to be bound by the floor and the ceiling and not move away from them.
But I recognize the concern of farmers that suddenly certain prices in this country have begun to rise more rapidly than was contemplated at the time of the 1973 decision to go to a $3.25 and $5 range, even though the $3.25 figure was 25 cents higher than had previously been both the maximum and minimum and was in itself a record price, and the $5 was something that until a few months before had never been dreamed of by anyone outside of the Canadian Wheat Board and those who shared their knowledge of international circumstances.
May 7, 1975

The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) put the proposition to the committee that an annual review might be desirable because of what has happened in terms of prices, and that we should be looking at the annual cost of production and the returns in total coming to farmers. That change is now found as clause 5(3) in the bill as it emerged from committee. That is the answer to both the first amendment and the second amendment of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), Mr. Speaker.
I should add that in the course of the committee deliberations one hon. member saw fit to make sure that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Assiniboia was distributed to farm organizations. The response from them was extremely good and generally approved of the amendment. The resolution from the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool used the same words almost exactly. They said that the agreement between the government and the Canadian Wheat Board should be amended to provide for an annual review of the guaranteed floor price and subsidy limits so that the floor and ceiling would level changes in producer costs. In other words, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool endorsed the amendment proposed in committee in answer to representations from farm organizations and the reasonable arguments that the hon. member for Assiniboia put before the committee at that time.
May I say one further word about price. Hon. members opposite blow hot and cold on the question of price. After saying that prices will never be as high as this again, they quickly say that we are facing disaster, that prices will go through every floor known and we shall be in deep trouble. Once again they take both sides of an issue. The fact is that prices have generally been within the range of the agreement. The end returns for the Canadian Wheat Board pool for the year ending in 1974, which really means the selling period to October, 1974, were well under $5. This represents the final value of wheat sold through the Canadian Wheat Board.
During that period, although prices reached some of their highest peaks, the returns when they were in represented less than $5; therefore the farmer was getting from the treasury full benefit bearing in mind the international price. The price since has weakened. I hope prices will go higher again. The fact is that this agreement was struck at a time when it looked to the Wheat Board, the best protector of the farmer, as reasonable in price terms in relation to the international market. They saw the value of a seven-year agreement as opposed to one of three years or five years when the choice was open to them. It seems to me that that ought, for all hon. members, including Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, to conclude the matter in favour of the bill as it now stands.
Surely we want to keep this guarantee for the seven-year period. I hope, therefore, all hon. members will join in opposing the amendment. It may be that the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) on reflection will want to withdraw it, and I am sure members of the House would accommodate him in that regard.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to participate in this debate and support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Homer).
Wheat Payments
Disaster occasionally strikes western Canadians. The greatest disaster that has struck them is the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). In no way has the minister been flexible or shown that he intends to listen to reason or appreciates the difficulties of western farmers. Not long ago we saw the upper hierarchy of the Liberal Party called to Calgary to attend the western economic opportunities conference. People were wondering what had come over the Liberal Party. The Liberals wondered why western Canadians were complaining. Well, we were complaining about the situation which has existed for some time. The minister's present position is one more ground for complaint.
The minister tried to suggest, a few minutes ago, that we are not in favour of long-term agreements. We are. But can the minister point to any other agreement which is to stand for seven years? Why are other agreements for a shorter period? Why does he want to pin farmers down to a price which is to stand for seven years? The government is in favour of long-term agreements. However, we do not know where we stand; there is no floor and no ceiling price and we do not know what we can look forward to.
The minister takes the position that the western farmer is to be held down to a certain price for seven years. How can the minister justify his position? Who can say if $5 will be sufficient two years from now, let alone seven? We are only asking for this matter to be reconsidered two years from now. The provisions of the bill can again be implemented then. There is no suggestion they would change. We are merely asking for the opportunity to review the situation in two years. Let parliament approve this measure again at that time. After all, the composition of the House of Commons in 1977, barring any unforeseen elections which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) may call, will be the same as at present. This parliament will still be in existence and hon. members opposite will still have the power to push through any legislation they want. We are merely asking the government for the sort of consideration we wanted when we debated the grain stabilization bill.
Western Canadians do not trust this minister. For years we asked for a two-price system; we were not given consideration except during the period when the Conservatives were in office, led by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). That is when we were given acreage payments in lieu of a two-price system. In those days the dollar was worth a dollar. In those days a budget of less than $6 billion was enough for all federal expenditures, including health, defence, and so on. Today the government spends more than $30 billion-and it has come along with a niggardly 25 cents for farmers. Where is the breakthrough?
The cost of machinery in the last year rose by 38 per cent, yet the minister wants to tie every farmer down to a price for seven years, until 1980. I know farm organizations have made representations, I know there has been agitation for a two-price system, and I know that someone could push the argument to the point where the minister will simply refuse to move. Nevertheless, a lot of people are in favour of that principle.
No responsible farm leader will say honestly that he wants prices held at $5 until 1980. How then, can this

May 7, 1975
Wheat Payments
minister make that suggestion? Further, how can he suggest that reconsideration of this measure in two or three years will in any way jeopardize or change the measure? We bring the Canadian Wheat Board Act before the House from time to time; there is nothing permanent about it. Why cannot we do the same with this bill? After all, it breaks no new ground: why should we be stuck with seven years? It will be seven years bad luck so far as some people are concerned. They know inflation is not being dealt with and they know that costs are rising sharply.
An agricultural conference several months ago pointed out that farmers' incomes would drop by 15 per cent. We know they will drop, but we know prices are going up. Fertilizer costs have already tripled, and machinery costs have gone up by 38 per cent. Inflation has hit the farmer from every angle. Why, then, should we pin ourselves down for seven years? I cannot see what the minister is afraid of. Is he afraid the consumer will be unreasonable? The consumer is going to be reasonable. This minister and this government do not seem to understand that the farmer is the biggest consumer in Canada. These farmers specialize. They do not have their farms cluttered with every product they require; they produce one product and get everything else they require at the market. They no longer tan their hides. As a matter of fact, they buy their milk, butter and eggs. They are consumers. It is not as though the farmers were arguing against the consumers; they are consumers.
The minute there is buoyancy in the economy as far as the farmer is concerned, everyone benefits. Manufacturers benefit. When the farmers think there is a possibility of getting a payment, they spend that money in advance. They know what has happened with the price of machinery, for example. Long before they even receive the money, they make arrangements at the bank to borrow the maximum amount they can. Because of the great demand for borrowing, parliament recognized that fact and increased the amount it is possible to borrow. Everyone knows prices have gone up because we increased the amount that farmers can borrow.
We are simply asking the government not to tie the hands of the farmers for seven years. We plead with the minister to be reasonable and not to be so entrenched in his ways. Because the idea comes from a member of the official opposition, it is immediately discarded. Surely it must mean something to the minister that Liberals have been defeated time and again in western Canada. The reason is obvious. The minister has his eyes and ears closed with regard to western farmers. For all his forays into western Canada, the Prime Minister will not help the situation unless the minister shows a willingness to recognize the plight of these people.
As was pointed out by the hon. member for Crowfoot, we in this party cannot introduce a motion to ask for more money: that is not the right of members of the opposition. The minister has that right; however, he ties it down to a fixed price. Instead of waiting until 1982, we simply ask the minister to reconsider this question a few years from now. There is nothing on the horizon to indicate that costs will go down. There is a possibility that the price of grain will go down. If the minister does not want to recognize

the principle of indexing, perhaps we could come to him at that time and ask him to reconsider his position. As a matter of fact, it might work out very handily; by that time we might be ready for another election. The minister could bring forward an amendment and increase the price even if only on a one-year basis. He could tell the farmers of western Canada that he was increasing the price even though it may not be below the $5. He could say he was increasing the price because of the increased cost of production, inflationary trends and so on.
The amount involved would not be terribly great. It would involve the consumption of 50 million or 60 million bushels of wheat. Even if he increased the price at that time by $1, considering the way this government blows money left, right and centre, $50 million or $60 million in another two or three years would not break the back of this government. After all, they have been very wasteful. Maybe by that time we could cut down some of the expenses of the Prime Minister's office.
One would think we were asking for the moon. However, we are only asking for the same principle that applies to every labour organization and pensioner. We do not want to be tied down to a seven-year period. We want an even break. What we are asking for is not unreasonable. We want what every other segment of the economy is getting. If we do not get a better price, we want consideration within a few years. We do not want the minister to shelve this problem for seven years, which is exactly what he wants to do.
Because they want the principle of a two-price system, the members of the New Democratic Party voted against this suggestion in committee. However, on reflection I am sure they will realize that what we are asking for is very reasonable. I think they, too, would like to have this question reconsidered. I feel they will even support us at this time because they have found out the farmers want to be like other Canadians. Despite the comments the minister has made, if he would reverse his position and be on the side of the farmer, it would not be anything to be ashamed of, but it would be a credit to him.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that on the motion I am of two minds. As I said on second reading, our party fully supports a two-price system in Canada: one price for grain used domestically for human consumption, with support from the federal treasury to, in effect, subsidize the consumer, and the farmer getting a reasonable price for his grain. Since the government has finally come around to agreeing to the principle of a two-price system for wheat, I repeat the question: Why just wheat? In all the years we have made this proposal, we have said grain. If it is logical for wheat, it is logical that it should be applied to all grains for whatever period of time is provided in the legislation. Oats, barley, rye, flax and rapeseed sold in Canada for human consumption should also be eligible for a two-price system.
It is a habit of this government and the Liberal Party in general that whenever they finally come around to a good principle, they only go part way or, at best, halfway. There is continual battling to get them to move further than they normally do. I understand the fears of the hon. member who moved this amendment and those of the other speak-
May 7, 1975

ers from the Conservative Party. If I had more confidence in getting some fast results from this minister in terms of adjusting prices to reflect increased costs of production, I would have little worry about the length of the term in this legislation. I appreciate that the hon. member who moved the amendment also does not have that confidence. The government did at least move slightly to amend the bill so as to provide for an annual review, but it is still too softly worded, I think. The bill says that the minister "shall review", but then it goes on to say "with a view to recommending to the governor in council changes in the price system which would reflect the cost of production". I would rather it said "and shall recommend to the governor in council changes which would reflect the cost of production". One could then agree that the amendment would be totally unnecessary.
I am still inclined not to agree with motion No. 1. The seven-year guarantee at a minimum of $3.25 was a success in finally getting the minister to take such a step, after repeated demands from prairie farmers and farm organizations over many years. Having got that much out of him, I am somewhat reluctant to lessen the length of time. I fear that if we reduce the period from 1980 to 1977 as proposed in the motion, this would leave the door wide open, if we are still stuck with this minister in charge of the Wheat Board in 1977, for him not to further extend the two-price system. He might do less than is already provided in the bill.
This is why I am inclined to vote against the motion. We run the risk of the matter being left wide open in 1977 and of losing even what we have in this measure, especially if we then happen to be in a period of recession and the Minister of Finance is still screaming for restraint and trying to cut back on all the different departments of government. I wonder whether the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) has thought of the risk. Whatever inadequacies there are in the legislation, I think shortening of the length of time, on the other side of the coin, does constitute a risk.
With regard to calculating the cost of production, the minister and the majority of the committee refused to accept an amendment which both the Conservatives and my own party members proposed regarding a cost of production escalator. They refused it on the excuse that it would be very difficult to arrive at a proper calculation of the cost of production. I understand that the Department of National Revenue, under the Income Tax Act, has no problem arriving at the cost of production of a farmer because it is what the department allows him for his costs. I am sure that even a computer analysis of farm costs shown on the income tax returns of the grain farmers of western Canada would produce a pretty good figure, because you can be sure that the farmers attach every bill of expense they can so as to reduce their income tax liability.
Statistics Canada has done a lot of work in this field. There have been several farm management studies, and farm management groups in Canada have carried out extensive work on the question. I believe that two or three of the universities in the prairie provinces have done work on the matter. All these sources can be used in arriving
Wheat Payments
very quickly at a cost of production calculation that will at least reflect an average cost of production in Canadian Wheat Board areas.
I asked the minister in committee, after the amendment calling for mandatory review by the minister on an annual basis was passed, whether he would be good enough to consider carrying out a review of the 1974 experience, and he said he would not. He refused in the committee and said his first annual review would commence after 1975. This means that the farmers have lost an additional year in regard to having their cost of production taken into account and reflected in the prices to be paid under this legislation.
I should like to hear the minister assure the House that he has had a slight change of heart for the better; that he will in fact make a review, under the legislation, of the 1974 experience and that he will make appropriate recommendations to the governor in council this fall, or as soon as he possibly can, regarding additional funds. I do not think there can be any question that the increased cost of production in 1974 will be, if not the highest then certainly one of the highest for some years ahead. All of us know about the kind of jump in farm costs that occurred in 1974, particularly for products related in any way to oil, such as farm fuels, fertilizers, farm machinery and farm machinery parts. Then, of course, interest rates increased. I submit that farm costs made the highest jump in history during the year 1974, yet the minister does not want to make a review of that year.
The legislation provides that the minister shall review on an annual basis. The amendment does not ask that he shall review, commencing in 1975; it just says he shall review on an annual basis. We have had the 1974 experience. Although I am no lawyer, I interpret the amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) which the committee accepted to mean that the minister must begin now to make an annual review of the cost of production in 1974. I trust that his officials would draw on Statistics Canada, the Department of National Revenue and any other source necessary in order to come up with a good calculation of the average increase in cost of production.
I appreciate that this cannot be done farm by farm, that cost of production varies from one part of a designated area to another. But surely the total increase in costs can be arrived at. This will take several weeks of work and statistical study, and I hope the minister is already working on the matter. If he is not, then it seems to me the minister should be-at least as I interpret the legislation. I, for one, will want a legal opinion on the question; I am not just going to rely on the opinion of the Minister of Justice. It seems to me from the way the amendment reads, and the way the legislation as amended reads, that the minister must carry out a review for last year. If he were to do so, I would be even more inclined to vote against motion No. 1, because such action would at least restore a little confidence that until 1980 farmers would get a fair shake in terms of any increase in the cost of production since it would be reflected in the price they receive for hard wheat and durum.
The other point I want to make is this. The minister failed to respond to suggestions that he do something

Wheat Payments
about how durum wheat should be treated in the legislation. When one looks quickly at the bill, one gets the impression that the floor for durum is $5.75, whereas it is in fact $3.25. As and when the world price drops for durum wheat below the $5.75 figure, so does the floor in this bill drop, and it keeps dropping until it gets down to $3.25.
I submit, as many farmers have, that historically durum has always brought a somewhat better price than hard wheat. I appreciate that you cannot maintain a $2 or $3 per bushel spread between hard wheat and durum because you would then be up to your eyeballs in durum and would not have enough hard wheat. Farmers would, quite naturally, grow more durum than we could use or sell. It is fair that at least a 50-cent or even a $1 differential should be maintained between the price of durum and hard wheat. I still think that should be the case. I hope the minister will agree to amending his own legislation, although it is a little late to do that at this point in time. When he makes his annual review and appropriate recommendations to the governor in council, he could bring in additional amendments to the legislation to accomplish that very thing regarding the price of durum wheat.
The whole principle of long-term guarantees and contracts for farmers has been fought for by my party and farm organizations for many years. We have finally obtained a commitment from this government in respect of at least $3.25 per bushel. That is insufficient in my opinion since it only applies to wheat and does not do a proper job in accounting for increased costs of production, but at least it is a beginning. The fact that we have finally succeeded in getting something in this legislation that gives the farmer the assurance of some certainty in respect of what he is going to get for several years causes me to object to the motion. I object to it, as well, because I am fearful that if we shorten the time to 1977 from 1980, the whole thing will be left wide open and we run the grave risk of losing what we have in this legislation, getting less or not getting anything better for the years after 1977. On balance, I have to oppose the motion.
One can hope that the annual review will produce some results and I hope that the confidence of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) is not misplaced in that regard. I hope the hon. member will add his support to my suggestion that the first review should be carried out for 1974. It is very likely that the cost of production in 1975 will not increase as much as it did in 1974, so the farmers would lose out in respect of the worst year in relation to rising costs of production. I hope the hon. member will attempt to persuade the minister to make that review on a retroactive basis for the crop year that has just finished.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few points to make on the bill as I do not want to repeat what has just been said. I support the amendment. I am sure the wheat farmers in western Canada would be satisfied to have either of the suggested principles included in this bill. I think it is necessary to make some points in relation to the cost of production, and I intend to put on record some statistics from Statistics Canada which show this dramatic increase.

The proposed amendment of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) is vague in relation to whether the minister has to bring forward these aspects of production costs. The Conservative Party has been consistent, contrary to what the minister suggests, in having the best interests of the farmers at heart and in attempting to see that the farmers get a proper deal. We are concerned that if the price of wheat increases above $5 a bushel, the farmer will not from now until 1980 be able to take advantage of that price increase in respect of the number of bushels consumed in Canada, but he will still have to absorb the increased cost of production during the years from now until 1980.
I appreciate that this bill ultimately provides a consumer subsidy and the farmers, being consumers, will be able to take advantage of the price of bread remaining relatively stable. One very important element has not been taken into consideration, and that is the increasing cost of producing wheat on the prairies. If production costs increase as they have in the past, the farmer will be penalized in respect of the amount of wheat he sells. Essentially, he will have to make a contribution rather than realizing a slim profit or even breaking even. To set the price per bushel for such a long period without making some concrete provision for escalating input costs is totally unrealistic.
The guaranteed price is basically $3.25 a bushel. Perhaps a year ago, or even today, $3.25 would be a satisfactory price. However, we certainly have no assurance that in 11 years $3.25 or, for that matter, even $5 will be sufficient to cover the increase in input expenditures. The Federation of Agriculture appeared before the committee and stated that since this bill was introduced to the House the cost of production had already risen 14.6 per cent, particularly in western Canada where this grain is produced. Given this fact, the figure of $3.25 should increase to approximately $3.67 a bushel. If the price of wheat should fall below the $3.25 guarantee, the farmer would only receive the same price per bushel regardless of his increased production costs.
We all know how important wheat production is at this time, particularly when the world is finding itself in a deficit food position. We have even heard pleas for increased wheat production here in this House. Surely we must give more consideration to the producers of wheat than is currently being given in Bill C-19. The agricultural sector is the very backbone of our economy, and the grain producers make up a very substantial percentage of this agricultural bloc. Only through a demonstration of fairness and a willingness to consider their arguments can we encourage them to increase their production of No. 1 wheat.
Statistics Canada is today putting out figures on the increased costs of farm production. It would be very easy for the minister to use those statistics as a basis for increasing the $3.25 price. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) has shown how the costs increased dramatically during 1974. I should like to put on record the percentage increases according to Statistics Canada. Statistics Canada has stated that total farm input costs increased, between 1973 and 1974, by 27.3 per cent based on 1961 dollars. The report has four columns in
May 7, 1975

which they show that the cost of land and farm buildings increased, between 1973 and 1974, by 16.1 per cent. It is well known that farmers must increase their land holdings from time to time and update their old buildings or build new ones.
Farm machinery and motor vehicles have increased by 18.1 per cent, farm labour has increased by 39.4 per cent, and all the other materials used in the production of agricultural products have increased by 39 per cent. This is in the period between 1973 and 1974. To project that from 1974 to 1975, if we look at the industrial price index we see that the cost of production will increase at approximately the same rate as it did during the 1973-74 period. That is why it is so important that either of the amendments of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) be accepted by the House. The amendment placed before the committee by the hon. member for Assiniboia takes us a short way toward obtaining that principle, but I think far better than that would be an amendment to the bill that would assure the farmer that the increased cost of production in fact would be added to the base price he would receive.
Another point I should like to bring before the House is the fact that, while many people may be pessimistic concerning the price of wheat, a number of witnesses who appeared before the committee said that the price in fact could go very much higher in the next number of years than it is today. We have been accused of blowing hot and cold concerning the price of wheat. That may be so. Perhaps the farmers as they look at the fluctuations in prices and input costs are a little leery of the future. But these witnesses, who I believe are in the know because they deal with the grain situation from day to day, have stated that the price of wheat could go as high as $10 a bushel. I should like to quote from page 5 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, issue No. 10. The chairman of the Pallis-er Wheat Growers' Association had this to say in reply to a question put to him by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That is right. You cannot really rationalize what is going on and what has taken place in the past 12 or 18 months. It would not be inconceivable that we could go to $10 a bushel before spring or in the next two or three years.
The Washington agricultural outlook conference had the same thing to say: this was also brought before the committee. It was stated in that report that if we can pay the international price in Canada, it is quite conceivable we could reach a price of $10 a bushel in the future. These are the predictions of people who have studied the situation. I believe western wheat farmers are optimistic that the price will increase and that they will be able to meet their cost of production but they are concerned that if in the next two or three years the price should go up they would be committed to a maximum of $5 for their wheat even if the price should go beyond that. If the farmer does not receive a proper return for his product, he may well go into the production of other forms of grain. I think this would be disastrous to our economy because a large portion of our export wealth is based on wheat. It is important that we see that farmers do not go into other types of production because of being locked into an agreement under this bill.
Wheat Payments
I think it is important that we consider these two amendments and pass one or the other in order to make this a better bill for the western wheat growers. I hope the minister and other members will take note of this and will look favourably at the amendments.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The question is on motion No. 1 in the name of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. The House will now direct its attention to motion No. 2.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That Bill C-19, an act to provide for payments in respect of wheat produced and sold in Canada for human consumption in Canada, be amended at page 3 by (a) deleting the word "and" in line 40 (b) deleting the period at the end of line 44 and substituting therefor ";and" (c) adding immediately after line 44 the following paragraph: "(c) regarding payments authorized under section 4 of a bushel of wheat consumed in Canada: that each year the Canadian Wheat Board, through the minister in charge, report to parliament the average estimated increase in the cost of production.".
He said: Mr. Speaker, there are two significant things about this amendment which I should like to draw to the attention of the House before a decision is reached on it. First of all, the amendment suggests that the Canadian Wheat Board estimate the cost of production. It is not suggested that the minister, for political reasons one way or another, or that some other group should make the estimation, but that the Canadian Wheat Board should estimate the cost of production and the increase in the cost of production each year. Then, through the minister, that figure would be publicly reported in the House of Commons so that everybody would know what in fact was happening concerning the farmer's cost of production in respect of products under this bill which are sold for domestic consumption.
A few minutes ago the minister said that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) had moved an

May 7, 1975
Wheat Payments
amendment in committee which he thought would take care of an annual review. That amendment can be found at page 4 of the reprinted bill. It reads:
The minister shall, on an annual basis and in consultation with the producers, review the provisions of this act-
I should like to think that any minister would annually look at the provisions of an act which came under his jurisdiction. I think it would be an insult to a minister to have to be told to do that. I believe it is improper for a minister to be told in a bill that he should do his job. The amendment goes on to say:
-and all related regulations enacted by the governor in council with a view to making such recommendations to the governor in council as are appropriate in the light of prevailing costs of production of wheat and returns to producers.
I have read many wishy-washy words around the House of Commons and have seen some wishy-washy words in pieces of legislation, but from my point of view this amendment to the bill does nothing. It does not enhance the bill. If the minister is doing his job, certainly he would tell his cabinet colleagues about the problems in the part of the agricultural industry for which he is responsible, namely, the wheat farmer and the Canadian Wheat Board. Certainly he would tell the governor in council about the problems of increased costs which the farmers have to put up with.
In looking at committee proceedings No. 12, I find that the hon. member for Assiniboia had quite a lot to say about costs going up or down. At page 12 of the proceedings he is reported to have said the following in reply to Mr. Atkinson of the National Farmers Union who spoke about the squeeze in which farmers would find themselves if a fixed ceiling were set, a squeeze brought about by the escalation in the cost of production:
The legislation is, of course, flexible on that point; it allows that figure to move up and down.
I do not know how much it allows it to move up and down, unless the hon. member is considering adjusting the subsidy that the government puts in at $1.75. If the hon. member wants it lowered to $1.75, then that is a pretty interesting concept. I would hate to think the minister would do that, or that he would pay any attention to his former side-kick in this regard. The hon. member went on to say:
The other issue which is really quite a different one is whether the $5 present talk that is in the legislation is realistic, given the nature of world prices at any particular moment in time. I wonder whether an indexing feature, although it would deal with the base price problem, would really solve any concerns that some people might have about the problem at the other end.
It is interesting to note that every farm organization that has come before the committee, including the Ontario Wheat Farmers, the National Farmers Union and the Pal-liser Wheat Growers, has stated that indexing is necessary. On page 5 of committee proceedings No. 10, Mr. Nelson, former president of the Palliser Wheat Growers' Association, spoke about the escalating factors in the cost of production. He was replying to a question put to him by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) who said:

You mentioned that your executive, in discussing it, were not happy with a $5 ceiling, but I gather there again you would like to see that adjustable. Is this correct?
Mr. Nelson answered:
Right, either through an escalator clause which would, in turn, take into consideration the cost of production; for example, if the cost of production went up 20 per cent in a year, both the floor and the ceiling ought to go up 20 per cent, or a review aspect in it.
That is what I am asking for in this amendment. Although I could not amend the bill to put in an indexing clause which the Federation of Agriculture wanted, as stated in its very able brief to the committee outlining their point of view, I am suggesting that if the minister had to report to the House of Commons on how much the cost of production went up each year, attention would be focused on the plight of the farmer and members of parliament would bring attention to the need to adjust the bill to compensate for any increase in the cost of production.
The minister stated that the $3.25 floor price is actually the world price. It can be argued that the world price is a few cents below the $3.25 which is the fixed price the Canadian miller would have to pay for Canadian wheat. The minister said in committee that while that price took into consideration the cost of production, the cost of production was not necessarily used in establishing the $3.25. It is immaterial to argue whether it does or does not take into account the cost of production, because we realize that in these inflationary times eventually costs will exceed that floor price.
I think it was generally agreed by all farm organizations that the base price should at least take into consideration the cost of production. The Federation of Agriculture, in their brief to the committee, stated that point quite clearly as recorded in committee proceedings No. 5. The federation stated that since the guaranteed price was set in September of 1973, farm input costs have gone up 14.73 per cent. They estimated that taking an average for the whole of Canada of about 13 per cent of the $3.25, and adding that to the floor price, you will get the base price for 1975 of $3.67. They believe that the base price should at all times include the cost of production. They figure that for 1975 the price should be $3.67.
Surely all we are stating in this amendment is that it should be publicly noted by the minister that the Canadian Wheat Board, whose business it is to know the cost of production of wheat, because they are designated as the major handling agency for western Canada in the Wheat Board area, should assess the cost of production, report to parliament on it and then the onus would be on parliament to adjust the legislation. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia does not do much, in my view-or, I am certain, in the view of many farm organizations. It does not make public the cost of production. If the cost of production was made public, everybody would be clearly aware of the responsibility of the minister and of parliament to adjust prices so that farmers could stay in business and continue to produce wheat.
The minister can talk all he likes about the price of wheat going above $5 a bushel, but we all know that costs to the farmers are going up rapidly. We can all remember a few years ago the old cry of farm organizations about the cost-price squeeze and we can foresee it happening again
May 7, 1975

in the years ahead. We hear talk of shortages of gas in Canada and increased oil prices because of Canada's becoming very shortly a net importer of oil. We are not farming in what some people like to refer to as the good old days when we fed our horses a little oats which gave them the energy to pull the plow. We grew our crops with horse power, but we now farm with highly mechanized agricultural implements such as tractors which burn diesel fuel, gas or propane. All farm implements burn a considerable amount of fuel, and fuel costs will more than likely increase unless someone can find a major supply of cheap energy from somewhere other than the OPEC countries.
It is foolish to think that we should tie farmers down for seven years with no escalating clause and no publicly recognized indicator as to how much farm cost will go up. My amendment only suggests that there should be public acknowledgement that those costs will go up, and that the onus is on the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, whoever that might be in 1977, 1978 or 1979. There will certainly be a new minister after 1978. I would like to think there might be one before that. However, the onus should be on that person to consider those costs which have increased and will continue to increase. Even if we contain inflation, energy costs will more than likely go up as we become a net importer of oil. I put no value on the amendment moved in committee, and I urge the House to accept my amendment. It does not change the legislation; it just makes the minister report to the House the findings of the Canadian Wheat Board on cost of production.
One can read the 1973-74 annual report of the Canadian Wheat Board. It is a very nice, blue document which pertains to the field of agriculture. There is on it a beautiful picture. When I first became a member of parliament this report was referred to the agricultural committee every year. In recent years the government has had to be badgered in order to have a thorough study of the report in the agricultural committee. Nowhere does it suggest that production costs have increased. Nowhere does it deal with the aspect of how much the cost of wheat production has increased. It deals with the total world population and the growth of world production of wheat. It deals with countries we compete against such as Australia and Argentina and their possible production capacity. It deals with importing countries on the continents of North America, Asia, and so on. It deals with feed grain production in the United States and in Canada.
The report deals at length with international wheat agreements. I have nothing against international wheat agreements. Even in international wheat agreements of the past few years there has always been room for the price to fluctuate and move up if there was demand and if the costs of producing countries went up. Of course, if the price did not move up, there would be less and less wheat in the world and more and more people going hungry.
My amendment places greater onus on the Wheat Board to analyse the cost of production. It places greater responsibility on the minister to report those costs to the House. Then, of course, it is up to parliament to assess those costs and perhaps at a future time to adjust Bill C-19 accordingly.
Wheat Payments


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add a few words to those of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) in support of his motion, because in the committee I originally moved some amendments with the same idea in mind. Farmers are receiving a bad deal from this government. I have pointed out on various occasions that farmers simply do not trust the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, although at every turn they find it is not only the minister himself; he is simply running true to form as far as any Liberal government is concerned. This has always been the pattern when dealing with Canadian farmers, but we notice it particularly with regard to grain because everyone is aware that grain is one of the great commodities we have for sale. Many of us are dependent on the sale of that commodity for our livelihood.
At one time there was what was known as the British wheat agreement. That agreement was signed by another Liberal government back in 1945 to 1950. At that time there was a "have regard" clause. I merely bring this out because the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) squirmed and turned in committee after I proposed an amendment which I thought dealt with the matter adequately. There was a rush and a scurry on the part of the Liberal members who were wondering how in the world they could take the credit away from me at that time. They had consultations because my amendment was to appear before theirs. They did not know how to get around that. They had the same idea as I did, but they were not prepared to give me credit for it.
Be that as it may, it turned out that the committee voted on my amendment first. Naturally, it was turned down for no other reason than that it came from a member of the opposition-as though they have any priority on ideas! However, the motion introduced by the hon. member for Assiniboia was dealt with but it is so wishy-washy, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Crowfoot, that it really leaves us with nothing. It leaves us with nothing except a vague reference to a law. It does nothing with regard to pointing out the facts in relation to the cost of production, because at that particular time under the British wheat agreement there was a "have regard" clause. There may be some who remember that clause. There are perhaps very few members who were in the House at that time. Certainly I was not here, but I remember the debate very clearly. At that time, thanks to the Liberal government's lack of foresight, the western farmer lost something like $500 million or $600 million. At that time, the government said that the British would have regard to the cost of grain, that they would take that into account and perhaps pay more if the world price became higher.
As it turned out, the world price of grain dropped tremendously after the war, and countries that were not tied into that type of agreement were getting high prices. Canada was tied to the agreement, however. The present minister looks back on the pages of history in order to follow the pattern of the Liberal Party, so now he is tying us to a fixed price for seven years. Of course, we all know that the cost of production will go up. But what recourse do we have? We cannot introduce an amendment to ask for a higher price, so we ask that the facts be revealed to
5572

Wheat Payments
the public. It is our opinion that the Canadian public will deal more honestly and fairly with the demands of western farmers than this government, if all the facts are known to them. We already have a Food Prices Review Board. What we are asking for now is a cost-price review board. The Wheat Board has an accounting system and a computer all set up and could take care of the accounting involved.
I really think, Mr. Speaker, that the minister should be required to report to parliament on the cost of production. What we need is a truth squad to go out into the country and determine what the price is. At the moment the minister believes that the $5 price is high enough. I am sure he will have no hesitation in saying a year from now that the bill presented under the two-price system is a good one. We want the minister to be brave enough to tell the western farmer a year from now that his cost of production has not gone up, or has gone up. If he can tell a farm audience, "We paid $5 for seven years", then I want him to stand in this House each year until 1980 pointing, on the one hand, to the $5 ceiling and, on the other hand, to the way the government has managed the cost of production factor. If the government has done its work well and the cost of production has gone down, by 1980 he will be able to say to the farmers, "I gave you $5 and your cost of production has gone down." I would like the minister to do that every year, Mr. Speaker.
After the bill was in committee, I believe the hon. member for Assiniboia complained that some opposition members had filibustered and found fault with it. Well, I am finding fault with it right now, Mr. Speaker. I believe the cost of production will go up. The minister may not believe that, but if he feels so strongly about it he should accept this amendment. If he is confident that the bill is valid now, and will still be valid by 1980, he should accept the amendment. The minister would find a truth squad a valuable instrument to investigate other areas. If the Food Prices Review Board is able to check the cost of food and determine whether anybody is ripping off the consumer, then a parallel case could be made for a cost-price review board.
I hope this House will support the amendment. I hope that two years from now the minister will be brave enough to come before the House and give us the facts, instead of hiding behind unreliable statistics. The relevant statistics are already in the hands of the Canadian Wheat Board, and that is where the minister should look for his information.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say quickly that we feel we can support this amendment. It will not do any harm, but it might do some good. Some hon. members expressed fears that the amendment might make the Canadian Wheat Board unhappy and place on it the burden of hiring additional staff to produce a statistical analysis on this scale. In the end, of course, the cost would come out of the pockets of the farmers through Wheat Board funds. If the amendment were to pass, however, I think the Wheat Board could use information from Statistics Canada, the Department of National Revenue, universities, research groups and farm management groups.

I like the fact that the amendment calls for the report to be made to parliament. It may well be that the minister will report to parliament following his annual review in any case although nothing in the legislation says that he must. I do not think the amendment would impose any extraordinary requirements on the Wheat Board. If it meant it would have to put in a computer and hire several hundred more people to do the statistical analysis, of course that would be a duplication of effort and a waste of time and money. I think this amendment could be helpful, Mr. Speaker; I do not see how it could be harmful, and I think the minister should accept it and save time in getting his bill through.


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I have listened to interesting comments from both sides of the House on a useful and important bill, Bill C-19, which has been before parliament since last fall, although the mechanics of the program have been in place somewhat longer. Its principles of operation are well known to members of the House who are interested in this subject, and well known particularly to western farmers who, as you know, are most interested in this legislation.
As the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) has pointed out on other occasions, members of this House of all political parties, members of farm organizations across western Canada and, I suspect, of other parts of Canada as well, have made representations about the need in this country for a two-price system for wheat. We saw a proposal of that kind presented to parliament last fall in specific statutory form. We hope soon to see final approval of it.
Let me deal with some misconceptions about this legislation, misconceptions made evident by the amendment which is now before the House. The impression has been conveyed by members opposite speaking on Bill C-19-I hope the impression has been conveyed from a mistaken notion and has not been conveyed deliberately-that this legislation deals with some kind of pegged or fixed price, with a price which will be there for seven years, without room for variation. That, clearly, is not so. The very attractiveness of the legislation lies in the fact that it does not provide for a pegged price, although I suppose a pegged price in Canada is acceptable if it is above the going world price, and that was the situation for some time before this legislation came forward. When you come to the other situation in which the international price is the high price, you cannot talk about a pegged price that is going to to be fully adequate and reasonable over a period of time.
The legislation provides for a price range. It is a useful and good price range and we should look at the parameters of that range as set out by the minister earlier this afternoon. It is a range that is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Certainly, when it was first established in September, 1973, it was broadly heralded as one that was fair, reasonable and good, and one that exceeded our wildest expectations for grain prices, even for the longer term, just a few months before that range was established. Let us consider what has happened to the price since the beginning of this exercise. Since the Standing Committee on Agriculture finished working on this bill in January or
May 7, 1975

early February, we have seen demonstrated the real value of this kind of arrangement for domestic wheat sold in Canada, as prices have been coming down.
Nobody in this House is happy with that prospect, because we all know what it means in terms of the incomes of western grain and wheat producers and a lot of other producers across the country. Although we are quite optimistic and hopeful that prices in future will continue to be strong, that prices in the rest of the decade will be high for Canadian grain producers, we must face the prospect, unhappily, that prices could and at some stage no doubt will begin to drop. This is borne out by history, unfortunately. So the price range established by this legislation has proved to be a reasonable and realistic one if you consider it from the point of view of the maximum figure which is set at $5 for hard wheat.
On the other side of the coin, some useful opinions were expressed about floor prices. Perhaps one of the most educated and useful opinions which one should consider is that expressed by the chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, Mr. Vogel, who appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and was questioned strenuously by hon. members on the very point I am making. Mr. Vogel appeared before the committee on November 14 last and his remarks are recorded in issue No. 7 of the proceedings of that committee, on page 26. After dealing with some of the questions I raised and after mentioning the $5 price, Mr. Vogel said, as recorded on that page in the committee minutes:
However, I think it is not correct to ignore the other part of the program which was important to us and that is the guarantee at $3.25 which we do not have on the export market-
Lower on the same page Mr. Vogel is reported as having said:
-I will tell you that as a board we regard the $3.25 as a meaningful figure.
I think it is useful to record that opinion from one who is clearly an expert in the uncertain game of trying to assess where grain prices will go from time to time. He indicated what the realistic expectations of grain producers are if they want to assess their prospects over the longer term. Clearly, the bill is useful in that it provides not for a pegged level of price but for a range of prices. We have, in addition, the amendment which was passed by the committee and presented by government members after it had been thoroughly discussed by committee members. I am referring to clause 5(3) which provides specifically for a review procedure, not in 1977 or some later date but every year. I think that would be a useful exercise, and that amendment by itself makes the amendment now before the House unnecessary.
For the benefit of hon. members who may not be aware of the language of the amendment as adopted by the Standing Committee on Agriculture, I shall read it. The new clause 5(3) reads:
The minister shall, on an annual basis and in consultation with the producers, review the provisions of this act and all related regulations enacted by the governor in council, with a view to making such recommendations to the governor in council as are appropriate in the light of prevailing costs of production of wheat and returns to producers.
Wheat Payments
It is an all-encompassing amendment which will achieve the objectives hon. members opposite have been urging on the House most of this afternoon.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: For 1974?


Ralph Goodale: We are talking about a contract, or an arrangement if you like, the duration of which is to be until 1980. Periodically, we should look at it to ensure that in all circumstances, from the point of view of cost of production and the point of view of total return to producers, the arrangement is fair, reasonable and serves the best interests of this country and, of course, of grain producers who are particularly affected by this legislation.
The members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture did not rush their consideration of this matter. We heard excellent witnesses from farm organizations. At this point I will commend hon. members opposite who came forward in the first place with the suggestion that farm organizations and others should be invited to present their views. That was a useful and constructive idea made by members of opposition parties. As I said, we heard witnesses who presented useful testimony and all who took part in this debate referred to the things they said. After that, and after we had discussed this matter among ourselves, members of the committee on my side of the House felt that the basic argument was well taken and that we had to provide for some ongoing mechanism to take into account changes which might occur from time to time in costs of production and in other circumstances which might affect the effectiveness of the program.
We therefore proposed a review mechanism, but we specifically declined to propose a rigid indexing system. I think the comments made to the committee by the president of the Palliser Wheat Growers' Association, Mr. Nelson, are important. He pointed out that indexing is all very well and good and would at least partly compensate for increases in a farmer's cost of production, but that a host of other factors need to be taken into account between now and 1980, and indexing could not do that. He suggested that an annual review by the minister would be the best way to take these factors into account. These factors might involve cost of production changes or any other changes which might bear upon this legislation.
I think we on my side of the House and, I suspect, hon. members opposite as well, found a good deal of merit in what Mr. Nelson had to say, and we suggested the amendment which is now in the legislation and which I submit largely eliminates the necessity for the amendment presently before us and recently moved by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner).
As we come to the conclusion of our discussion on this legislation, I want to commend one member of the opposition in particular who participated very actively in the deliberations on Bill C-19. He is not in his place today but I know these remarks will come to his attention. I refer to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn). Once the amendment had been presented to the committee for consideration, that member took it upon himself to contact at least some of the farm organizations that had appeared before us previously. He asked them to comment
29561-9'/2

May 7, 1975
Wheat Payments
on the amendment the committee was considering; the amendment I read into the record a few moments ago.
It is interesting to see the reactions that came back; they are part of the official record of the committee proceedings. All members of the committee have copies of the letters which came from the various organizations. A reply was received from the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board. The letter is from Mr. K. A. Standing, general manager of the board, and it reads as follows;
My board have reviewed the proposed amendment to Bill C-19 entitled "Annual Review by Minister".
This board is in accordance with the proposed amendment, and I would appreciate advice on the destiny of the amendment and the bill.
That is clearly an endorsement from that organization. We received a reply from the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. In his remarks earlier today, the minister commented on what the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool had to say about the amendment. I will read a paragraph of the reply from Mr. Turner, president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. In his testimony he clearly opted for the more rigid and less flexible indexing approach. In his letter, he said:
The above amendment, while not specifically committing the government to adjustment of the guarantee and/or the subsidy according to an index of farm input costs, at least recognizes the principle and provides opportunity for annual review.
We also have a reaction from the president of United Grain Growers Limited. The letter is rather lengthy. Mr. Runciman included a copy of some useful remarks he delivered in a speech. I will read the first two paragraphs of his letter to the committee:
The directors of United Grain Growers are most pleased to have the cost of production factor entered as an amendment to Bill C-19.
This is a good amendment and, on behalf of UGG's members, allow me to compliment the Standing Committee on Agriculture for moving it.
From that survey of opinion, which was initiated by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, we see a general approval of the kind of amendment that is in the legislation at the moment. It is clearly acknowledged that certain of the farm organizations that appeared before us would like to have seen in the legislation a very inflexible and specific indexing factor. However, for the reasons I discussed earlier, that particular idea did not commend itself to most members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. I urge the same arguments this afternoon upon members of this House as we come to a final decision on this matter.
I wish to make some comment on certain remarks made during the course of this debate regarding testimony given before the standing committee by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I think the members of the committee will agree that, like all the groups, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture made a very useful and informative presentation. I think it would be useful for the committee and indeed this House if all members would adopt a rather more consistent attitude with regard to the kind of advice that from time to time comes forward from farm organizations. I say this particularly in connection with advice we have received from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture because they have been singled out by members opposite for consideration in today's debate.

It is important to consider their representations with some consistency. In the course of this debate, members opposite have spoken very highly about what the Canadian Federation of Agriculture have to say. It is quite proper that they should do so because the Canadian Federation of Agriculture presented a very useful brief to the committee on that point. However, this House should demand that hon. members be consistent.
I recall the remarks made in the past week or so by members opposite with regard to another piece of legislation, Bill C-41. The message was just the opposite, that we should not be relying upon the farm organizations and the commentaries they bring forward but, rather, we should circumvent them and address ourselves almost exclusively to the farmers. I do not think the Canadian Federation of Agriculture or any other duly elected farm organization would appreciate that suggestion.
My only plea is for consistency. It is an important principle that we should not treat the advice and counsel of farm groups favourably when it suits our purposes and unfavourably when it does not. It is very important that wherever possible we talk to the individual producers in western Canada or wherever they may be found in this country. However, it is also important to consult with and discuss policy proposals with organizations and groups. Let us do it on all occasions in both directions, not simply in one direction when it is convenient and in another when it may be particularly handy.
I am pleased to note that this government has a high regard for the expressions of individual farmer opinion which come forward to us from time to time. This minister in particular, the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, has repeatedly sought direct advice from individual farmers both formally and informally. I think of the formal occasions when he has sought that advice in the manner of a vote or poll. I think of the original vote on the two-price wheat program and the rapeseed marketing plebiscite. Then, there was the recent vote to elect the advisory committee of the Canadian Wheat Board. There have been many informal consultations, too, directly with producers in connection with such things as the stabilization plan, the feed grains policy, grains transportation and other very important issues.
In addition to those consultations between this government and individual producers, directly one to one, this government has demonstrated a high and consistent regard for the counsel and advice of farm organizations duly elected to represent the interests of farmers across the country. I plead that we in this House and elsewhere treat their recommendations with some consistency.
In my view, the basic point is that the amendment of the hon. member for Crowfoot is not necessary. I believe that Bill C-19, with the review procedure-and it is very important that it be in there-is adequate to deal with the situation. We have the obligation of an annual review. The bill as it stands should now enjoy speedy passage; it does not need the additional requirement of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Crowfoot.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. We have just had a reiteration of platitudes about the Liberal Party's agricultural policy.
May 7, 1975

They are platitudes, and platitudes only: they produce nothing. Let us look at the platitudes which emanated from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) as an election gimmick. Let us look at the losses suffered by the hog growers in the Atlantic area. Let us look at the cost of the provincial government's stepping in to fill a federal vacuum. A review by the minister will be reflected in every piece of agricultural legislation that we have and in every approach by the government to agriculture. It has finally been decided by an interdepartmental committee, or by a multidepartmental committee, that agriculture is no longer number one. The primary consideration is the politics of the situation, which means that the individual farmer is not given the priority that he deserves.
I submit that the responsibility being placed at this moment in time in the hands of the minister leaves agriculture in the hands of an urban-oriented cabinet which has shown a complete lack of comprehension of the needs of agriculture in all its phases. I will be eating the bread that comes from the wheat that comes from the west; and what this bill does is to ensure that if the international price of wheat goes up, the farmers will lose income: if the international price of wheat goes down, the farmers will then sell on the international market. So the farmer loses either way. The referral structure that has been set up leaves the farmers, as I say, in the hands of an urban-oriented government which has not served, cannot serve, and has no intention of ever serving agriculture as an industry of importance in this country.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The question is on motion No. 1. All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is therefore on motion No. 2.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Mr. Lang, seconded by Mr. Sharp, moves:
That Bill C-19, an act to provide for payments in respect of wheat produced and sold in Canada for human consumption in Canada, as reported (with amendments), from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, be concurred in.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? Next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Next sitting of the House.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No. On a point of order Mr. Speaker, in order to go into third reading today we must have unanimous consent, and I say no.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, there are three people in the gallery tallying the vote. That information can be obtained from Hansard. I ask whether those people work for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and if they are trying to find out who is here and who is not. I want to know what they are doing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would designate Friday of this week as an allotted day, pursuant to Standing Order 58.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for that advice. Can he assure the House that Bill C-58 will be before us tomorrow?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the business for tomorrow will be Bill C-58 dealing with Time, Reader's Digest and assorted subjects. I should advise the House that it is very likely there will be allotted days on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), I am able to inform him offhand that two of the persons in the gallery to whom he referred are employees of the Journals branch and are not related to any political party. I will check on the matter, however.
It being after six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock tomorrow.
At 6.13 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, May 8, 1975