1975-04-16

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of increasing difficulties for Quebec producers, and since I have received this morning a telegram from the Poultry Producers Federation which, considering those difficulties, asks for concrete and immediate action from the government since reserves will be depleted during the next 24 hours, what is the present situation in that field in the province of Quebec, and has the government taken a decision to bring things back to normal in Quebec ports?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as we said yesterday, grain is moving. Many things are being said about the shortages of grain and when it will run out. I was expecting an updated report, which I had expected to receive at noon. The report I received this morning was that there was grain still moving from Quebec City and from Prescott by both truck and rail car into the areas most in need. We are watching it very closely and having constant meetings and discussions with the people concerned and doing everything humanly possible under the circumstances to make sure that there is no loss of livestock or poultry.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Since the minister said this week that the producers could get supplies in Montreal harbour, thus inviting Quebec City and Trois-Rivieres producers to get their supplies in Montreal, and since the grain elevators are completely empty in Quebec City and Trois-Rivieres, where there is no possible access for producers, is the minister prepared to take emergency measures, which, I believe, would meet the needs of the producers?


Eugene Whelan: The latest report I received was at nine o'clock this morning, but the elevators were loading trucks with no interference at Quebec City. Several boat loads are on the way to mills in the area. Feed mills in Quebec City are back to normal operation since grain is available in the Quebec City terminals. All of these mills have had
their grain trucked from Montreal and other sources last week and are doing the same thing this week to make sure supplies are adequate. In Montreal, there were only a few trucks able to move through the area this morning. I believe there were four trucks, which amounts to nothing, in view of the need, I realize that, but they are moving steadily from Prescott elevators, and that will account for approximately a million bushels.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a last supplementary.
The minister having suggested supplies may be available in Montreal, is he aware that producers in Trois-Rivieres who go to Montreal for instance, cannot get the supplies they need since the Montreal and Quebec City ports are first meeting the demand of their customers, thus depriving the Trois-Rivieres area of sufficient supply?


Eugene Whelan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are aware of that, and we are trying to make sure that car loadings from other sources in central Ontario or Thunder Bay, are moved into that area. I understand that there is some movement into that area at the present time, but I do not know how great it is. I had hoped to have an up-to-date report in that regard as of one o'clock but I do not as yet have that report.


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: The minister has just said that he has no up-to-date report on whether the feed grains are moving in from areas other than Quebec City, Montreal or Trois-Rivieres. The information we have this morning is that the farm producers in a substantial part of the province of Quebec will be unable to obtain the grain they need in the ensuing several days. This grain is needed to feed their poultry and livestock. Can the government assure us today that within the next few days there will not be a shortage resulting in the farmers having to kill or slaughter their livestock prematurely, against marketing conditions and against their normal plans? Surely, the answers the minister has given are only hopes-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please.


John Allen Fraser: We need answers to the situation.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am basing this on the fact that if there are no pickets at the elevators, and if there is an injunction that the pickets acknowledge and obey, for instance, at the port of Montreal, grain could be moving in an abundant supply by later this day. I say that because there is as yet no evidence that there is any livestock or poultry dying or starving as a result of this. Some may have to be cut back in the rations they are giving their
29557-321/2

April 16, 1975
Oral Questions
livestock. I heard the radio reports on that this morning, but we are in constant contact with the people using the grain and those who truck it, and I am saying that it has not reached that disastrous stage at this time. As long as the grain continues to move and the boats continue on their way to the area to supply them with grain to replenish the elevators being used, we foresee no great disaster. But if it does appear to be otherwise, I can assure the House that we will take drastic action.


John Allen Fraser: We know that there will be no grain coming into Quebec City until at least Saturday. We know they cannot get the grain out of Trois-Rivieres. The minister says that the situation is being watched day by day. The fact is that Quebec producers may have to begin slaughtering their livestock and their poultry because they do not have grain. Can the minister advise us whether in fact the situation is under control or whether he only hopes it is going to be under control? What certainty can the government give us right now that the problem is under control because all the evidence is that it is not.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, this is a free society-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, they have certain rights that we have to acknowledge and other people have certain rights that they have to acknowledge. The elevators in Quebec do not have anyone on strike and the elevators in Montreal do not have anyone on strike. Those picketers are from the longshoremen who are picketing the elevators. They do not work there as far as that goes. Anyone who tells me there is not going to be grain in Quebec knows more about it than I do-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: -because my report says that grain is moving out of the Quebec elevators. My report says freighters are moving toward the elevators. My report says freighters are moving toward the elevators and they will be unloading and replenishing. There are three freighters on their way now. We do not know what elevators they will be going into but we know that the CNR and the CPR are pooling their resources. We know people are sharing the grain stocks they have. If anyone can show me this kind of thing that is being suggested he should do so because we have no evidence of severe loss or shortage of feed that would cause loss of livestock or poultry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: A final supplementary, the hon. member for Vancouver South.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. minister this specific question. Can he assure us that within the ensuing few days or a week there is not going to be a shortage of grain which will require Quebec producers to slaughter their poultry and livestock? If he cannot give us that assurance I can assure you that the Canadian public will wonder why these things are coming to pass in the absence of some action-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the minister I wish to question is not here yet. Perhaps you would see one of my colleagues.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


MINISTER'S PROPOSED MEETINGS ON TRANSPORTATION-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF POLICY
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board in view of the statement in this morning's press that he intends to hold a series of meetings in 11 centres in western Canada, as he says:
... for farmers, to clearly understand the precise nature of federal policies on transportation matters.
May I ask the minister if he would be good enough to announce those policies in this House before he leaves for that junket since we are unable to get them from the Minister of Transport?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the policies in question are in relation to the grain handling system and to the relevant part of the transportation system. They are policies which have been clearly indicated prior to now. The particular function of these meetings is, rather, to give accurate information to farmers compared to the rather inaccurate information which is given by the friends of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.


PROPRIETY OF MINISTER DEALING WITH TRANSPORT RATHER THAN MINISTER OF TRANSPORT
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A supplementary question for the Prime Minister. May I ask if he thinks it proper or if this is a cabinet decision that the Minister of Justice should be discussing not only grain handling but rail line abandonment and freight rates rather than the Minister of Transport fulfilling that responsibility, whether in western Canada or anywhere else?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I can
assure the hon. member that everything is under control, Mr. Speaker.
April 16, 1975


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I put my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In the last throne speech, it was mentioned that amendments would be brought to the Unemployment Insurance Act. In view of the bad service given to the public in northwestern Quebec and by several other unemployment offices in Canada, could the minister say whether he intends to change the act before July 1975?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: No, Mr. Speaker.


POSSIBILITY OF INCREASED DEMAND ON FUND-NOTIFICATION TO MINISTER CONCERNED
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Finance. As the Finance Minister's recent no real growth projection for the Canadian economy in 1975 implies a considerably higher unemployment rate than that suffered now by Canadians, can the minister tell the House whether the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has been notified that he should expect a much greater drain of Unemployment Insurance Commission funds than would have been expected prior to the minister's new projections?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the projections for unemployment insurance benefit requirements are formulated basically by analysts of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and, instead of the government informing them what the projections are to be, it is the other way around.


POSSIBLE INADEQUACY OF ITEM IN MAIN ESTIMATES TO MEET INCREASE IN BENEFIT PAYMENTS
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who is responsible for the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Assuming that the minister is aware that even higher unemployment rates are to be expected in 1975 and that benefit payments are already up 27 per cent over those made in a comparable period last year, is the minister prepared to concede that the $864 million item in the main estimates for the government's contribution to the unemployment insurance account will be totally inadequate to cover the cash drain resulting from larger benefit pay-outs.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, far too many variables are involved to permit me to make a precise forecast and confirm the response the hon. member desires from me.
Oral Questions


COMPUTER TRAP TO CATCH THOSE RECEIVING BENEFITS WHO ARE INELIGIBLE-SUGGESTED CONTINUANCE OF OPERATION
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration on a subject which does not involve any variables. It has been reported that a computer trap set up under a pilot scheme caught 1,000 people cheating when applying for unemployment insurance benefits. An official indicated that at least 50,000 people may be cheating.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I heard the Minister of National Health and Welfare muttering over there. He had better stick to his old job.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister, probably, was referring to the rather extensive announcement I made on Monday, when I indicated to hon. members the desire that, to supplementaries, there should be absolutely no preamble.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, it was only four lines, hand-written. Does the minister confirm this figure and will he assure the House that he will put the pilot scheme into general operation, in order to catch the cheaters.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the commission is continuously seeking to protect the integrity of the Unemployment Insurance system. The use of computers combined with the improved record of employment process was introduced in January, 1974. The recent story which caught the hon. member's fancy-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It is not fancy; it is fact.


Robert Knight Andras: -involves 1,000 people. The statistic which results from an examination of that particular location does not project the number of people involved elsewhere. I simply come back to the point that we are constantly improving our operation, in order to give better service and exercise better control.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Where are the amendments to the act?


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO COUNTERACT DEFICIT
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: It's nice to see you back.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to be missed. May I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and

April 16, 1975
Oral Questions
Commerce concerning the auto pact. Bearing in mind the minister's statements to the House on Monday that a short-term solution to the auto pact trade deficit is unlikely, can the minister assure the House that his pessimism does not extend to the longer term prospects for the auto pact trade, particularly in light of predictions made by the president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association to the effect that the deficit is likely to become even greater.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, that deficit will start diminishing rapidly as soon as the United States market returns to near normal conditions.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Am I to understand that the minister is assuring the House that once automotive sales in the United States improve, the deficit in Canada will begin to decrease?


Alastair William Gillespie: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member would look at the figures he would see that last year Canadian export sales to the United States increased. The reason we have the deficit is that our imports increased even more. Why? Because the Canadian economy was a lot stronger than the U.S. economy.


Mr. Baldwin:: That does not quite tally with what the Minister of Finance said recently.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Having looked at the figures and realizing that Canada has endured more deficits than surpluses under the auto pact, is the minister now prepared or when will he be prepared to tell us what longer term programs his government proposes to make so that the automotive trade will be more advantageous to Canada than it is now or has been, according to his own department's statistics?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I again remind the hon. member that it might be useful for him to review the figures on investment in Canada since the auto pact was introduced. He should look at the numbers with respect to employment increase in Canada compared with the employment increase in the United States. He will find that our performance has been considerably ahead of the United States. Notwithstanding the problems which the hon. member referred to in the parts industry market in the United States, my department has a number of programs under way aimed at trying to find new markets outside the United States for parts made by Canadian automobile parts manufacturers.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. As the average farm income has consistently been lower than the average industrial composite, and in view of the minister's statement in London on April 11 that "no farmer will get rich

from our stabilization plans or government policies", is it government policy that this disparity should continue?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, no farmer has asked me to develop a get-rich-quick plan. They have asked for a reasonable income with any plan we provide. That is what we intend to do.


Stanley James Korchinski: Are there any plans to provide equity for all Canadians and at the same time improve the economic position of the farmer, in view of the minister's statement and the fact that the farm sector gets fewer subsidy dollars than most other sectors and that tariff protection is only half that of the non-agricultural sector?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the last part of the hon. member's question, that the agricultural sector gets less tariff protection than the industrial sector, is correct. It averages about 8 per cent whereas the industrial sector averages about 16 per cent protection on imports into Canada.


Stanley James Korchinski: I know what I said. I want to know what the minister is going to do.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, an awful lot depends on parliament, not just the Minister of Agriculture, as to how quickly we get the legislation passed in order that it will benefit the farmers of Canada. I might say the provinces are waiting for it, too.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact the government's promised income support policy for fishermen has been deferred and may be postponed indefinitely, will there be changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act to make it more applicable to fishermen because the existing act is of no use to fishermen, certainly in the Atlantic area?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, with regard to employed fishermen as contrasted to self-employed fishermen, we are examining the applicability and equitability of the act. I must confirm to the hon. member that this has to be done, and is in fact being done, in compatibility with discussions with my colleague, the Minister of State (Fisheries). When a program including the possibility of any change in unemployment insurance is decided upon, and this is not a foregone conclusion, it will be made known in the usual way.
April 16, 1975


FISHERIES
Walter C. Carter: In view of the fact this has been going on for four or five years, will the Minister of State (Fisheries) undertake to discuss this matter with his colleague as soon as possible? I ask this because the government's promised income support policy program will not be implemented in the foreseeable future.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member has misrepresented what I said the other day. I said that I hope within the next couple of months to be able to present my program to my colleagues and have discussions with the fishermen's organizations. In no way am I backing down from my promise and decision that there will be some income support program for fishermen.


Walter C. Carter: Will the minister assure the House and the fishermen of this country that the program referred to will be working by the conclusion of the forthcoming season, say by next fall?


Roméo LeBlanc: While agreeing with the hope that it will be in place by then, I will say this: we shall not bring a program forward before we and the fishermen are convinced that it is a visible improvement in terms of the stabilization of their income as compared with what exists now.


NATIONAL CAPITAL
Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
In the future, the national capital area on the Quebec side, which is undoubtedly the most beautiful area in Quebec and which has been developed almost entirely by the National Capital Commission and the federal Department of Public Works, will be controlled and hampered in its development by a new agency recently set up by the provincial government, namely the "Direction generale de la Capitale nationale", under the guidance of an intergovernmental affairs official highly specialized in separatism. Given this fact, can the Prime Minister tell this House whether the Canadian government intends to abolish the National Capital Commission and perhaps to amend section 16 of the act to include Hull as an integral part of the National Capital of Canada?
Right. Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing these facts to my attention. I can assure him that the government has absolutely no intention of abolishing the National Capital Commission. On the contrary, I share the view of the hon. member, namely that the commission did a tremendous
Oral Questions
job on both sides of the Ottawa River in the last few years, and we want this to continue. As to the other part of the question, Mr. Speaker, the Fullerton report will be submitted to a commission of this House. We are waiting for the reports of this commission. Personally, I trust entirely the participation of the hon. member for Hull and of the other hon. members for the area to ensure that a very good report will be brought forward in this House.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the decision by the Court of Appeal in Quebec in the Morgentaler trial imposing a decision not only as to a matter of law but also as to a matter of fact in that case and the concern expressed this week by the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert as to the effect this might have on the jury system in this country, and in view of the Prime Minister's own legal background, will the Prime Minister advise us whether the answer given in this House on April 10 by the Minister of Justice that consideration would not be given to changing section 613 of the Criminal Code under which a court of Appeal may come to the conclusion it did is government policy.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Certainly a view expressed by the Minister of Justice in an area of his jurisdiction represented government policy at the time he expressed it. The suggestion itself, to my knowledge, has not been discussed in cabinet. If there is some reason to do so I will have a talk with my colleague and see if we want to bring it up in cabinet.


POSSIBILITY OF PARDON FOR DR. MORGENTALER- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: My supplementary concerns the same case in which the Crown elected to proceed by preferred indictment thereby avoiding a preliminary hearing, the uniqueness of this case being that the Supreme Court could find no legal precedent for the actions of the Quebec Court of Appeal. Would the Prime Minister also advise whether the view expressed by the Minister of Justice on the 10th that no consideration would be given to clemency or free pardon in the Morgentaler case also expressed the view of the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The
system allowing for preferred indictment has been in the Criminal Code for a very long time. The authority it gives to provincial attorneys general is one expressed by them in conditions foreseen under the law. I would be surprised if the hon. member is correct when he says that the Supreme Court made the point he said it did about this preferred indictment. It is a provision in the Code and it is there for a good reason. I do not know of any reason to take it out of the Code. If the hon. member has particular

April 16, 1975
Oral Questions
arguments, he might want to submit them in some form to the government.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the minister responsible for consumer protection.
Without prejudice to the fact that the three great sugar companies in eastern Canada are still on trial, does the minister feel that many citizens are literally taken in by the sugar cartels, which establish their prices according to the London Exchange, and therefore can he tell the House if he himself or his colleagues from the departments concerned are in the process of drafting a real sugar policy for Canada?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in both cases.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary.
Does the minister contemplate especially the enlargement of the Saint-Hilaire refinery as one of the concrete solutions liable to democratize the sugar market and as one of the steps likely to ensure real protection for the consumer?


André Ouellet: This is also under consideration, Mr. Speaker.


INDUSTRY
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and it relates to Trident Aircraft of British Columbia which announced yesterday it will be closing down April 30. Would the minister give the Trident Aircraft company the same assistance in British Columbia that the government has given de Havilland Aircraft in Ontario and Canadair in Quebec?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, some four weeks ago in Vancouver I indicated quite clearly that the federal government was prepared to support this particular venture in a very significant way. We said we would put something like $2 million, I think it was, behind it, and we have already put close to $1 million behind it. We asked that the investors in that particular firm be prepared to put up roughly $1 million, and I think the B.C. government was prepared to come in for about $1 million, too. I think quite

clearly the next move is up to the investors. I do not think they can expect governments and the taxpayers of Canada to carry the whole burden.


John Douglas Reynolds: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister, is it not a fact that he has not put that offer to the company in writing?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the officers of the company are fully aware of our position, and I am not aware that that is any problem at all in this situation.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Last month when asked whether the government was considering the introduction of legislation dealing with single sector bargaining, the President of the Treasury Board scoffed at the idea while the minister himself said that he had no comment and that he was not in a position to discuss labour problems at that time. In view of the continuing labour unrest in numerous public sectors of our economy and because the Prime Minister himself has questioned the CLC about just such a proposition, can the minister now assure this House that in fact such legislation to somewhat curb the fragmentation of union power is being considered, and when is it expected to be introduced?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot assure the hon. member that legislation is now being considered, simply because it is not at all certain that this is the best way to achieve this particular result. Let me advise the hon. member, however, that we have been doing a fair amount of work within the department itself to see how this tendency could be encouraged, and we have been talking with both management and labour with respect to it. Certainly, on the labour side, I have been receiving considerable encouragement toward this end.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question, which is a more or less a housekeeping one, is directed to the Solicitor General. In an answer on March 6 the minister said he was in weekly contact with the commissioner of the RCMP, and at that time the commissioner thought the SIU investigation would be concluded "in the very near future". When was the minister last in touch with the commissioner of the RCMP as to when the investigation will be concluded?
April 16, 1975


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I was in touch with the commissioner of the RCMP today, but I was notified, I believe last week, that the investigation has been completed and that a report is being prepared. I will have the report shortly.


DATE OF RECEIPT OF TRANSCRIPT OF PRELIMINARY HEARING IN HAMILTON HARBOUR MATTER-GOVERNMENT ACTION
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question which is more a related question than supplementary. On March 6 the minister was asked whether he has now received the eight transcripts of the preliminary hearing in the Hamilton harbour matter. Has he had a chance to review them, and what action does he intend to take?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we have received them but I have not read all of them. I have had my officials read through them and take out the parts that were relevant, and I have examined those parts.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Solicitor General.
In view of the great interest in the public concerning the retention or the complete abolition of capital punishment, and following the minister's recent statements, can he tell the House whether he will submit this question again to Parliament during this session or during the next session?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been made on that; but as the hon. member knows, we must bring the issue before this parliament because the present law, which is a temporary law, expires at the end of 1977.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker- he was here and he is gone again.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of increasing Communist preparations for an assault on Saigon, would the minister care to explain his answer of yesterday to a question of mine in which he said that it was not necessary to evacuate Canadians from Saigon as they are safe for the moment, especially since I heard over the radio this morning that Canadians are being evacuated from Saigon?
Oral Questions


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on reviewing my answer yesterday what I should have said was Canadian personnel of our mission in Saigon. Arrangements are being made for the evacuation of other Canadians at their choice, preferably on commercial flights, but eventually we might have to put in a government plane.


VIET NAM-INQUIRY WHETHER CANADIAN FOOD AID GOING TO ALL AREAS OF THE COUNTRY
Donald W. Munro: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to thank the minister for the clarification of his answer yesterday. I should like to inquire whether Canadian food aid to Viet Nam is going to those areas presently under the control of the Saigon government as well as to those areas controlled by the PRG?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs explained, our aid to Viet Nam is being channelled through international organizations. I would have to ascertain whether they are providing assistance in all parts of Viet Nam.


CONFERENCE OF OIL PRODUCING AND CONSUMING COUNTRIES-CANADIAN POSITION ON SUBJECTS TO BE DISCUSSED
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs respecting the preliminary conference on energy being held in Paris, which seems to be bogged down on the question whether the full conference should concern itself simply with petroleum and petroleum prices and problems, or whether it should include the consideration of other primary products. What has been the position of the government of Canada in regard to this issue, and what instructions has the government of Canada given?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition will recall, we were not invited to the preliminary conference so our point of view was not sought.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that when I raised this question previously I was told by the responsible minister that the views of the government of Canada would be expressed through and to the international energy commission, I should like to know how the acting secretary of state reconciles the answer he had given me today with the position previously taken by the spokesman of the government in this House.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has asked two different questions. He has asked one about the conveying of our views to a different body. I do not find that inconsistent with the fact that we are not in attendance at that preliminary conference and therefore were not asked for our views. How could we have expressed our views if we were not there?

April 16, 1975
Oral Questions


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the minister was speaking doubletalk intentionally, but rather from ignorance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask either the Prime Minister or the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs what is the view of the government of Canada in respect of this matter? Should the full conference, if it is held, concern itself with the prices of primary products other than petroleum?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I may have missed the first part of the first question, but my impression is that there is no more information to give than that advanced by the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs when asked whether this preliminary conference should be discussing other things than it is in fact discussing. I would tell the hon. member that we attempted to be part of that preliminary conference, and had we been part of it we perhaps would have expressed our views there, and might have had to formulate an answer to the question the hon. member is asking. We were not successful in being invited there, and therefore were not in a position to express views on that.


POSSIBILITY OF CANADA CALLING CONFERENCE OF OIL PRODUCING AND CONSUMING COUNTRIES
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, because the preparatory world conference on energy has collapsed, with very grave implications for the world in respect of the price of energy, would the Prime Minister reconsider Canada taking the lead in organizing a global conference of oil producing and consuming countries to head off a threatened price increase? I put this question in the context of Canada being both an importer and exporter of oil and because of our trusted position internationally.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we had hoped that we would have been invited to the preparatory conference, and I think it would have been helpful if we had. I want to assure the hon. gentleman that the effort to convene a conference has not yet been abandoned and discussions are going on among the countries concerned.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister is now in a position to inform the House regarding the slug of dead water moving down the Red River? Can he tell the House whether the pollution did in fact occur on the United States side of the border and if there was an obligation on the part of the

United States, either under the Boundary Waters Treaty or the Fisheries Act, to inform the Canadian government on March 27 when this was first monitored in the United
States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the answer to that question which was asked on Monday. I am informed that the parliamentary secretary has been able to follow it through.


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, this particular slug of water has passed down the Red River and has dissipated into Lake Winnipeg, as I understand it. Canada has been following this problem since it began. As a matter of fact it was our department which discovered the problem first at Emerson. The whole thing has been referred to the IJC, but the cause or the source of the problem has not yet been totally identified. We have some suspicions but we really cannot identify the source until we hear further from the IJC.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that on March 27 this same slug of water was monitored first in the United States sector, I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary would answer the question I put to the Prime Minister? Was there any obligation on the part of the United States government to inform Canadian sources once it did monitor this, and is the Canadian government in fact now in a position to tell us what damage in terms of fish loss occurred, and does the government intend to take legal action in respect of compensation for that loss of fish?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check on the first part of the question. Having regard to the second part, we do know there has been some fish damage, but we do not have a complete assessment of the extent of the damage.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration refers to a recent statement by his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, in which she said that the government has made the Unemployment Insurance Act more flexible where maternity benefits are concerned in that women will now be able to take maternity leave of 15 weeks in all in whatever way they choose, all before or all after the birth of the child. Will the minister inform the House when this legislation came into effect and when local UIC offices will be informed of the change which his colleague says will make these benefits applicable for 15 weeks either before or after the birth?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to examine my colleague's statement.


An hon. Member:: It was premature.
April 16, 1975


Robert Knight Andras: I do not think we are interested in any of that male chauvinistic talk opposite. The amendment as described by my colleague is the intention of the government, but the precise date of its implementation into law has not been reached yet.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that his colleague's statement is not in accord with the legislation regarding maternity benefits proposed in Bill C-16, and given the confusion that this has caused among the general public and the UIC offices across the country about the intent of the amendment, will the minister move toward resolving this situation by arranging with the House leader to have this bill brought forward immediately?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will note the hon. member's representation.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Is he aware that child labour, both male and female, has been used for janitorial work such as cleaning floors and washrooms at the Halifax International Airport, in particular on Easter Sunday, March 30, 1975? If the minister is not aware of this will he cause an investigation to be made and report to this House immediately? Would he also confirm whether this is governmental or departmental policy?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: I will surely inquire, Mr. Speaker.


FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I could say of my question that this is the third time of asking. Last Thursday in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs I put a question to the acting minister with reference to the fact that the Food Prices Review Board had refused to give certain information concerning the meat operations of Canada Safeway in Manitoba to the Manitoba Livestock and Meat Commission. Since I put my question rather fully last Thursday I need not go into it again now, but is the minister yet in a position to give the House a reply as to whether the Food Prices Review Board will be asked to co-operate in this matter?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, no doubt the hon. member's
Oral Questions
perseverance will have succeeded, since I am told that the Manitoba Livestock Commission will receive all the information it requests directly from Safeway.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. On February 24, 1975, in a joint communique of the meeting of federal and provincial ministers of transport on western transportation the minister was quoted as saying that he was opposed to any further general horizontal percentage increases in freight rates. Noting that The Canadian National Railways have filed for a 20 per cent increase in class of freight rates which would come into effect on May 5 and which could have quite a spin-off effect on other rates, I should like to ask the minister what action he will be taking in support of his statement that he is opposed to any further horizontal rail freight rate increases?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had exactly the same question put to me. Today the answer is the same. I am still opposed to the kind of increase that is proposed.


Jack Burnett Murta: Since the purpose of the 18 month freeze on freight rates was to find a solution to the so called anomalies and noting that the final study has not been completed as yet, and since the minister says he is still opposed to a further increase, but a decision will have to be made one way or the other before May 5 when the increases will come into effect, what specific action will he take? Rather than telling us his views, can he tell us what his department will do?


Jean Marchand: I think that I spoke about ten times in the House on how the freeze was imposed, for what purpose and for what length of time. All these questions were answered and I have nothing new to add.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. What adequate monitoring procedures will he set-up to ensure that reductions in the sales tax on building materials will be passed on to consumers and will not in fact represent windfall gains to house builders?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, this is something which comes under the jurisdiction of my colleague, the minister

April 16, 1975
Oral Questions
responsible for housing. I know that some of my department officials are part of the team which is looking into this.


HOUSING
James Aloysius McGrath: My question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. May I ask him whether he is satisfied that the reductions in the sales tax are being passed on to the home buyers in Canada, and can he tell the House what procedures are adopted or will be adopted to put thdse monitoring procedures into effect?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: The materials monitoring division of CMHC is checking this on a regular basis and reporting to me. There is an indication that the reductions are being passed on. It is hard to be precise. In at least one case the builder has actually returned the rebate cheque to the purchaser after the fact. In another case we have re-negotiated a contract for a limited dividend rental accommodation, and so the sales tax reduction was passed on. This is being watched on a continuing basis.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Can he inform the House as to what are the possibilities of removing both the export and import restrictions with regard to cattle which affect our trade with the United States?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I answered a similar question in the House yesterday and said that discussions are going on between the U.S. and Canada. I discussed the matter with the United States Secretary of Agriculture. I do not know what the consequences of the discussions will be, whether they will bear fruit or not.


Peter Elzinga: In view of the fact that the restrictions which the minister imposed on the import of cattle from the United States some time ago caused the United States to react by imposing protective measures of their own that have been extremely damaging to the Canadian cattle industry, and in view of the fact that the minister himself has caused this dilemma, would he assure the House that he will do whatever is possible to have these regulations re-negotiated so that Canadian cattlemen can take advantage of the higher prices in U.S. markets?


Eugene Whelan: There is no truth to the statements made by the hon. member. As the result of actions we have taken, nearly $100 million has flowed to cattle producers

in Canada. If we had allowed U.S. cattle producers to dump their cattle in the Canadian market, our prices would have gone down to the level of American prices for cattle. So, in effect, our action is beneficial to Canadian cattlemen. There is still a tremendous surplus of cattle in the United States and there is no advantage to Canadians from that market at present.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: My question is for the
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Mr. Speaker. Having recently tabled a document on the removal of the federal sales tax on clothing and footwear which showed merely a modest decrease in the expected rise in prices, can the minister tell us whether the investigation indicated if any of the 113 retailers who were surveyed failed to pass on the tax saving to the consumers and, if so, is the minister prepared to release to the House the names of those companies?


André Ouellet: If the hon. member will only look into the report which was tabled in the House, Mr. Speaker, he will realize that we are satisfied with the response we have obtained from the retailers we had asked to co-operate with the department in this investigation. The names of three firms are mentioned because, during this investigation, they refused to answer our questions.


Bruce Halliday: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, with reference to the three names to which the minister has just alluded. Can he inform the House whether those three companies refused to answer the questionnaire because of some inherent dislike of it or whether they simply ignored the minister's request?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I feel the hon. member should read this report. He would clearly realize that these firms refused to answer the questionnaire. We had contacted them on a number of occasions, trying to find out if they had special reasons for refusing to answer it. Because they refused to answer our questions, when all the others complied willingly with our request, we had to print their names in the report.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the policies of the government in the past which
April 16, 1975

have encouraged family firms to operate to increase their size to gain greater efficiency, is the minister, in his actions to assist potato producers, prepared to recognize these family partnerships or corporations as more than one unit in respect of assistance to be paid under the price stabilization program?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we are studying that request which has been put forward by other members of the House on this side.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is that the only reason you are studying it?


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In light of several conversations and exchanges of correspondence which we have had on the unfortunate decision to charge an entrance fee at the Cape Breton Highlands National Park and in view of the representations that have been made by the leader of my party on the same subject, is the minister prepared, because of the unique situation which we have discussed in that there is only one access highway, to waive these charges or at least reconsider his decision before they go into effect?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I really do not see how we can waive them. We are endeavouring to make exceptions, as I indicated earlier, for residents of the park and people who must pass through to get to their homes. However, I will be down there over the weekend and hope to consult with the people in the area on the problem.


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, if I might-and I am not sure whether this is the right procedure-in regard to the statement which the minister made concerning restrictions which he imposed some time ago. These regulations were so broad that United States cattle came into Canada in such large numbers that our cattle market was drastically affected, and yet Canadian cattlemen cannot take advantage of the U.S. market.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Order Paper Questions
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,551, 1,693, 1,695, 1,696, 1,764, 1,842, 1,918, 1,938, 1,950, 2,007, 2,010, 2,013, 2,014, 2,016, 2,021 and 2,022.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that questions Nos. 271 and 318 be made orders for return and also ask the consent of the House to table immediately the information which has already been submitted. The balance of the information will follow as soon as it is submitted to me.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	How many retired employees of the Canadian National Railways are in receipt of pensions of less than $25.00 per month?
2.	How many are in receipt of a pension of $25.00 per month?
3.	How many are in receipt of pensions of (a) $25.01 to $29.99 per month (b) $30.00 to $39.99 per month (c) $40.00 to $49.99 per month (d) $50.00 to $59.99 per month (e) $60.00 to $69.99 per month (f) $70.00 to $79.99 per month (g) $80.00 to $89.99 per month (h) $90.00 to $99.99 per month (i) $100.00 to $124.99 per month (j) $125.00 to $149.99 per month (k) $150.00 to $199.99 per month (1) $200.00 to $299.99 per month (m) $300.00 per month or over?


Jean Marchand: The
Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. Two hundred fifty eight.
2.	One hundred thirty.
3.	(a) 629, (b) 456, (c) 562, (d) 1,438, (e) 633, (f) 508, (g) 422, (h) 464, (i) 1,251, (j) 1,559, (k) 3,273, (1) 6,395, (m) 8,129. In a number of cases the amounts of pensions paid by Canadian National Railways do not represent the total pensions payable to employees for railway service. Pensions payable by CNR to international employees (service in both Canada and the United States) relate to their service in Canada only. Such employees also receive annuities payable under the United States Railroad Retirement Act or the Social Security Act for service performed in the United States. For example, in the group receiving pensions under $25 a month, in 1974, there are 52 former international employees who also receive United States Railroad Retirement or Social Security annuities in respect of CNR service rendered in the United States. In addition, there are various pension agreements between CNR and other companies, such as Canadian Pacific Limited, CP Telecommunications, and the Ontario Northland Railway, where each company issues separate cheques for its portion of the total pension. Only the pension payable by CNR is in this statement. Also, since the passing of the Pension Benefits Standards Act by the Federal Government on October 1, 1967, there are employees who have terminated service with CN and are receiving rather small compulsory deferred pensions for service performed only from October 1, 1967. The balance of those receiving small pensions are employees who elected early retirement (before age sixty-five) with reduced basic pensions ($25) and employees who had very short service and very small contributions.

April 16, 1975
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Ellis: 1.	What is the total amount of contracts awarded, to date, for the Department of Public Works project, Renovations to the Langevin Block, Ottawa, Ontario?
2.	What is the present estimated cost of completion for this project?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.	$3,026,004.
2.	$3,741,750.


Mr. Ellis: 1 What is the total amount of contracts awarded, to date, for the Department of Public Works project, Major Postal Processing Plant, Toronto, Ontario?
2.	What is the present estimated cost of completion for this project?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.	$111,131,713.
2.	$140,000,000. Expenditures relate only to contracts
funded by Department of Public Works and do not include equipment purchases made by Post Office Department.


Mr. Ellis: 1.	What is the total amount of contracts awarded, to date, for the Department of Public Works project, Place Guy Favreau, Montreal, Quebec?
2.	What is the present estimated cost of completion for this project?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.	$1,705,787.
2.	$204,073,000.


Mr. Herbert: What is the value, by country, of imports into Canada of electronic products since the effective date of July 1, 1974 of implementation of the general preferential tariff for developing countries up to December 31, 1974, under this tariff in tariff items (a) 44533-1 radio and television apparatus and parts thereof (b) 44544-1 transistors and other semiconductor devices and parts thereof, and specifically the value of those imports originating from Brazil, Mexico, Hong Kong and South Korea?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports that imports into Canada in the period July to December, 1974 of electronic products, under tariff items 44533-1 and 44544-1, are shown on the following table. A breakdown by each country of consignment is provided.
Imports of Electronic Products entered under Tariff Items 44533-1 and 44544-1
44533-1	44544-1
July-	July-
Deeember/74	December/74
$000	$000
United Kingdom	5,260	728Ireland	12	253Austria	44533-1 July- December/74 $000	44544-1 July- December/74 $000Belgium-Luxembourg	65	19Denmark	29	1Finland	65	-Franee	93	52Germany West	1,304	221Italy	64	63Netherlands	1.159	291Norway	41	-Portugal	109	-Spain	1	-Sweden	89	31Switzerland	33	2Germany East	103	-Hungary	2	-Poland	-	-U.S.S.R.	-	-Israel	653	-South Africa	1	-Africa NES	-	-Hong Kong	6,034	225India	56	-Malaysia	1	0,889Singapore	4,341	1,245People's Republic of China	25	-Japan	75,348	724Korea South	5,416	3,250Philippines	1	-Taiwan	14,339	700Thailand	-	-Australia	16	01New Zealand	1	-Brazil	411	-Jamaica	-	-Haiti	1	-Mexico	794	210Puerto Rico	50	1United States	102,542	28,084219,119	43.C02


Mr. Hogan: In real terms after adjusting for price increases, what was the government's share of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) over the two decades from 1952 to 1972?


Gaston Clermont: Statistics Canada reports that over the past two decades the government's share of the Gross Domestic Product is as shown in the table below.
Government Expenditure1 as a Percentage of Total Gross National Expenditure2 1952-1972 (1961 dollars)
per cent	per cent
1952	21.2	1963	18.91953	20.6	1964	18.3
[Mr. Marchand (Langelier)J
April 16, 1975

Government Expenditure' as a Percentage of Total Gross National Expenditure2 1952-1972 (1961 dollars)
	per cent		per cent
1954	20.5	1965	18.41955	19.1	1966	18.91956	18.2	1967	19.41957	18.2	1968	19.51958	18.7	1969	18.91959	18.3	1970	19.91960	17.9	1971	20.01961	19.9	1972	19.61962	19.7	
*Includes government current expenditure on goods and services, government capital expenditure for all levels of government.
2Measures of gross domestic product are not available on a constant dollar basis.


Mr. Herbert: How many employees of the Health Protection Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare are presently on full-time language instruction courses?
Hon. Marc L&londe (Minister of National Health and Welfare): As of March 13, 1975, 59.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	For the years 1972 to 1975 inclusive, how many dollars in contracts were awarded by the contracting branch of the Department of Supply and Services to companies in the constituency of Dollard?
2.	What was the total number of contracts issued with dollar amounts included for the entire Montreal region?
3.	What was the total number of contracts issued with dollar amounts included for Canada?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. The Department of Supply and Services does not collect contracting statistics by constituency.
2. Contracting in Montreal Region
Number of	Value
Period	Documents	$000
April 1, 1972 to
December 31, 1974	89,986	867,282
3.	Contracting in Canada
April 1, 1972 to
December 31, 1974	763,977	3,569,100
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Did a demonstration project related to the national competitive purchase of all printed material and all fabricated metal products take place in the years 1972-73 and, if so, with what results?
2.	Did the results in any way affect subsequent policy innovations in purchasing?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes a demonstration project took place between April, 1973 and May, 1974 on printed and metal fabricated products. A detailed analysis of the results is being prepared for consideration by the government.
2. The results did not affect subsequent policy innovations in the Supply Administration.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Is there any duplication of inspection activities with the Department of Supply and Services, particularly in the area of high cost technology contracts issued for weaponry on behalf of the Department of National Defence?
2.	How many inspectors are working for the Department?
3.	What are the duties entailed in their jobs?
4.	What is the overall cost of such programme?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. No.
2.	There are 18 Technical Inspectors employed by the department.
3.	Duties of the Department of Supply and Services Technical Inspectors are to provide technical supervision and inspection during the construction, conversion, repair, refit and docking of government civil ships or associated major components and equipment.
4.	The overall cost of this programme is $459,000.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What contracts In 1973-74 did Treasury Board review?
2.	What were the negative recommendations made by Treasury Board for such contracts?
3.	What latitude in decision making is preferred by the Board to the Department of Supply and Services purchasing wing?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. In 1973-74, 501 contract submissions requesting authority to enter into or to amend contracts were recommended to the Treasury Board by the Minister of Supply and Services or an authorized representative of the Minister.
2.	In 1973-74 there were no negative recommendations made by the Treasury Board for such contract submissions.
3.	Pursuant to Section 22 of the Government Contracts Regulations, the Treasury Board has delegated authority to the Minister of Supply and Services for the entry into contracts for the performance of any matter or thing that

April 16, 1975
Order Paper Questions
falls within the duties, powers or functions of the Minister as follows: (a) For the entry into a contract-a limit of $500,000 where tenders have been called and the lowest qualified tender is accepted; a limit of $250,000 where tenders have not been called or only one tender is received; (b) For increasing the Amount of a contract-a limit of $100,000; (c) Where the Government Contract Regulations provide higher limits than those noted above, the regulations shall govern.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	When design changes are found apparent and necessary within contracts awarded to suppliers, how lengthy is the process by which a contract may be refitted with proposed new dimensions?
2.	What body is responsible for this task?
3.	Are there any reported cases where the design authority and the contractor give effect to the change in advance of approval?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. The length of the process depends mainly on the complexity of the change in question. Difficult changes may take months while simple changes may require only a few days.
2.	The design authority for specific contracts is usually the customer department. DSS negotiates the contract terms for design changes with the supplier.
3.	Design changes that affect the contract price must be negotiated and approved through a contract amendment. Changes that the supplier undertakes without approval are made at his own risk.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Does the Department of Supply and Services have a uniform practice with respect to accepting cash discounts offered by suppliers for large quantities of goods purchased?
2.	Do purchasing agents make efforts to have significant savings on their bulk purchasing?
3.	What is the policy concerning the purchase of vehicle tires for the many vehicles operated by the various departments?
4.	What departments or agencies purchase tires at commercial service stations and for what reason?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes, when the terms of the contract provide for such a discount.
2.	Yes.
3.	Tires for the many vehicles operated by the various federal government departments and agencies are purchased against National Master Standing Offer arrangements which have been negotiated by DSS with tire manufacturers and their distribution organizations.
4.	All departments and corporations listed under Schedules A and B of the Financial Administration Act, and all branches of the government designated as departments for the purpose of this Act may purchase tires at commercial service stations in emergency situations only using the Canadian Government's National Credit Card System.


Mr. Reynolds: Can a comparison be provided of salary costs in purchasing officers proportionating the cost of items purchased in actual salary dollars for figures of contracts of $1,000 to $100,000 in terms of the average dollar expended and, if so, what is it?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Any comparison of salary costs to the value of contracts awarded in the Value Class Interval of $1,000 to $100,000 is not possible as the Department does not isolate its salary costs in such a manner.


Mr. Reynolds: What are the current procedures for the declaration of surplus material and supplies within the Department of Supply and Services?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: The current procedures for the declaration of surplus material and supplies within DSS are: (1) determine that neither DSS nor any other federal government department or agency has a use for the item; then, (2) assign the item to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation for disposal.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	To what extent are inventory and ordering patterns counterbalanced so as to minimize costs and immobilize capital?
2.	What are the inhibitions within the Department of Supply and Services policy that remove the tendency to overbuild stocks?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Through use of phased deliveries and direct shipments from factory to users.
2. Interest charged on investment in inventory is an important factor in the revenue dependency program of the Department.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	Under what authority are exempted staff hired?
2.	Under what vote (or votes) are exempted staff paid?
3.	From what are exempted staff exempted?
4.	Are all exempted staff employed for service in Ottawa or are they sometimes assigned to other parts of Canada or overseas?
5.	How many exempted staff are now on the government payroll and, of these, what is the breakdown (a) by department (b) by city or area of assignment?
6.	How many former Liberal candidates for Parliament during the 1972 general election are now employed as exempted staff?
April 16, 1975

Return tabled.



NUMBER OF PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES WHO SUBMITTED TRAVEL EXPENSES

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For each department, departmental corporation, agency corporation and proprietary corporation, how many employees whose headquarters were in Canada travelled outside of Canada and submitted travel expenses in each fiscal year 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74?
2.	In each fiscal year and for each department or corporation, what was the total amount expended on employee travel outside of Canada?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 34 and 37?



CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO PROPOSED TRANSFER OF CN HOTELS TO CONSORTIUM OF CN, AIR CANADA, HILTON AND TRIZEC CORP.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 34-Mr. Mazankowski:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the proposed agreement, as well as copies of correspondence, telegrams and minutes dealing with the proposed transfer of CN hotels to the consortium of CN, Air Canada, Hilton and Trizec Corp.
Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the papers requested by motion No. 34 are private and confidential and not of a public or official character. I therefore ask the hon. member to withraw his motion.


Gerald William Baldwin: Transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
COPIES OF DREDGING CONTRACTS, 1970-74 Motion No. 37-Mr. Paproski:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of contracts, correspondence, agreements and papers for each year 1970 to 1974 relating to dredging contracts in (a) Toronto (b) Quebec City (c) lie d'Orleans (d) Cap-de-la-Roche (e) South Baymouth (f) Hamilton.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the papers requested cannot be produced as they might prejudice any proceedings before a court of justice. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Paproski:: I am willing to wait until after the court proceedings, and we will debate it in the House.
Longshoremen's Strike


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate. Shall the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   LABOUR CONDITIONS LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE-EFFECT ON FEED GRAIN SUPPLIES

Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 26, I should like to present a motion for the discussion of a specific matter of importance and extreme urgency.
Mr. Speaker, I maintain that the House must study, in all haste, the present work stoppages which are paralyzing the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec City, and are preventing the millers from getting feed grain supplies intended for cattle, thus threatening the lives of thousands of them, which will result in food product losses on the one hand and income losses for the farm producers on the other.
In spite of the injunction in the port of Quebec City, which is not the case with the ports of Montreal and Trois-Rivieres, customers from those two cities have been forced to go to Quebec City for their supplies but reserves there will last no longer than a couple of days at the most. Public interest therefore demands that Parliament intervene immediately; to that effect, I move:
That this House do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I did receive notice of motion on this subject, pursuant to Standing Order 26, from the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle). It might perhaps be preferable to listen to him now before reaching a decision.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that some hon. members are interested in the problems of Quebec.
In view of the alarming situation the Quebec producers are in, I feel compelled to rise under the provisions of Standing Order 26 to put forward a motion to discuss a serious and urgent matter, that is the longshoremen's strike in the harbours of Trois-Rivieres, Montreal and Quebec City, which has the effect of jeopardizing the feed supply and even in some instances of fully disrupting this supply required by Quebec farm producers who are thus forced to take prematurely their cattle and poultry to the slaughterhouse. I therefore propose:
That this House do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is the second time I am submitted a notice of a motion on the same subject pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 26. Last Wednesday, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) gave the Chair notice of a motion pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 26. I did not accept the motion last week, but I stated that it might be advisable to delay the matter

Northern Canada Power Commission Act for a few more days. I invited the hon. member and his colleagues to follow the situation very closely, stating that if such a situation would persist I would reconsider that serious matter.

A week having passed, and not only the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) having raised the subject again but this week is supported by a similar notice of motion proposed by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), the subject is obviously still current. The situation has not improved in the ensuing week. A week ago I took the precaution of holding it over for a week for further study to see if perhaps during the intervening days the situation, which was changing rapidly, might be better. It obviously has not greatly improved, and I think it is important to note that it is not for the Chair to try to make a decision on the details.
There were further questions today, there have been questions every day, and there have been suggestions that perhaps some things might develop which might improve the situation, but surely it is not for the Chair to interpose itself to try to make a decision on the details. The Chair must accept the fact that a week ago the subject was raised by the hon. member for Bellechasse. I asked the House to wait a few days to see the situation would alter for the better. We waited a week, and it is now raised again.
As suggested by the hon. member for Bellechasse, as well as by the other hon. member, I cannot see how the Chair can ignore the fact that the situation continues to be grave. Therefore, it seems to qualify eminently as a very serious situation deserving the special attention of the House pursuant to Standing Order 26 and, if it meets with the approval of the House, I propose to set the debate for eight o'clock this evening.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


J. Judd Buchanan: that Bill C-13, to amend the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, be read the third time and do pass.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, would you please be so kind as to call for the yeas and nays?


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five hon. members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: I caution hon. members that in the last 24 hours we have experienced some difficulty with the operation of the bells, and we will have to ensure that, during the course of the summoning of hon. members for this vote, the bells are in fact functioning in the West Block. They were repaired and are evidently functioning in the Centre Block and in the Confederation Building. If there is some difficulty in the West Block we may have to take steps to make sure hon. members are summoned.
In any case, call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, April 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Whelan that Bill C-30 to repeal the Prairie Farm Assistance Act be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, when this bill to repeal the Prairie Farm Assistance Act was introduced on Friday last I had just reached the point in my remarks at which I said this matter was now under investigation by the fraud squad of the RCMP.
I think I should remind hon. members that the purpose of the bill before us is to repeal a statute which has been on the books since 1939. It was an act devised to help farm families get through the winter in the years of drought by giving them a small payment, up to $800 a farm, which was just enough to pay for the groceries, to pay the taxes, and perhaps cover other incidental expenses incurred during the winter. This legislation served the country very well.
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
Unfortunately, in the course of time the PFAA organization became one of the main weapons in the arsenal of a political machine known as "the Gardiner machine."
The technique was that when in a year of drought PFAA had to hire staff to inspect each of the farms that had made application for payments under the act. These field men, as they were called, were hired on a political basis, and it was so easy to move from hiring friends of the party in power into a situation where you began to play games with the farmers respecting which classification they were put into regarding their claims for help and relief under this act.
This type of political machine reached such a level of interference in the economic and political lives of the western farmers that it has been written up in many places. I can recall the Meisal study on this in the Queen's Quarterly many years ago describing the Gardiner machine as a parallel to Tammany Hall of New York City, which was over 100 years old. More recently a book has been written called "Prairie Liberalism". This book by Smith, which has recently come into the Library, describes in very intellectual and prosaic language the building up of this political machine in which the power of the party in office was used to persuade or to force farmers into supporting the Liberal party.
One of the great reasons for alienation on the prairies was not only the preponderance of members of parliament from the central provinces but the fact that, when the legislation was passed and put into effect, in deciding how much money would be paid out of the fund in times of great duress on the prairies, pressure was put on individual farmers to declare their allegiance to the party in power. The technique, or the principle, used by this machine was a very elementary and brutal one. It was that of fear or inducement. If they could not induce you by offers of higher returns to support the Liberal party, then the full pressure of fear was applied to you. By fear, I mean statements like, "If you don't do what we think you should, you and all your relatives will lose all chance of access to better positions in society."
This has all been documented, and I can speak with personal knowledge of it. Before you could get to be a teacher in the province of Saskatchewan, if you applied to become a teacher at a normal school you had to have a signed statement from the Liberal MLA that you were worthy of that particular position in society. If you wanted to become a member of the secretaries of municipalities organization, for example, so you could become a secretary to a municipality, an ordinary clerical or administrative job, you had to have verification that you were a member in good standing, and have the support of the local MLA. I happened to grow up under that regime and, not only because of my Irish background but, because of the very immorality of that system, I have been an opponent of this sort of thing all my life. I do not care which political party does it, this sort of thing has to be opposed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 16, 1975
Prairie Farm Assistance Act


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In my
remarks on Friday I described how, when the government changed in 1957, the Diefenbaker administration, under express orders from the Prime Minister and his cabinet, tried to clean up the situation not only in regard to PFRA but also with regard to the PFAA legislation. It was a tough operation to make it clear to everybody concerned that no more dishonesty would be allowed in handing out the farmers' own money to farmers. In this regard the evidence given in the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, and again during court proceedings held in Saskatchewan on the question in 1964, revealed that that administration was vindicated.
I want to say in fairness that after the government changed in 1963 there was no evidence that PFAA had gone back to its old habits. One of the reasons-I think I made this clear on Friday-was that the man who was put in charge of this in 1961 was a man known to all municipal councils and secretaries in the whole province, Mr. Howard Riddell. His reputation for honesty and hard boiled integrity was such that, with him in charge of it, everybody knew things would be run honestly and fairly, and he was in charge from 1960 to 1974.
However, during the last few years we have begun to detect signs that the old machine is coming back into operation, and this has a bearing on this bill. This bill seeks to repeal this legislation. Actually, for all practical purposes, the government, without any authority from parliament, repealed the act long ago.
I commenced my remarks on Friday by saying that when, in 1970, the government decided to impose controls on the western farmer under the so-called LIFT program, the program was entitled "lower inventory for tomorrow", but turned out to mean "low income for tomorrow". Under this control mechanism of supply management, once again you met a whole army of inspectors. They had the PFAA organization in place. It was not being utilized by the government. Therefore the government brought that administrative procedure into action to handle the grasslands program and the summer fallow program under LIFT. Under LIFT farmers were told that if they did not do what they were told, which was to get away from growing wheat, and that if they did not summer fallow their land a second time, or go into grass, they would lose their quotas to sell. So 85 per cent of the farmers, who had to have some money in order to live, had to obey the government and go into summer fallow the second time, or into grass.
Since the farmers were asked to take these uneconomic steps such as reducing their production of food, or doing things dangerous to their rotation system, such as summer fallowing twice in a dry desert area, the government paid them $6 an acre, which was roughly the cost of running over the land in summer fallow. They were also paid for going into grass. This is where I think the opportunity arose for those in the program to visualize, having all these inspectors inspecting the amount of land that was in summer fallow and the amount of land that was in grass, how easy it would be to build up the old political machine again. "Tell your friends, don't worry; submit any figure, we will accept it" that was the type of technique used.

All of the areas in summer fallow were photographed and surveyed by aircraft. After long study of these photographs, and through other techniques, it was discovered by those who keep the accounts that more money was spent than should have been spent on land in summer fallow. Likewise with the grass program; more money was spent on that program than should have been spent. Then instructions went out to collect from those people who got too much money. All this happened at a time when there was an election campaign going on, and no political party in power wants to antagonize too many voters by collecting money from them that they receive wrongly.
After the election they started this collection procedure again and, low and behold, another election came on in 1974. Then very peculiar instructions went out. This long history I have described led to the facts I mentioned on Friday. I asked the minister in the House whether he was aware of these things and whether he would investigate. He said he would take a look, and I read that reply into the record.
Later on in the week the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) asked if the RCMP fraud squad was being asked to investigate these particular allegations of fraud. Let me say that under the rules of the PFAA, in order to keep it honest, the director sent all supervisors and field men instructions, that during election campaigns they were not to do anything not specifically directed by the supervisor. This was to keep these inspectors, or field men, off the farmers' backs and away from any criticism as to inducements being offered or threats being applied.
After the election was over on July 8, the field men in x number of locations appeared with second expense accounts. In the normal course they submit their expense accounts to the supervisor who looks over the jobs they have done, signs his name, and submits them to a higher authority for final payment by the treasury office.
When the supervisor in these locations saw that these new expense accounts covered periods of time for which the inspectors had already been paid, they refused to sign them, then phone calls were made. Somebody gave the order over the phone not to worry about the supervisors, but to get these expense accounts sent to Regina where they would be signed and paid. This involved expense accounts being paid twice for the same period.
What were we to do with this information? I am not going to go over the story told by the hon. member for Red Deer, or his conversations with the RCMP. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton) and the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) will tell their stories later. What I am saying is simply that when you have a situation in which there have been financial irregularities, the Auditor General should be asked to do an audit. So the Auditor General sent his staff in to photograph all these documents. There is a limit to what we should say on a matter under investigation under our sense of responsibility. I have gone as far as I think I should in saying that this matter is being investigated by the Auditor General's department and by the RCMP fraud squad.
April 16, 1975

A good deal of the information that has been provided to the Auditor General and the RCMP is in my possession, and I think we have many more questions to ask in addition to the questions about financial irregularities. The allegation of financial irregularities is something with which the Auditor General should deal, but what intrigues me and forces me to ask under my responsibility as an MP, is who authorized this whole thing, and where does this trail lead? I cannot see an administration man in Regina signing papers which he suspects and probably knows are fraudulent without having obtained clearance from somebody higher up. This investigation will track down the details at that level.
These are the kind of thing that those of us who should be protecting the public interest should be questioning. Those of us who are fighting against this type of political force being applied should be interested in these matters.
The PFAA has been virtually out of operation for five years during which time it has been winding up its affairs, probably improperly. During that time why was the director paid $25,000 a year in taxpayers' money, yet not even allowed into his own office? I think that is a question hon. members want answered. Why were three supervisors asked to retire before their terms were up? In one case an individual refused to retire voluntarily before his time, and was fired. He was not fired because of incompetence or for cause. All three of these men were top men, and this one man was let go a year and a half before his pension started. Why were the authorities trying to get rid of these people at the top level?


Mr. Horner:: It looks like a cover up.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Why
were these field supervisors dismissed? Why were several girls who worked in the PFAA offices dismissed at the end of the year, just at Christmas time? Surely they were not guilty of planning this great conspiracy. Some of these girls had been working in that office for many years. They were appointed by the Liberals. They were kept on by the Conservatives. Why would this government come along when all this fuss began to develop, and dismiss this staff, even before parliament authorized the repeal of this legislation? These are political questions that cannot be investigated fully by the RCMP or the Auditor General.
Before this House decides that this is just a housekeeping bill and should be passed, we should be given a lot of answers. I have also heard reports about bills under the PFAA legislation which have not yet been paid. We have many questions to ask about this sort of thing. There may be no dishonesty involved in this non-payment of bills, but how can we blithely repeal this legislation when we know these matters have not been cleared up properly? These are matters that we should try to clear up under our political responsibility.
Another point of interest is that the money in this fund was collected under this legislation from every farmer, but now that the act will no longer be in operation what is left in the fund will go into the consolidated revenue account in trust. I would like to know who it is being held in trust for, and why-


An hon. Member:: For Otto Lang.
Prairie Farm Assistance Act


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Somebody has a Freudian complex behind me. This bill says this money will be held in trust for the western Canada grain stabilization fund. That bill has not even been passed, and if it is passed this program will be a voluntary thing. What moral right has this parliament to take this money that belongs to all those grain farmers that paid it, and put it into a fund where only a few farmers have access to it?
I think I have made enough points to explain why it is that we will be moving a motion asking parliament not to read this legislation a second time, but to refer the subject matter to the standing committee so that it will be taken out of the House to that place where we can ask the proper questions.
Therefore, as I said in my opening remarks, my first thought on seeing the bill was to ask the House leader whether it could be delayed until we have the reports back from the Auditor General and from the fraud squad of the RCMP. I think we have the responsibility, as members of parliament, to see if this money spent under the LIFT program in payment for summer fallow and grass pasture operations was properly spent. Theoretically one could deal with this under the estimates, but the estimates on this are under PFAA which is now off the books. I know that PFAA estimates run until March 31 of 1975 and they are automatically passed through the committee at the end of May, if I understand the rules correctly. We may not have the RCMP report at that time. I think we should keep this bill in limbo until we have the full story because parliament demands that we scrutinize the expenditures of money under this bill.
Let me put it this way. I will tread very lightly on these alleged fraud charges because I think that matter is probably in the hands of the RCMP, but I have many political questions to ask. Forgetting all about the exact amounts of money involved in the frauds, which are criminal offences, there is a political question I should like to put. What were these field men doing during the pre-election period before July 8? Obviously they had done their duty as demanded by their supervisor, and had been paid their expenses. What was the second thing they were doing that brought in expenses of $1,400 in one report that I saw?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Counting the grass roots.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I, and I
think other members of parliament, want to ask those supervisors who were fired last fall why they refused to authorize the expenses of those field men, and who authorized the second set of expenses, and why he authorized them.
I want to know who it was that the field men knew whom it was safe for them to phone and bypass their supervisor. Who was it in Regina from whom they received these instructions, and who authorized that official in Regina, because no official in Regina would take a chance on this rip-off unless he had authority from someone higher up?
It is abundantly clear that what we want is to get a chance under the parliamentary rules to ask the political

April 16, 1975
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
questions that will not be asked by the fraud squad or by the Auditor General, to track down this person who is trying to build up once more the political machine which dominated western Canada for so long. This rebirth of the Gardiner machine is not good for the prairies and not good for the country. The PFAA was good legislation although it had to be amended and made more workable, but why did they ruin it by making it a political tool of a political party? The Diefenbaker government cleaned it up at great political risk, and now it is back again.
We are being asked to repeal legislation whose author we should have been praising for having brought it into effect and making it a genuine monument. I am referring now to the Right Hon. James G. Gardiner who brought in the legislation nearly 40 years ago. Now this legislation is ending with a whimper and a horrible smell. I do not know who is responsible. I have my own suspicions about ambitious politicians in Saskatchewan who aspire to even greater things.
I want to speak for all farmers of all political persuasions when I say that agriculture should not be made a political football. It will require the best efforts of all political parties, working together, to try to get the agricultural sector to do the job that the world is demanding of it. I believe that the way to assist agriculture to do the job that the world expects of it in the next 25 years is to put agriculture in Canada under one minister. The division of the agriculture portfolio into four or five sections, all with responsibilities leading up to various ministers, is a multiple schizophrenia that must stop. I know that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), who has had this portfolio for 2'A years, has set up an office in Regina and staffed it with a very able man. I thought this office was being set up so that the department could get a true representation of what the west thought, fed right to the minister. I thought that office was being set up to balance off the great political power of the crown prince of Saskatchewan.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What was that?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There is a deaf man to my left. I said, "the crown prince of Saskatchewan." What I fear is that the office which the minister has set up in Regina has become part of this political machine. When birds of a feather flock together, one gets the idea that something is going to happen.
I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that he take the lead. I have suggested to him that if he will join us in this motion to take the subject matter before the standing committee so that he can deal with the monetary parts looked after by the Auditor General and the criminal parts looked after by the RCMP. Also we should look into the political parts to see if we can get at the truth. Then it would be evident to the western farmers that the government is not trying to cover up this whole smelly mess. The way to kill this political machine on the prairies is to get it out in the open here. Let us take a good look at it. We trust the Minister of Agriculture to fight for the farmers. We, in turn, will fight to see that agriculture is made whole again and that we get ARDA, PFRA, and the whole question of incomes policy back under the Department of Agriculture. All these things that are so dependent on a unified policy

should be run by some one who knows what the target is. Then we can gear up agriculture to its maximum
efficiency.
If politicians want to build political machines, let us not have them built on the backs of many of the farmers. Let us not have them built on the backs of the men who will be asked to make maximum efforts in the next 25 years to produce for the world. Let us use some other method, but let us not use agriculture to build a political machine in western Canada.
The motion I have outlined will be moved later on by one of my colleagues, and I strongly suggest to the hon. members of the government party that they do not hide all the truth of this smelly mess from the people of the west. I suggest that they bring it out into the open, get it cleaned up, and let the farmers go to work to do their job. Let us do our job here and have this legislation ultimately repealed, but before we do, let us clean it up and bury it decently.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have carefully read the remarks made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) when he started this debate on April 11, and I have listened to him carefully today. This is one of the rare occasions upon which I can agree with almost everything he said. Either he or I may think that that is a refreshing change, but it does not matter.
I want to echo some of the remarks made by the hon. member. I have spent most of my life in southwestern Saskatchewan and southeastern Alberta, which must be the middle of the dust bowl, both as a teenager and when I got older. There were countless occasions when the PFAA inspector, that person who hovered over the lives of farm people all those years, was talked about either in disgust, anger, or fear. I can recall relieving a station agent in southern Alberta during the 1949 federal election campaign, and sitting having a beer with some of the boys one evening, and the hearing the local kingpin Liberal saying that if that poll did not go Liberal they would not be able to get the dry bonus. That was just rampant all over the prairie provinces. It was used as a weapon to frighten people, and almost to terrorize them. It was not a lot of money, but to people who had been dried out, it meant a lot.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain spoke about expense accounts. I recall that in my baseball playing days one of the members of the team was the local PFAA inspector. We went to a baseball tournament and played until dark. On the way home we stopped at a farm. He went in and looked at a couple of granaries, got back into his car and we proceeded home. The next day he put in a full expense account for inspecting x number of farms on behalf of PFAA. The expense account included mileage, meals, and the whole thing. He delighted in telling us how he went one time to play poker and put in an expense account to PFAA. The operation of this organization was common knowledge to the people out in the field over all those years.
April 16, 1975

I agree with the remark the hon. member made about Mr. Howard Riddell. For the first time in the history of the PFAA it was headed up by someone with integrity and honesty, and who would not put up with the kind of hanky-panky the Gardiner machine organized and maintained. That is all history, but I think it is only proper for hon. members to bring these matters to the attention of the House in order to try to persuade the government that it would be somewhat unseemly, to say the least, to repeal the legislation before all the administrative details are cleaned up satisfactorily.
I would like to submit to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) that this mess he has inherited will not be cleaned up by August 1 when he wants the repeal of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to take effect. To support the remarks made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, I submit that in the areas of expenditures, particularly travel expenditures, I have received reports similar to those received by other hon. members from different parts of the prairie provinces, and there can be no doubt that a full and thorough investigation is needed. I have no doubt that it will result in some criminal charges.
There is one other area the minister became responsible for when he became minister. He became responsible for the treatment afforded permanent employees under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. My information is that of the approximately 18 permanent employees in the PFAA office in Regina most, if not all, have now been let go, but casual employees have been retained.
Some, if not all of the employees who are presently running the PFAA office in Regina, were out in the field on expense accounts. Most of the work which has been going on in PFAA offices over the past year and a half or so had to do with the Grasslands Incentive Act. There have been very few PFAA matters to clean up, except for the odd farmer's estate or something of that nature. These people have been operating on expense accounts from Regina up to the Peace River country and into Manitoba. It seems that it has been a very cosy operation, and perhaps even lucrative for those travelling on mileage expenses and per diem allowances for meals and rooms, considering the distances involved. This should also be part of the full inquiry and investigation.
Why have permanent staff, some who have worked in excess of 30 years, not been placed in other areas of the federal public service? Mr. Riddell is now working for the department of municipal affairs of the province of Saskatchewan. I would have thought that a person of that calibre would have been eagerly sought by the Minister of Agriculture to work in some part of his department, or at least in some part of the federal government. There is a list of male and female permanent employees who have not been placed.
On December 17 I wrote to the minister, and I quote from that letter:
It has been brought to my attention that you are closing the PFAA offices in Regina and that no action has been taken to ensure that long-term employees are found suitable alternative employment.
A number of these people have served the Department of Agriculture in the Prairie Farm Assistance Branch up to 32 years. If they retire and go on pension they will only receive 64 per cent of the average of the highest six consecutive years salary.
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
In my letter to the minister I also wrote the following:
... because these people are not 55 years of age they are penalized further under the Superannuation Act by going on pension prior to the age of 55 years.
I believe something should be done for the 18 permanent staff members in the Regina office and the 12 field supervisors. The 18 staff members I understand are to be let out at March 31, 1975. I would appreciate any assistance you can give to protect these people.
I wrote to the Minister on December 17. He replied on January 31, 1975, and said:
With the phasing out of the PFAA offices in Regina, the department is making every effort to find alternate employment for the employees affected.
We have contacted other departments in the federal government, employment agencies of provincial governments and municipal governments. In addition, every effort is made to ensure that these employees are aware of vacancies in the department so that they can indicate interest in any position for which they may qualify.
Yours sincerely,
Eugene Whelan,
Minister of Agriculture.
My information is that of those 18 permanent office employees of the PFAA in Regina only one is presently an employee in the federal public service, and that is because prior to going to the PFAA he had already served with the crop insurance branch and so had public service status. None of the other permanent employees were placed in the federal public service, however. In fact the minister has not done what he said he would do in his letter of January 31, that is, make every effort to find alternative employment for the people effected.
It would seem to me, Madam Speaker, that it is incumbent upon the minister to do something for an employee who has 32 years of service and has not yet reached the age of 55. Surely such a person should automatically get a position in the minister's department. There was one woman in the Regina office who was competent to run it and supervise the staff, but it is my understanding that she is no longer in the federal public service and, as a result, has been penalized in respect of her pension plan. This sort of callous treatment of people who have spent years and years in loyal, dedicated, permanent employment is not good enough.


An hon. Member:: There just were not good Liberals.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I think many of them were, but some have said they are not any more.
It appears that it is the casual staff of PFAA that has been retained. Surely casuals should be let go before permanent staff. I would have bet money that this sort of thing could not have occurred under the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) although I would not have bet money on any of his predecessors, with the possible exception of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). I am anxious to hear from the minister how this action can be justified and, if I am wrong, of course he will correct me.
I agree with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain that the subject matter of this bill should be

April 16, 1975
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture, or to some other forum for full and open inquiry. Mr. Riddell should be invited to appear with all those employees who were affected so that they can make their representations. The results of any police investigation, or other inquiries into fraudulent practices regarding expense accounts, should also be presented to the committee. Surely the minister must agree that this matter cannot be cleared up by August 1 when he wants the repeal of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to take effect.
There are some questions which I think should be answered, Madam Speaker, and I will go over them slowly in order that the minister can make notes and reply to them when he speaks on second reading, or at a later stage in the debate we should certainly have more detailed information.
First, is an investigation being carried on regarding expense accounts or irregular practices of the staff of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and, if so, who is conducting it? Is it being done by the Auditor General, internally by the department, or by the RCMP? Have charges been laid and convictions obtained? Are charges yet to be laid? Will the minister provide the number of permanent employees of the PFAA as of March 31, 1971, and March 31, 1975? How many permanent employees have been released, dismissed, resigned, or pensioned? How many have been transferred to other service in the federal Department of Agriculture, and how many in other branches of the federal public service? How many are still in PFAA service? How many have been retired under the age of 55, how many have been retired between the ages of 55 and 65, how many have been retired with under 30 years of service, and how many with under 35 years of service? How many casual employees did the PFAA have as of March 31, 1971, and as of March 31, 1975? How many of these casual employees have been released, dismissed, or transferred to other service with the federal Department of Agriculture or other federal departments since that time? How many casual employees remain with the PFAA?
I think the committee should also have a list of the employees of the PFAA during the last 24 months, and that the chairman of the committee should write each of those employees informing them that the inquiry is being conducted, that the subject matter of the legislation is before it, and inviting them to appear, to tell anything they wish to tell or know about the operation of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. They should also be invited to air any grievance they may have at the failure to place them in other branches of the federal public service, about early retirement, or about their treatment in regard to superannuation.
Those are the questions I would like answered, and no doubt other hon. members will have more. I am confident that we will get from the Minister of Agriculture a full and frank response, and that he is interested and anxious for a complete and proper finalization of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I am sure he will agree that all these questions cannot be answered fully before August 1 at which time he wishes this repealing legislation to take effect.

I want to raise a couple of other matters which are involved with this legislation. The great grain income stabilization debate of 1971 brought beneficial results for crop insurance. Those who were members of this House in 1971 will recall what was said in that debate by the then hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, Mr. Gleave, by myself, others in my party, members of the Conservative party including the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchin-ski), the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and others, by the then minister of agriculture, who suffered the fate ministers of agriculture of his kind suffer, and by the present minister who is in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board.
The grain stabilization bill of 1971 provided for the repeal of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. We said in that debate that we would not accept legislation which repealed the Prairie Farm Assistance Act unless and until the Government of Canada could replace that act with something better. Since then the government has made substantial improvements in the way the present crop insurance plan is operated and financed, and I commend it. The result has been that in Saskatchewan the cost of premiums has been halved, and many more thousands of farmers can now buy crop insurance. I learned in the last day or two that about 60 per cent of all Saskatchewan farmers are now enrolled in the crop insurance scheme.
Ever since the 1940's thousands of farmers on the prairies have been waiting for this program. It is a long-cherished dream, that the day will come when farmers are covered by a universal, all-risk crop insurance program of the sort they are entitled to, which covers all forms of natural and man-made hazard. One of those latter hazards is the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. That was one of the successes flowing from our preventing the government from enacting the first grain stabilization bill. After that the government improved substantially the operation and financing of the crop insurance program. I believe it is fair to say that it involves all provinces of Canada. All are co-operating, paying their share, and administering it well. The number of farmers taking advantage of the program has increased markedly.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain mentioned that about $7 million or $8 million is left in the PFAA fund. I hope the minister, when he speaks, will tell us the exact amount. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle Moose-Mountain felt that something other than what the government has proposed should be done with that money. We think so too, for the following reasons.
Those who were here when we debated the first grain stabilization bill, which had been introduced by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, will recall that members on all sides, particularly members of opposition parties, repeatedly said that the bill should provide for pay-outs on a regional, even on a local basis. The pay-outs should be similar to those made under PFAA, because often farmers in various regions suffered from a loss of income, a loss which was often localized as a result of factors beyond their control. Factors like drought, frost, flood, wind, wild life and what-not were mentioned. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board, and the then minister of agriculture, Mr. Olson, and others on the government side repeatedly
April 16, 1975

made the point that these hazards, namely, drought, flood, wind, wild life and so on, were covered by crop insurance. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board said, and he has repeated it in recent months, that a grain income stabilization program would be related to markets and price.
If one accepts the position of the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, the grain stabilization fund has nothing to do with natural hazards brought on by weather, wild life and so on. Its only involvement ought to be with market and price. If that is so, how in heaven's name can he justify taking the money left in the prairie farm assistance fund and putting it in the grain stabilization fund? PFAA moneys are for programs covered now by crop insurance. It provides money for drought bonuses and so on. You hear people talk about drought bonuses, wet bonuses, for grain under the snow bonuses, and whatnot. Clearly that money has nothing to do with markets and price. It has to do with natural risks, natural hazards thrown in our way by mother nature.
It has been suggested by some that the $7 million or $8 million still left in the PFAA account should be put in the crop insurance program fund and used for crop insurance in the designated areas, namely, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and that portion of British Columbia which comes under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. That money should be used for crop insurance in that area, and should be divided in direct proportion to the amounts collected in those areas over the years.
The Department of Agriculture says that this is not being done because it would be terribly difficult to figure out ways for dividing that money. I think that is not so. The department knows how many farmers delivered grain and from how many they deducted 1 per cent or 2 per cent. The money should be divided in the same proportion.
I have talked to people working in the crop insurance field and they say that $7 million or $8 million would not do much to reduce premiums in the three prairie provinces and the Peace River country of B.C. because the total amount of money involved is massive. But I submit that you can do other very useful things with that $7 million or $8 million. For example, you could use it for research connected with crop insurance, and for an enlarged program of education and information for farmers of the area who do not have crop insurance and are still examining it. Spending that money on research, information and education would be a good idea. It should be spent in the area from which it was collected. Any attempt to transfer that money to the Consolidated Revenue Fund and then to the grain stabilization fund would be totally unjustified, even if one uses the arguments of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and of the former minister of agriculture. They said, "Oh, no, you cannot have pay-outs under a grain stabilization plan for hazards which should be covered by crop insurance." I argue, conversely, that you cannot take money collected for crop insurance and pay it into a grain stabilization plan.
In other words I submit that the Minister of Agriculture should not let the minister in charge of the Wheat Board have it both ways; he should not let him put his cotton picking hands on money which only the Minister of Agriculture ought to administer. I think he would get the
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
unanimous support of all members on this side for that proposition. I hope the minister will look again at the wording of the bill.
People in the crop insurance field have said that we should look more closely at damage done by wildlife in the three prairie provinces and the Peace River country of British Columbia. The provisions of the bill in this regard ought to be substantially expanded. Wildlife damage perhaps is not as significant as flood, wind or drought damage in the area of concern to the Wheat Board, but wildlife, all the same, does a considerable amount of damage to crops. The north end of Last Mountain Lake, which is in my constituency, is the centre of the Sandhill crane migration. What a flock of those do to a field of grain swaths in an afternoon is enough to drive any farmer to drink. It occurs annually.
I have lived in a number of places in Saskatchewan and Alberta. In the southwest dry area, the northwestern and southeastern areas there is a lot of bush, and big game crop damage occurs. It would be money well spent if they had $7 million or $8 million for that. This could be combined into the whole area of research, and more could be done by way of lure crops. Certain acreages should be set aside to entice wildlife away from farmers' crops.
The money belongs to the farmers in the Canadian Wheat Board area. They contributed it to a form of crop insurance, PFAA. When that act is repealed the money left over should go to the crop insurance plan. The minister may have some different idea that would be even better with regard to how that money might be used for crop insurance. However, I submit that that is the proper way to do it.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain made one specific and some general statements regarding the administration of expense accounts and so forth. I have had the same sort of thing relayed to me. No doubt it has been relayed to the minister in one form or another. We would like a full and frank account from the minister on what he has been doing, what is now going on, and the results of any investigations or inquiries. I appreciate that if there is anything liable for court action it cannot be gone into at this point. However, he can certainly answer some of my questions. Have any charges been laid and convictions obtained? Will more charges be laid? Is there really anything to this at all?
I know the minister is anxious to deal fully and frankly with the members of this House and the Standing Committee on Agriculture. I am sure he will ask his House leader for the fullest possible terms of reference for the Standing Committee on Agriculture so witnesses can be called and all former and present employees, whether permanent or casual, will be notified in order that they may appear if they wish. I also ask that he give a full account of the efforts he said were being made in his January 31 letter to me in order to obtain employment for these permanent employees, some of whom have been with the PFAA administration for many years. Surely that is owed to those people who have given loyal and dedicated service.
4872

April 16, 1975
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
The government should resist the Gardiner hanky-panky of the late thirties, forties and fifties up to 1957. It is to the credit of the Diefenbaker administration that they made some real effort to put a stop to that. They had some success. I was not aware of any re-occurrence of that sort of operation during the Pearson years. However, I cannot say the same for the Trudeau years with regard to the administration of PFAA and other programs for the prairie provinces related to agriculture. I sincerely believe the Minister of Agriculture will not allow the situation to revert to what occurred in the forties and the fifties. However, it is cropping up again.
I ask the minister to examine this operation very closely. I hope this will include looking at the operations of one of his colleagues from the prairie provinces whose name I need not mention. The minister owes it to the employees and to the farmers who contributed the funds to give a full report, and to arrange for the referral of the subject matter of this legislation to the standing committee.
The minister and the officials in the three provinces concerned should do what they deem best with the $7 million or $8 million left in the fund. I leave that to them. We can offer suggestions which may or may not be worth considering. However, I believe the money should go to the crop insurance program. The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board should not be allowed to get his hands on one nickel of it. We can go into the reasons for that when we finally get to the bill covering the grain stabilization program. Those are all the remarks I will make at this point. I am anxious to hear from the minister at this stage of the debate, and also in the committee.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, from the evidence given by the previous speakers, including the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), it is clear that someone, or some organization, is responsible for the present mess in the PFAA administration. The point of this debate is to try to decipher who is responsible for it. If it is the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), he will have to take full blame. If that is the case he will find that the smell of rotten eggs is like perfume compared to what will come out of this. I am sure the smirk on the face of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) will be on the other side before we are through.
If the Minister of Agriculture does not accept responsibility, it must lie in one of two other areas. One is in the realm of the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang). If that is not where the blame lies, it has to be in the Liberal organization.
Reluctantly I rise to participate in this debate on Bill C-30. This bill should not have been put before the House while an investigation is being conducted into reported irregularities within the administration. No valid reason was given for presenting this bill to repeal the Prairie Farm Assistance Act now when important legislation directly affecting Canadians has been set aside.
I received documentary information which I turned over to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The Minister of Agriculture cannot say he is unaware of the current RCMP investigation into the PFAA for which he is responsible, or is he going to shift this responsibility to the Canadian Wheat Board?

Not only was the minister's attention drawn to alleged unauthorized payments by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain on December 9 last, but the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) was questioned in the House three days later about the same matter. Last week the government House leader was requested to delay this bill until the RCMP had an opportunity to submit its report. He did not agree. I asked him the following question, as recorded at page 4719 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government House leader. In view of the fact that four months have passed since the Minister of Agriculture was questioned about reported irregularities in the operation of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act during his term of office and that the House leader has said Bill C-30 which would repeal the said act will go before the House today, and in view of the fact that the RCMP investigation might not be completed for some time, would the government House leader agree to withhold Bill C-30 at least until the report on the investigation has been submitted?
The House leader would not agree to that request and, as a result, we now find ourselves spending time on legislation which might well be dealt with later without anyone being adversely affected.
What is the reason behind the minister's insistence on putting this bill through at this particular time? Surely the minister and the government, no matter how irresponsible they may be, realize that there was an element of wrongdoing within PFAA or the RCMP, in conjunction with the Auditor General, would not have decided that such an inquiry was necessary. Another important reality is that regardless of the findings of the investigation, and whether or not charges are laid, the minister will be answerable for the repeal of this act no matter when the report is submitted or on what date second reading is given to Bill C-30. I feel sure most members of the House would be willing to listen to an explanation of the supposed urgency attached to the repeal of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
While the minister in charge of the Wheat Board lives in the PFAA region it is not my wish, nor is it the intention of any member, to cast a reflection on innocent people but, unfortunately, until we know whether or not there were irregularities within PFAA a cloud hangs over every one of its employees. The purpose of the investigation is to find out who is responsible for the actions now being questioned. A line must then be drawn between what is right and what is wrong so that, if guilt is established, punishment will follow; otherwise public servants generally, as well as the public at large, will be without the protection which is their right.
We have to ask v/hy any employee of the federal government would become involved in a situation whereby his integrity is at stake and he could be subjected to charges of fraud at the cost of his job. Who was the instigator of these alleged misdeeds? Who placed these people in such an unfortunate position? What were they doing, and for what purpose? Were they electioneering on behalf of the federal Liberal party on the instructions or advice of someone in a senior position, even someone from the other chamber-the highest court in the land?
Were they offered inducement to commit fraudulent acts? Is the minister running for cover by demanding that Bill C-30 be rushed through parliament now, or is someone
April 16, 1975

else within the Liberal organization, someone inside or outside the other place, calling the shots? These are some of the questions to which answers should be given before the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is repealed.
There is another point which must not be overlooked. Is there a double interpretation placed on the laws of this country as they affect those employed in the field and appointees to the other place who are paid by public funds too, both working for the government? If the persons in the field now being investigated were trying to sell Liberal policies, is it fair to prosecute those who were involved while similar performances by Liberal appointees to the other chamber are permitted to continue without question? Is there a law for the rich and a law for the poor?
A newspaper article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal on September 6, 1974, under the heading "The Senate- The Who's Who of Liberal functionaries," brings out some shocking facts and, with your permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to quote a few paragraphs from it. I read:
"I am, and have been since the fall of 1968, the chairman of the Finance and Treasury Committees of the Liberal Party of Canada, and in that capacity I have the overall responsibility for raising the funds for the federal Liberal party, not only at election time but also to maintain its activities between elections."
Notes from an address to a Liberal gathering somewhere in Canada? Not on your life. A speech by a new member of the Senate of Canada. Date? Jan. 10, 1974. The speaker? Senator John M. Godfrey.
In the past, appointments were used as rewards for past performance, usually on completion of a tour of duty. It is obvious from Senator John Godfrey's speech that it is now the oasis for present and not past performance. Look at the recent election campaign and you will discover that the Who's Who of the Liberal Campaign Committee resided in the Senate of Canada.
The national campaign headquarters of the Liberal Party of Canada lists Senator Keith Davey as the Co-Chairman with Jean Marchand of their national campaign committee. Also listed are Senator Gildas Molgat as the President of the Liberal Party of Canada; Senator R. J. (Ray) Perrault as Chairman for British Columbia; Senator Earl Hastings as Chairman for Alberta; Senator Jean-Pierre Cote as Chairman for Quebec and Senator Lome Bonnell as Chairman for Prince Edward Island.
But it doesn't end there. We have Senator A1 Graham as the President of the Liberal Party in Nova Scotia. Also Senator Richard Stan-bury as past-president of the Liberal Party of Canada. Then we have a long list of Senators involved in the financing of the party as members and contributors to the committees, headed by Senator John Godfrey. Among those actively involved are John Aird of Toronto, Sydney Buckwold of Saskatoon, Douglas Everett of Winnipeg, Louis-Philippe Gelinas and Louis Giguere of Montreal, Harry Hays of Calgary, Dan Riley of Saint John, Irvine Barrow of Halifax and George Van Roggen of Vancouver.
It is an impressive list and it doesn't take long to learn how Pierre Elliott Trudeau has set about to reform the Senate. He has determined it is much better to have the taxpayers of Canada providing the dollars to operate his party than to take them from the party's war chest. At a time when the nation requires the very best in performance from the parliament of Canada, the Prime Minister is turning one arm of the institution into a Liberal party machine. It is a very sad commentary on both parliament and the objectives of men appointed to that body. Surely we should be able to turn to the Senate and anticipate something more than the partisan meanderings of a far-too-large coterie of its membership.
But if the Senate is to be developed into Liberal party headquarters and if those who accept appointment to that institution are willing to give their allegiance to their party rather than to the nation, Canadians should seriously consider-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. I fail to see the link between the article the hon. member is reading
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
and the bill which is before the House. Perhaps the hon. member would return to the bill now.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Madam Speaker, I am trying to make the point that someone, or some organization, is responsible. It is well known that the Liberal organization has infiltrated the very roots of our society. Our democratic system has been undermined and brought to a very low level as this type of manouvering and manipulation of public funds continues without any apparent suspicion of impropriety. Why should our taxpayers, regardless of their political affiliation, pay for the operations of the federal Liberal party in this undercover way, particularly when one remembers that its leader has described himself as "a hell of a rich guy?"
We are aware that people in the middle-income bracket pay more taxes than any other segment of society, but few taxpayers in any income bracket would condone the policy of squandering tax dollars as a means of selling the Liberal party through its own upper chamber members. They hide behind their title and the so-called red chamber- their sanctuary. What sanctuary is there for Liberal party workers who through some form of persuasion-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member again, but let me remind him that the title of the bill before us is an Act to repeal the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Gordon Towers: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, but had you been in the chair when the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain spoke, and during the remarks made by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), you would realize that an investigation is taking place into PFAA at the present time. We feel this investigation should be completed before the House is asked to debate the bill before us. We are trying to find out at this point who is responsible, who caused this investigation to be necessary? The people out on the prairies, the supervisors, are the ones who are going to take the rap. It is a shame if we have developed a democratic system which will allow those people to be prosecuted. At the same time there are people in the other chamber doing exactly the same thing, yet they are protected because they are all appointed by the Liberal machine. This is why we have a problem, Madam Speaker. Why protect one segment of our society but allow another segment to be prosecuted?
If the people of Canada do not demand that this demonstrated wrongdoing within a level of this parliament be stopped, and stopped immediately, they will live to regret it. This government is destroying the democratic system. The upper house should be purged of all those who carry on partisan activities under the guise of legislators.
Just as we must not cast suspicion on anyone until he is proven guilty, let us not overlook the fact that there are many who accepted appointments to the other place with a desire to carry out their legitimate duties, and they are not involved in Liberal fund raising activities or propaganda publicizing. How frustrating and belittling it must be for these sincere members to be compelled to bear the same
29557-331/2

Prairie Farm Assistance Act
title, and be classed in the same category as those whose main, if not sole purpose is political. They receive the same remuneration, and no doubt their hours of legitimate work exceed those of the active Liberal party workers. These are the people who are responsible for the situation with which we are now having to deal.
When there is one rotten apple in a barrel, every apple is automatically suspected of taint. The dedicated, non-partisan members of the upper chamber deserve fair treatment. Public servants who have been found responsible for wrongdoing, or who will be so charged in the future, will be dealt with according to the law of our land, even though their efforts to aid the Liberal organization trapped them. Liberals who have been awarded appointments to the other place, and who do such a masterful job of manoeuvring and manipulating for that party, whether to settle a debt or not, do so under the protection of parliamentary rules, and are not faced with either questions, discipline, or punishment.
Any government which does not exercise justice at every level of public service-whether hired, elected or appointed to office-is not worthy of the power entrusted to it by the electors. As is usual, this government operates under the misapprehension that being a Liberal places a person in a secluded dreamland where impropriety, doubt, and the enforcement of justice dare not enter. When that thinking penetrates the public service, the danger point has been reached, and I trust the people of this country will be afforded the opportunity of demanding their rights.


Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Madam Speaker, the problem here is that the PFAA administration has become caught up in the dog fight that has been going on between the Department of Agriculture and the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. I must say this started almost the day that the present minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board was appointed to that position.
I can have some sympathy for what the long time staff of PFAA went through when they were all dismissed this past Christmas because I was caught up in the same sort of situation. I was caught in the dog fight between a minister of agriculture and the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, though I must say it was the previous minister of agriculture. I watched the government place political expediency above the best interests of the western producers one time too many, with the result that we parted company. This was at a time when, in western Canada, we had a four bushel quota at $1.25 a bushel.
Hon. members opposite have said that western Canadians are considered negative and critical because of their opposition to some government programs. They say we can spend our time much better co-operating with the government. At least that is what the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) said. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) wonders why they let the permanent staff of PFAA go and kept the casual staff. I suggest the answer is because the permanent staff knew a little too much.

I have done my best in the past year to try to get some answers to questions posed today by members on this side, but I cannot get to first base. The one per cent levy was suspended on July 31, 1971. In the fiscal year 1972-73 after the act had wound down administratively, the travelling expenses of the PFAA group amounted to $1,000 per working day. So it is obvious that although they may have been winding down administratively they were certainly winding up politically. It was common knowledge in my area that members of the staff were very active in the last federal election. There is only one way to clear up any question in the minds of a good number of people, and that is to have a full investigation into the whole matter.
The last payments under this act amounting to some $5 million were made in 1972. In the period from 1939 to 1973 total payments under the act to farmers have amounted to $397 million. It is interesting to compare this figure, paid over some 34 years, with our grain exports this year. At the present time, compared with the same time two years ago, we are some 140 million bushels short. In other words we are $500 million short on exports this year compared with two years ago. This represents more than the amount paid out under PFAA between 1939 and 1973.
The PFAA staff were responsible for making payments under the grasslands incentive program and also for handling the LIFT program. Over the years PFAA programs have been operated mainly by the farmers themselves. They were the inspectors and they took information from their neighbours, and this legislation served its purpose well.
All of the goodwill built up over a period of 20 to 25 years has now gone out the window. As I have said, the administration, with few exceptions, was a credit to those involved. Let me go back to an incident that occurred a few years ago which, for political reasons, was blown up out of all proportions. It concerns a former supervisor in PFAA who was subject to an investigation under the act. The former member for Swift Current-Maple Creek had this to say of the commissioner's report:
I would say it is a political report for more than one reason. Maybe the members of the committee do not know this, but I am informed that the judge who presided as commissioner, not in the capacity of judge but as commissioner, was a defeated Liberal candidate in the city of Moose Jaw. Not only that, his counsel, who acted for the government, was a defeated nominee for the candidacy of the Liberal party, and the second lawyer who acted for the government on behalf of the PFAA was a chief fund raiser for the Liberal party in the province of Saskatchewan for a number of years, and was chairman of the finance committee.
That is what this supervisor was up against. At the end of the commissioner's recommendation appears the following:
I recommend that consideration should be given to placing the permanent staff of the Prairie Farm Assistance administration under the civil service of Canada in order to eliminate the possibility of political pressure being exerted on those entrusted with the responsibility of administering the act.
That recommendation was never implemented. Members of this staff who had served for up to 25 years were turned loose. Now we have a so-called group of casual employees, and the expense accounts have gone wild. The last annual report I received shows travelling expenses of $1,000 a day.
April 16, 1975


An hon. Member:: If they are casual employees they must be going like hell.


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: As far as I
can make out, in the last two years the staff in Regina have been working in a make-believe world where the best of government public servants have nothing but despair. They have made plans, have had them signed, but then one of the minister's cronies thinks the plans may damage his standing, he buttonholes the minister and the plans have been scratched. And so another political debt is paid.
These Liberal party hacks and defeated candidates are becoming unique. They are becoming as important as they think they are. They can offer to open political doors, threaten public servants, and there seems to be nothing that can be done. This is nothing but a collection of Neros in the guise of public servants and assorted experts who do nothing but fiddle, scratch and jawbone away the time. I would like to know what these people are doing.
No attempt was made to modernize this act over the years. One of the criticisms was that the act could not be operated on an individual basis because it came under provincial jurisdiction and this would put it into the federal sphere.
The figures I look at show that we have between $9 million and $10 million left in the fund. I suggest this money should be transferred to the Canadian Wheat Board Pool account for disbursement, with the final payments to offset some of the approximately $30 million demurrage charges which accrued as a result of the west coast strike.
Any institutional setup develops interests of its own, but in its death throes the PFAA group has been solely concerned with its own status, its own funds, and jockeying for position. I raised the case of my constituent who was hauled before the commission to compare his situation with the present one. Certainly I think the present setup of PFAA is a perfect model of that mean little description of politics: who gets what, when and how? As I said before, the only way we can be satisfied is by having a full-scale public investigation into this matter, and I hope the minister will see fit to initiate one.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I have been interested for sometime in prairie farm assistance administration, but I was never more interested than I was when the Minister of Justice decided to eliminate the operation of this program, supposedly on behalf of western farmers.
I have listened with interest for the last hour, and I have read the report of the commission of inquiry into the Prairie Farm Assistance administration held in June 1964. Apparently there were two points of view in respect of this legislation. The first was that it had a great deal to do in the playing of politics. It is also interesting to note some of the results of that inquiry.
The remarks of some of the knowledgeable members from western Canada have been of interest to me. It was indicated again that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act has become a political football. I have been around here long enough to remember the antics of Jimmy Gardiner, a former minister of agriculture. It was once said that he
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
came the closest to setting up an operation like the political Tammany Hall operation in the United States. That is probably true. That reputation will have difficulty in surviving if we continue to allow the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) to play around with agriculture in western Canada.
What has been done by the Minister of Justice in agriculture has certainly not been in the interests of a well organized change in farming legislation for western Canada. Some of the things he has done have had an adverse effect on the whole operation.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: And they have not been compatible with justice.


William Arnold Peters: Of course they have not been compatible with justice. Any school that wquld have this particular minister as an instructor of any sort must be the most ignorant school in Canada. Not a day goes by when I do not hear some misjustice that is taking place in the whole field of western agriculture.
We are now faced with the disposal of some $8 million left in this fund. This legislation has been in effect for many years and has done a great deal to help farmers in western Canada. I was interested to hear the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) point out how very small amounts of money given under this act had helped so many farmers in western Canada survive. He pointed out that amounts such as $400 or $500 helped to maintain the very economy of farmers in western Canada.
We should be putting the money that remains in this fund into a fund that will continue to be of assistance to farmers in western Canada. This money has been collected from the farmers in those areas where grain was the main crop, and many of those areas have been high risk areas over the years. I am sure there will be emergencies in the future, many of which could be met through this fund. If the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) would quit playing games with the Minister of Justice and administer this act as it should be administered, I am sure such an emergency fund could be set up so that whatever money is left could continue to be used to the benefit of those people who contributed originally to the fund.
Such a fund could be attached to the crop insurance program, or used as a separate fund for emergencies in western farm areas. The minister would get full credit for such a move, and would not be associated with the sole purpose the Minister of Justice has been trying to achieve for the past four or five years.
The last annual report I have indicates that no money was collected under this legislation for the 1972-73 crop year. It is interesting to note in that annual report that there were payments made in respect of the 1972-73 crop year. In Manitoba 910 awards were made amounting to $184,000; in Saskatchewan 5,223 awards were made amounting to $1,423,094; in Alberta 7,456 awards were paid, amounting to $2,150,755, and in British Columbia 668 awards were made amounting to $258,606, for a total of 14,257 awards.

April 16, 1975
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
An hon. member on the other side laughs, but let me tell him that those are farmers who have experienced a crop disaster and who have received assistance. He comes from an area where crop disasters take place occasionally, and I am sure that he would not expect other people to laugh at the plight of farmers in his constituency. I am sure he will not laugh to the extent of supporting the action of the Minister of Justice who wishes to eliminate this.
As I said, awards were given to 14,257 farmers in 1972 amounting to over $4 million. This is not a laughing matter. In my opinion it was of great significance to those
14,000	farmers in western Canada. Although they did not collect any money in 1972, there were awards, and I suggest that the minister should seriously consider whether or not he should drop the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and substitute crop insurance which is supported by the provinces and the federal government. He should consider whether he is not relinquishing his obligations and responsibilities to farmers in western Canada and transferring them to his colleague who is responsible for another portfolio. If that is what he is doing then I have little respect for him, as little as I have for the other minister who, I think, has played politics at a time when most of us thought that type of backwoods politics had disappeared.
It may be that the minister will want to add this money to a contingency plan as part of the crop insurance program. If he does that he will be substituting prairie farm assistance to farmers in Canada, and I give him full credit for making the effort to reduce premiums so as to enable a larger number of farmers to benefit from crop insurance. However, that will not be a satisfactory solution for farmers in any part of Canada until it is applied universally, and it cannot be applied universally until farmers can afford the payments, and in many areas that is not yet possible.
Other hon. members not representing western Canada are well aware of difficulties that farmers experience when various types of crops are destroyed by hail, frost and other weather conditions. Because of the diversification in Quebec and Ontario, farmers in those two provinces will not be able to take full advantage of crop insurance. Therefore it will not be available to many farmers in eastern Canada until this program is applied universally and until the levy is collected in the same way that it was originally collected under PFAA. I suggest that we are not really being fair to the people who impose this levy if we put the money into a stabilization fund because not only will a limited number of people be able to participate in the program on a voluntary basis but the program will be limited in its application.
A number of questions have been put to the minister which I hope he will answer. The minister has had dealings with labour and I know he has not been unsympathetic with regard to that sector of our working population, but I am shocked when I hear colleagues in both opposition parties indicate that there are a number of people whom we have employed under the act for up to 30 or 40 years who are being told to go on early retirement simply because we have not made the effort to provide them with other employment.

When it comes to dealing with the grasslands program which is under the Minister of Justice, we understand that casual labour is employed because it is expected that they will spend their time working in his election campaign and therefore that is all right. I am certainly concerned about some of the other programs under which we have employed people over a long period of time, for example, under PFAA, particularly in senior positions, and gave them no protection under the public service act. In fact I would be surprised if any one employed under the Grain Stabilization Act was ever given the protection given by the public service act because, if that were the case, they could not be pushed around politically and that would not be the way to re-establish the Gardiner machine. I certainly hope that the minister will consider the point that I am making and that he will not play that game because it would not be in the national interest.
I have here the report by order in council, PC 1963-1896 of December 21, 1963. An investigation was carried out by Mr. Justice Pope in which the names of the 12 or 14 people referred to by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain and the hon. member for Regina Lake Centre are mentioned. If you read the report carefully you will find that with one exception very little patronage was involved and few political shenanigans. One gets the impression that, except for some political interference, most of the employees under PFAA have been doing an excellent job and have put up a strong resistence to political interference. The report indicates that most of the employees are competent, diligent, and deserve to be employed in the public service until their normal retirement age.
The PFAA has been around for a considerable period of time. If my memory serves me right, about $15 million was involved when the grain stabilization idea was originally put forward. That amount was to go into the new fund which was to include several other funds as well. The carrot was added back in 1971,1 believe.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It seems like a long time ago.


William Arnold Peters: It appears that one has to fight the same fight continually for a long time to establish a reasonable and justifiable position. Back in 1969 a payment had not been made. Farmers had received out of the fund pretty close to $20 million. There has been no payment since 1971, and yet I understand that in winding up this act $7 million to $8 million remains to be disbursed.
I am not convinced that the transfer of this money to the stabilization act will be equitable, serve the purpose we intend, or provide the protection for which the levy originally created this money. I would much rather see the minister put it into a fund. I would much rather see the minister put it into an emergency fund which would be for use in the type of emergency we now have. I would like to see it related either directly or indirectly to the operation of crop insurance.
But I wonder how long it will be before we can really accomplish the things we wish to accomplish in terms of insurance for crops in Canada, particularly in various parts of Canada where the administration is different.
April 16, 1975

Normally in western Canada where there is a crop disaster of quite a large proportion it covers a large area and involves a number of farmers. In eastern Canada it can be in one particular crop, and wipe out that crop and have not much effect on other areas. It has been brought home to me very forcibly that crop insurance still leaves a great deal to be desired.
About five years ago in Ontario there was a disaster caused by weather conditions, and the Ontario government lent sums of $5,000 or $10,000 to replace crops so that farmers could stay in business. This year, with the cost of farm inputs being high, with a poor crop in Northern Ontario last year, the minister of agriculture in Ontario has put all those bills into collection, and he is using a collection agency to collect from the farmers. Crop insurance is still necessary for protection from disaster. I sincerely hope that we will continue to work toward providing a type of universal coverage which will cover not only crop economy but which will cover mixed economies.
I hope the minister will give serious consideration to sending this to committee. I agree that he has to be sympathetic with his colleagues, no matter how nutty they become. I think that he has to have some solidarity, but he really has an obligation to farmers as well. He should allow us to call witnesses. He should allow us to arrive, as representatives of farmers, at the best way of disposing of this fund.
I think he also has an obligation, in winding up the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, to provide for the staff being displaced. It is not as though this happened yesterday. I am looking at a press release dated July 16, 1971, when the then minister of agriculture, Mr. Bud Olson, announced the winding up of the PFAA, and he expected that to take place in May of the following year. We have been doing it for some time, and it seems to me that farmers would be better served if consideration were given to the best method of handling it, though not necessarily the most politically expedient for the cabinet minister who comes from that area.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Madam Speaker, I realize that if the minister spoke now, the debate would close. I am very disappointed that some of the other members from Saskatchewan did not rise in their place and make an honest attempt to set aside the fears and the accusations which were expressed so vividly by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), and others here this afternoon, with regard to an act which has served western Canada and the prairies rather well for some 34 years. I would hate to think that the Act is now being swept under the rug in a cloud of suspicion that the books are not accurately audited, and that the RCMP is carrying out an investigation, as we were told this afternoon.
If we pass this bill now there is reason to believe that, for some reason or another, the RCMP will not become awfully busy, and that the investigation they had attempted to start will lie on the shelf somewhere and never be completed. One of the basic concepts of democracy is that the government of the day shall be accountable to the elected representatives of the people. We have seen no accounting at all here today.
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
The RCMP is carrying on an investigation. The Auditor General has photographed all the books of the PFAA. Now the government wants to hurry and repeal the act so that the whole examination by the Auditor General's department can be forgotten, and so that the investigation by the RCMP can be forgotten.
The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale), who was in the House this afternoon, all of a sudden disappeared. Apparently the speech writers the Liberal party hire could not prepare a speech in time for him to speak this afternoon. That may be one excuse he will give to his constituents. I do not know. Where is the hon. member for Bat-tleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac)? Why is he not speaking in this debate and strongly defending the government's purpose for repealing this piece of legislation? The backbone of democracy must be that the executive is accountable to parliament. We have seen no accounting here today. No one has even attempted to account.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is an innocent bystander with regard to the operations of the PFAA. All of the accusations made this afternoon by speakers from the NDP and from the Conservative party have been directed at the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), his manipulations and his delicate hand in the manoeuvering of the operations of the PFAA inspectors.
The hon. member for Assiniboia, who is a former executive assistant to the Minister of Justice, fled from the House when he saw that this was going to be a prolonged debate, when he discovered that he might be asked to do some accounting, and to rise in his place and make an attempt to defend the Minister of Justice.
Why do I say that someone has had his delicate hand in the operations of the PFAA? It has been made clear that the auditor has photographed all the books of the PFAA and that the RCMP is carrying out an investigation. There is, supposedly, $9 million in the fund. Bill C-30 does not mention any amount of money. Clause 1.(2) says:
All moneys remaining in the Prairie Farm Emergency Fund immediately prior to the repeal of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act...
That does not say any specific amount. I suppose if we were following that we should have repealed the bill some years ago when there would have been more money than there is today. There would have been more after the 1974 election if the accusations made this afternoon are correct that some of the casual help spent as much as $1,400 in two weeks just prior to that election. At that time the director of the PFAA told them they were not to do work in that area, but they got authority from somebody else to do the work and spent the money.
It has been long established that the PFAA has been used as a political tool, a political machine. The name of Jimmy Gardiner has been mentioned this afternoon. He set up the PFAA to work just that way and do his bidding, whether that implied political doings or otherwise. Why do I say "political doing or otherwise", Madam Speaker? A lot of evidence has been put on the record this afternoon to the effect that most of the supervisors appointed were former candidates of the Liberal Party.

April 16, 1975
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
The Pope Committee which investigated some accusations made years ago pointed out that all of the supervisors were political appointees and that most of them were former candidates of the Liberal Party. All this has been said today, but no one from the other side has risen to defend the party. I can remember a former Liberal member for Assiniboia, who is now in the other place, Senator Argue, who used to speak at length about what a great tool PFAA was. If he were in the House today he would have something to say about the death of this legislation which served his constituency so well for 34 years. He would have something to say about why it can no longer function to provide a reasonable amount of security in hardship years for the area of Assiniboia. He often advocated in this House that the $800 maximum payment to each farmer be raised to $1,200, and at one time I believe he introduced a private member's bill to that effect. It would be as easy to justify raising it to $1,600 as it is to justify crop insurance in that amount.
There were faults in the act, and a good deal of politics was played in the administration of it. Those areas that had good crops claimed they paid a levy of one per cent to the PFAA and of course rarely collected anything. Those areas that were low yielding had a record of collecting nearly every year, or at least about three-quarters of the time. As a representative of one of the areas where high protein wheat was grown I can say that we felt the PFAA payment was merely a bonus for growing that wheat. We brought in protein grading, but there is no bonus for growing high protein wheat. You get the same price for it as for any other type.
Before this legislation passes, Madam Speaker, I think we should be told exactly how much money is in the fund, when operations under the Grasslands Incentives program and LIFT program actually ceased, and who authorized the people within the Regina, southern Saskatchewan and the Battleford-Kindersley riding to spend that money prior to the 1974 election. It certainly was not done under the authority of the director of PFAA. Have those accounts been paid and, if so, under whose authority? We certainly should be told far more than we have been told this afternoon.
I am disappointed at the government's attitude toward its duty to be accountable in the face of the accusations made here. In a democracy such as ours no one should be able to stand up in the House of Commons and make accusations of questionable administration and questionable handling of finances without someone in the government rising to set the record straight. There has been no attempt to do so thus far.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, on a point of order and just to set the record straight, on December 12, 1974, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) directed a question to me asking if an investigation was going on. I replied, as reported at page 2189 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, the inquiry is not completed, so far as I am concerned, but I was in the province of Alberta the day before yesterday and the preliminary reports contain enough information in my view to show that what took place was grossly overstated.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. This is a point for debate. Perhaps the hon. minister could make those comments when he closes the debate.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, on a question of privilege, then, on behalf of the people-the innuendo that has been heard while this is before the court. It is before an inquiry at the present time. How can anyone really speak on that when an inquiry is going on? That is what I would like to know?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Because there is an inquiry going on-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In my 17 years in the House of Commons, Madam Speaker, I have never seen that kind of demonstration before-a deliberate clapping to attempt to use up the clock-to filibuster their bill so they will not be accountable for their sins. The minister stands up and says these investigations are before the courts. There is nothing before the courts. He is a member of the House of Commons, and every member of this House of Commons should advise in this debate today what they want the RCMP to investigate, what they want the Auditor General, who took the photographs, to look for in his investigation. It is their duty as representatives of the people to advise the RCMP and the Auditor General what to look for in their investigations. The government is not doing a very good job of accounting for their expenditure of the farmers' money.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: May I call it six o'clock, Madam Speaker.


Eugene Whelan: On a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being six o'clock-


Mr. Lefebvre:: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding and that this debate can continue at some other time, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Renfrew North-Nipissing East (Mr. Hopkins):
That this debate be now adjourned.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Madam Speaker, I have the floor. The hon. member rose on a point of order. He cannot rise on a point of order and move the adjournment of the debate until he gets the floor. I will adjourn the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Crowfoot.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, the hon. member, the whip of the government party, cannot move the adjournment of the debate without first having the floor. He rose on a point of order. I called it six o'clock, assuming that would be the adjournment of the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. A motion is made by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) as follows:
That the debate do now adjourn.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
April 16, 1975


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being six o'clock, under the provisions of Standing Order 26 this House stands adjourned, to resume at eight o'clock tonight. Accordingly I do now leave the chair until eight p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) has leave to move the adjournment of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 26, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, that is the longshoremen's strike in the ports of Quebec City, Trois-Rivieres and Montreal, which is preventing feed mills from getting their normal feed grain supplies in order to meet the feeding needs of the livestock, thus threatening the lives of thousands of farm animals.
Therefore the motion is as follows:
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse), seconded by Mr. La Salle (Joliette), moved:
That this House do now adjourn.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Madam Speaker, I must first of all-


Mr. Ethier:: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I apologize to the hon. member for Bellechasse. The hon. member for Glen-garry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Ethier) rises on a point of order.


Denis Éthier: Madam Speaker, I should like to point out that only one Social Crediter was there to launch the debate on this very important issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I am sorry, the hon. member knows that this is not a point of order.
The hon. member for Bellechasse may continue.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Madam Speaker, I must first of all thank my hon. colleagues-
Feed Grain


John Allen Fraser: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, although there are more Quebec members on the Liberal side than on the Creditiste side, it was a Creditiste member who moved the motion tonight.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. Again, this is a point of debate.


Thomas Lefebvre: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I remind the hon. member that this is not merely a Quebec question, it is a national question and where you come from does not matter.


John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would like to make his point when it is his turn to enter the debate.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Madam Speaker, first I should like to say in answer to the point of order raised by the government member that I am quite sorry to note that in such serious circumstances, one would pass the time rising on points of order merely for the sake of the matter.


An hon. Member:: Such dirty politics!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: If we pointed out the absence of some members each time they are not at their place, we would have fun doing it.


An hon. Member:: We could start right now, if you like.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Anyhow, the sitting was to resume at 8 o'clock. I was here and I noted that many members were ready to support my motion and I gratefully thank them, especially the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle). This shows that the opposition at least is unanimously ready to consider a very serious matter and help the government to find solutions and correct a situation before it grows worse.
First of all I wish to thank the Chair for accepting my motion and allowing this debate on a very serious problem, which will hopefully help me to get to the bottom of the matter and find solutions more quickly. I wish also to thank my colleagues in the House for accepting the ruling of the Chair. Even though it is Hockey Night in Canada this evening, our national sport, they realized that we must look into the problems of Canada first and enjoy ourselves later. That is why I am grateful to them. So, Parliament is at work even on a Wednesday evening, which I hope will be appreciated by the Canadian people.
I had moved a similar motion on April 9, but the Chair ruled it out of order, while urging me to keep an eye on new developments. I was told that if the situation deteriorated, I might have the opportunity to raise this matter again. Since the situation has indeed deteriorated, I have deemed it my duty to raise it again today. I am glad that an hon. member from another opposition party, namely the hon. member for Joliette, also felt that this matter
4880

April 16, 1975
Feed Grain
should be brought to the attention of the House. This shows once more that Parliament, the highest authority in the land, must take its responsibilities when situations such as this seriously disrupt our economy and endanger this country's main industry, agriculture.
On March 19 last, an emergency debate was held in this House on the work stoppages in western ports. I took part in that debate in order to prove that although representing an eastern constituency, I share a concern for problems arising in western Canada. As I said before, all members should have common concerns in Parliament and we all have the same obligations to the Canadian people as a whole. Let me turn now to the subject matter of this debate, work stoppages in the Quebec ports.
For more than a week, the longshoremen's strike and its impact have prompted a number of queries during the question period. The bulk of the questions were for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). They concerned feed grain supplies at the Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec City elevators, and also the feed mills' supplies in elevators and their ability to provide their customers with the feed grain needed. The minister's answers showed he was not overly concerned with the situation. As late as yesterday, the minister stated in answer to questions that there were adequate supplies in Quebec ports to meet requirements. Although I have no inclination to disbelieve the minister's statement, the situation prevailing today is different. I contacted the Bunge elevator in Quebec City around eleven o'clock this morning. As the president of the Farm Producers Union, Mr. Couture will testify, the manager told me he had in stock, at that time, exactly
62,000	bushels of wheat, 92,000 bushels of oats, and 65,000 bushels of barley. The Canadian Wheat Board had 12,500 He also told me he needs 175,000 bushels a day to meet the demand. Therefore, there are supplies for two days only. On the other hand, I am informed there are 498,000 bushels of corn. While it is always possible to feed cattle with corn alone, that will help them survive, but it may upset the balance of their diet entirely and cause losses to farmers.
At the elevators in Quebec City, last Friday, 60 trucks were loaded, 221 on Saturday, four on Sunday and 200 daily on Monday, Tuesday and perhaps today. Today, April 16, 50 per cent of the trucks loaded were from the Montreal area. This means that Montreal is getting its supplies in Quebec City. This means Quebec City is serving the whole region where production is the greatest.
Therefore, the situation is a tragic one. I am told that a hog producer was there at five o'clock on Saturday morning in order to get some feed. Only in the evening did he manage to get his load. He was crying with joy after he had loaded the feed he needed for his pigs which were beginning to eqt one another. When animals start acting this way, they become a total loss for the producer. And this spells bankruptcy in a not too distant future.
The manager of the Bunge elevator in Quebec City told me that short of a miracle, he was not expecting a feed-loaded boat to dock in Quebec City before another eight days. One may readily see how precarious and serious the situation has become. He hopes that a barge loaded with grade 2-C barley now sailing on the Great Lakes can be unloaded at Quebec city even though its shipment is intended for export.

Shipping by rail remains, but only 40 per cent of the millers are served by that means of transport, and delivery is very slow. It takes weeks once the order is put in, before delivery.
Members of Parliament have received many telegrams from millers and various farming organizations describing the situation as tragic and calling on Parliament to put an end to these work stoppages which intensify the economic crisis our country is going through at this time. Consumers are faced with price and tax inflation. This inflationary thrust generates unemployment. Unemployment brings about a reduction in gross national output. The construction industry is idling. Bankruptcies are multiplying. Society in general is worried about tomorrow. Nobody trusts anyone anymore. People wonder whether essential public services will be working tomorrow. That is the situation in which we are now living in this country.
With all the difficulties in securing feed grains Quebec farm producers are wondering, and rightly so, whether they should continue operating.
The Canadian Livestock Feed Board was set up for a very specific purpose, that is to ensure that there is an adequate stock of feed grains and enough storage space to meet the needs of farm animal producers in Eastern Canada and British Columbia, contribute to reasonable stability in product and facility prices, and help to equalize feed grain prices for Eastern and B.C. producers.
So the board must assess the needs for feed grains as well as the storage space required, negotiate and coordinate activities relating to storing, handling, transportation and prices of feed grains. Such is the role of the Canadian Livestock Feed Board.
That board comes under the authority of the Minister of Agriculture. He therefore is responsible for supervising its officials closely and ascertain that they carry out their duties efficiently by resorting to the necessary means in achieving the aims of the board.
I do not wish to blame the minister severely for the shortage of feed grains in eastern Canada; still, I must point out to him that since the fall of 1974, I have been concerned with what would happen in the spring of 1975 when the consumption of feed grains would reach its peak. I am well aware of this because of my experience as a cattle producer.
I foresaw higher consumption of feed this Spring because breeders kept more cattle over the Winter, the price of beef being low in the Fall. Consequently, there was a greater consumption of hay which created a real shortage and not an artificial one, and a fantastic increase in prices. Such is the situation. The Quebec cattlemen, the farm producers must use more feed grain due to the lack of hay to meet the needs of their cattle.
Given this, it was still incumbent on the minister to see that there should be more feed in Eastern Canada. That was obvious last fall, and many questions were put in this House, even to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. The minister of Agriculture and the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board have both guaranteed that supplies were normal and that there
April 16, 1975

would be nothing to worry about, even during the months of March, April and May.
On the other hand, I know that the minister of Agriculture has no jurisdiction on transport. He has to rely on the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Commission who, in turn, has no concern with the needs of the Feed Grain Board. That is why I propose, once again tonight, as I already did, that, as a means to achieve this objective, the minister of Agriculture responsible for supplying Eastern Canada with feed grain should have additional authority which should allow him to mobilize the necessary transportation means, when required to do so by an emergency situation, so that we should not be caught unaware and that farm producers of Eastern Canada and British Columbia should not be deprived of the feed grain they need to maintain production.
I believe that this kind of action would be a great step forward in the right direction, for the producers of Eastern Canada rely on the Feed Grain Board for adequate supplies, as grain producers rely on the Canadian Wheat Board for storing and selling their wheat at a good price.
The agricultural industry of Quebec plays a great part in the economy of this country, directly or indirectly.
Thousands of people rely on production, transformation or distribution of different products to live.
It is therefore a very important industry in the economy of our country, an industry that is of great consequence, and we, members of the Canadian Parliament, must take the means available to us to ensure its survival, in order to help prevent the unemployment rate from rising-it is already high enough-without forcing the farm producers who still have guts left to retire from business and live on social welfare.
I think, Madam Speaker, it is important for us to take the steps to ensure farm producers, those who still have enough courage to persevere in that essential industry, all that is necessary so they can count on the public power to restore order where there is disorder, in order that they have sufficient revenues to live reasonably. They do not want to become millionnaires, but they want to have a reasonable income which will allow them to live decently, to pay their debts, to support their families, to have their wives and children live in normal conditions, in a country where it is possible even for farmers to enjoy a good standard of living.
However, I acknowledge the right of the longshoremen to strike, but I think that at some point in a dispute, the right to strike must be weighed against the public interest, and in my opinion we have reached that turning point. In one year, twelve strikes have affected farm producers throughout Canada. So I think that we must have reached that turning point where the government must intervene and bring the matter under control.
If cattle is being slaughtered prematurely for lack of feed grain, producers will suffer a loss, consumers will not get a good-quality product and perhaps in a few months food supply problems might develop, with the result that prices will go up. Quality will go down and prices will go up. That is not the way we are going to fight inflation.
I have said before in the House and I express again tonight the opinion, about which I feel very strongly, that
Feed Grain
the cost of living adjustment of wages does not solve anything, prices keep on rising, there is further recourse to strikes for higher wages and we cannot escape the vicious circle. Another solution will have to be found.
Let us now consider seriously the number of strikes that occurred in Canada over the last year. That is an indication that the indexing formula did not solve much.
I notice that the discussion of problems we are experiencing seem to strike a member on the government side as funny. My God, if the Canadian people could see us behave that flightily, they would know why there are so many problems in Canada!


Mr. Lapointe:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


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


Charles Lapointe: The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) appeared to be pointing at me when he said that we tended to take the debate lightly. Madam Speaker, I strongly protest against that accusation, because we are here for no other reasons than to discuss this important matter-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. Again this is not a point or order but a point for debate.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Madam Speaker, I knew it was not a point of order. There was no sense in it being a point of order.
I suggest another way of giving more justice to workers. Parliament should adopt immediately a law to guarantee a minimum income for all workers. Such a formula would not be included in salaries and would not contribute to the price increase of things consumers must buy to meet their needs.
We live under a capitalist economy which is in a sorry plight and faulty in many respects. Therefore it is up to Parliament to reform it before it is too late.
That capitalist economic system will be reformed by order-loving men-that won't happen by itself-or it will be destroyed by others. Such a wave of strikes and demonstrations throughout this country should show us clearly that we must abandon beaten tracks, old methods, redress the wrongs so as to put an end to the exploitation of man by man, because that is also one of the causes for the strikes that keep on increasing.
We live in a society headed by a Parliament, by a government whose responsibility consist in providing for the common weal through respect for the legal rights of everyone.
Time has come for the authority to assert itself so as to replace disorder by order. All reasonable people have an eager desire for governments aware of their responsibilities and able to replace chaos by harmony-and most people still feel that way. One wants the rights of labour capital to be safeguarded, one recognizes the necessity for that. One recognizes also that the rights of money capital should be respected but one wishes both to work together in the best interests of this country. That is where the conflict lies, between those two forms of capital.
29557-34%

April 16, 1975
Feed Grain
As long as those two forms of capital necessary for the country's prosperity will constantly be opposed, by no means will there be any social peace and security for the whole nation.
When the point is reached where workers are fighting other workers to deny them access to essential raw materials that would enable them to carry out their task, namely to produce food products to meet the needs of families, then it can be said that the situation has become extremely serious, that those who apply the divide and rule principle have achieved their end, and that time has come for parliament to introduce an emergency legislation and put an end to such situation as well as assure workers on strike that bargaining will be carried on until a final settlement is reached.
As a third means of providing farmers with necessary feed grain, I suggest-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has now expired. He would need the consent of the House to cary on with his speech.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Bellechasse has the floor.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: -I suggest that grain stocks that are stored in the Saint Lawrence elevators and designed to the export market should be transferred immediately in order to meet the needs of our domestic market, until a more definite solution is worked out.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I must say that Quebec farmers, up to 1974, did not claim their rights too loudly. However, in the past few months the situation has changed, and they decided to demand efficient legislation from governmental authorities whenever a problem arises that might jeopardize the Quebec agriculture.
Quebecers consume each year $2.5 to $3 billion worth of products, and agriculture in Quebec produces only about $1 billion. So there is room for expansion.
Quebec obtains outside three quarters of its food products, in a packed, canned, ready-to-eat form. We cannot bear this situation too long, because there will be a time when we depend on other countries for our food.
Farm producers of Quebec have been faced with the problem of feed grains for years. At a time, it was because they were forced to pay higher prices than western producers. Their cost of production being higher, their income was reduced. This is why per capita farm income is lower in Quebec than in any other part of the country. The situation has improved a little. But in one year producers have had to put up with six strikes which crippled grain movement.
Now, Madam Speaker, in the face of such a serious situation, as sponsor of the motion, I wanted to stay serene but firm, and I can assure the government that I shall consider it as my duty to support a legislation designed to put an end to this labour dispute in all fairness.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, it is not necessarily with pleasure that I am participating to this debate. It is a lot more by obligation and particularly because this situation cannot go on very long.
I too would nevertheless like to congratulate the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) for having put forward a motion identical to the one we had planned. I would also like to congratulate him for having reminded the House of certain statistics which show clearly that the present supply is clearly inadequate. I will not recall them, since the hon. member fo Bellechasse has mentioned them in a rather accurate way.
I have met this morning, Madam Speaker, with the officials of the Farm Producers Union who have drawn for us a picture of the situation, a very sad, not to say tragic, picture. Of course, there are probably some hon. members who did not want to accept the qualifiers I have been using today, and for the last two weeks. For two weeks, Madam Speaker, we have been looking for answers. The official opposition has asked the minister many questions. I would like to thank my colleagues who have supported the idea of asking for a special debate. For the past two weeks, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), whose absence tonight I regret although I recognize it is justified because I know that he is a very busy man, has not answered our questions. According to the information given to us the farmers, situation is precarious indeed impossible.
I was surprised these last two weeks to hear the Minister answer our question and even those of a couple of government members who were watching the situation daily and even hourly, without realizing the immediate need for a concrete and fast action from the government. In view of the six strikes which have plagued the farmers in less than a year, work stoppages are becoming a tragedy for agriculture and this time we are talking about the Quebec farmers. One month ago we asked for a similar debate in view of a situation with no end in sight. Today we are supporting a very particular point but which I suppose is of considerable interest to government members as many of them live in la Belle Province.
But, Madam Speaker, no matter how many pieces of legislation this government has proposed or will propose they will definitively be ruined by these work stoppages. The benefits that could accrue to the farmers are definitively outweighted by the problems resulting from these strikes.
I repeat that for two weeks the minister has been saying that he is watching the situation very closely and that things are not as bad as all that. Yet, this morning, the president of the APU told me about the situation. He was very concerned and thought that things could not go on this way very long.
On April 12, the secretary general of the Poultry Producers' Federation of Quebec, Mr. Jean-Marc Kirouac, gave the alarm. This was last Saturday. He said that the situation was dramatic but added that in the Quebec area, the producers had succeeded in getting supplies because the picket lines had let the millers through on certain days. Mr. Kirouac's panic is certainly caused by the absence
April 16, 1975

from work yesterday of the grain elevator handlers because, without them, the millers cannot obtain grain even if they succeed in crossing the picket lines.
Mr. Kirouac also said that he had nothing against the strikers, that they were in their right since this is a legal strike. However, he held the government responsible for the situation because it is up to the government to solve labour relation problems so that no one may suffer from the government's inability to solve them. These are the words of Mr. Kirouac, a responsible man and an agricultural expert who could be compared easily to several members of the House.
He added that the millers must supply about 6,000 egg producers, some 15,000 poultry and turkey producers,
23,000	industrial milk producers, 5,000 plain milk producers and about 6,000 hog producers who cannot store grain for more than a week since they lack the space to do so. Consequently, they must get their grain from the ports on a regular basis.
Yet, Madam Speaker, this afternoon the minister said that it was possible for Quebec producers to go to Montreal even though he is well aware, but did not say that like the ports of Quebec and Montreal, on the few days when this was possible, served first their own customers, which prevented the others from obtaining supplies.
I therefore regret to say that the minister had either erroneous information or bad intentions. Knowing his honesty, I am more than willing to believe that he was ill-informed. But how could he possibly have been since within the government party there are enough Quebec representatives to inform the minister. He went on to add that he had no proof when the fact was mentioned that some producers, being excessively worried, had to lead their animals to the slaughterhouse. And the minister, in reply to a question I asked, said that such was not the case and that my observation was not justified. And yet, last April 13, in Beauce, for instance, an hon. member had surely informed him; he even asked questions of him, emphasizing and showing his concern. He questioned the minister and was not any more successful than we in obtaining an answer. For example, an inspector from the provincial Department of Agriculture disclosed that during last Friday alone a slaughterhouse in Beauce refused 40,000 hogs. And everywhere the same situation prevailed. The reason for it all was not that the hogs had not reached the slaughterhouse on time, but rather that the producers, in view of their concerns and impossible circumstances, obviously wanted to avoid the worst-famished hogs readily devouring one another.
These observations have been made to the Minister of Agriculture for more than two weeks ago, and we are scandalized to see that he was unable to give one or several replies or, at least, some type of assurance. The question was once again asked of him by one of my colleagues requesting some assurance that no producer would be lacking in supplies, to which question no one seemed to be willing to reply.
The minister did answer on a few occasions that in certain ports, there were some supplies. He seemed completely unaware that there is a lot of difference between the supplies themselves and the ready access to ports. Sure, in Quebec City, producers were allowed in freely for
Feed Grain	.
a few days to load their trucks, for silos were empty. But concerning supplies in the Trois-Rivieres area as mentioned by the minister, which should account for a few more days supplies, there is no possible access to them. Producers are therefore prompted to turn not only to Montreal, but also to the province of Ontario, and especially the Prescott area for their supplies.
We already know what problems producers are faced with, problems of thaw and fines they have had to pay because their trucks were overloaded. The government of Quebec agreed yesterday to let producers load in whatever they could without necessarily being fined. Such is therefore the whole series of difficulties our producers are faced with.
The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) mentioned that problem earlier and stressed its importance as we did within our own party, but we still expect a government answer to know on the one hand what is happening especially with respect to the agreement expired on December 1st, 1974, and on the other hand what solution the government intends to present this Parliament with in order to enable producers to get their supplies in a normal way.
Madam Speaker, those questions have remained unanswered for several days, and those are the reasons which led us to favour an emergency debate. We want the government to provide us tonight with the means of reaching a solution.
Maybe we shall be asked what solution we suggest. It is up to the majority government elected last July to provide this country with leadership and administration, and, therefore, to find solutions. God knows, Madam Speaker, how many solutions with respect to agriculture as well as in other respects we had during the electoral campaign.


An hon. Member:: There still are some.


Roch La Salle: Somebody says that there still are solutions. I sure hope we will know about them tonight. I hope so too for producers. I am not pleading for myself tonight; I said earlier that it was with great sadness that I felt I had to participate in an emergency debate because of the difficulties producers face.


An hon. Member:: He is crying!


Roch La Salle: No, Madam Speaker, there is nothing to cry about, as the hon. member says, and I know he will not cry over that, I know it well. In any case he sits on the other side of the House.
I think, Madam Speaker, it is urgent that government members who offer us solutions as valid as those they were talking about last July make them known to us tonight.
About supplies which the minister says are available to a certain extent and in a particular port, he is right, but he failed to add that accessibility is impossible. Where there is access there is no grain; where there is grain there is no access. The minister did not elaborate, yet he knows that. The consequences are serious for producers in view of added costs. The minister pointed out yesterday that he would be prepared to consider and examine additional costs and make a decision later on. The producer also

April 16, 1975
Feed Grain
needs to know, that is part of his concerns. He is concerned about not being able to get what he needs for his stock. That is very important. One can also talk about an animal being changed or upset by an altogether different diet, and all that because of the feed grain shortage.
All hon. members who follow the situation closely, and several sit on the agriculture committee, know what I mean and the kind of concern or difficulty that means to producers.
In spite of all these reasons and arguments that have been discussed for two weeks, we are still waiting for a solution, a proposal that we are ready to support and, hopefully, a worthwhile one. We ask only one thing; an adequate solution acceptable to both parties, of course. It is a not a matter, Madam Speaker, of condemning the union or condemning the strikers. Their contract expired on December 1, 1974. Why should negotiations drag on and on? How can one explain demands which to some extent seem founded? No one seems to be able to find a solution. What are we waiting for? That the farmers be even more helpless, that the people demand a special government legislation?
I know full well, Madam Speaker, that the matter was brought up in government caucus this morning. The Prime Minister said, yesterday I believe, that he was looking into the possibility of passing special legislation. Bearing in mind the public interest, that of the farmers, when are we going to decide that the time has come to straighten out this mess? That is what we are waiting for.
Will we see a repeat performance of the public slaughter of cattle we witnessed not so long ago in Quebec? Within a couple a days, Madam Speaker, because of the inertia of the government, we will face once again that spectacle both disastrous and revolting, but justified by the inaction of the government which refuses to assume its responsibilities. That's that, Madam Speaker.
I spoke this morning to the representatives of the the Agricultural Producers Union and the Feed Mill Owners Association. It is clear that the producers cannot tolerate much longer that inertia and lack of concern on the part of the government towards Quebec farmers. The APU and the Feed Mill Owners Association sent an SOS to the government: Something must be done. We, of the opposition, especially those from Quebec, who are living through those difficulties, and those from other provinces who understand them-and we will have proof of it afer my speech, Madam Speaker-are also appealing to the government.
Personally, I feel obliged to condemn the present attitude of the government because it has failed to intervene. What is it waiting for? I trust the minister responsible or other hon. members will give us an answer in a little while. Is the Quebec representation not sufficient to prove to the rest of the party that the situation is critical? Sixty Quebecers have failed to convince the minister in charge to do something. That is embarrassing, Madam Speaker. It is indeed embarrassing that 60 members have not been able to convince the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to do something in order to meet the pressing needs of the producers.

Therefore, I accuse the government, Madam Speaker, of having been thoughtless and weak in the face of their responsibilities. I accuse the government of cutting the Quebec producers adrift, even if this province has given much support to the government, it seems to me. I also accuse the Quebec members of unforgivable negligence towards the Quebec farmers, and at the same time, I urge the Quebec producers to remember in due time this obvious act of cowardice at such a difficult time.
Madame Speaker, it is hard to accept these criticisms. If the government intends to introduce a special legislation, I hope it will find another solution. They have some responsibilities with respect to negotiations which should be progressing and are not, contrary to what one of the ministers has said; the Acting Prime Minister did say on April 10 that negotiations were going along well, despite the fact that they had been interrupted since April 2. This information was false and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) kept on saying for two weeks that the situation was not as bad as suggested. Today there are opposition members, apart from the Quebec members, who are aware of the situation. There are also members on the government benches who are aware of the situation and I urge these gentlemen to be honest and to assume their responsibilities towards the farmers of Quebec. If ever they have wanted to provide answers and make a positive gesture which could breed results, the opportunity is theirs this evening.
Madam Speaker, I know that many speakers will rise after me. Before concluding, I urge the government to provide answers for producers, not merely for us, but for them through us. It is our duty to beg for such answers this evening and I venture to hope that the government will become more sensitive and less unconcerned that in the past two weeks.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I hope the Opposition members will allow me to deal with the statements made by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), who jointly moved this motion.
I should like first of all to tell hon. members that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) would have liked to be in the House from the very beginning to take part in this debate. As hon. members doubtless know, this special emergency debate was agreed upon at the very last minute. A Cabinet member as active as the Minister of Agriculture never refuses an opportunity to make a speech on a Wednesday evening, and he had already accepted an invitation to have discussions with farm producers from Eastern Ontario. He has assured us that he will try and return to Parliament as soon as possible. Should this debate continue late into the night, he will certainly be able to take part in it.
As a matter of fact, I do not think there is a single member who would dare blame the hon. Minister of Agriculture for carrying out his duties and acting quickly in any emergency. In fact, Madam Speaker, as I was listening to the trivial statements made by the hon. member for Joliette, to his unfounded accusations and partisan remarks, I felt there was no need for the Minister of Agriculture to be here and listen to all this in order to
April 16, 1975

find solutions, for the hon. member for Joliette had none to suggest. To his credit, I must say that the hon. member for Bellechasse has at least tried, although with limited success, to make concrete suggestions for solving this problem. And I want to say, not only to the hon. members for Bellechasse and Joliette, but also to all other members present in this House, that the government has assumed its responsibilities in connection with this problem; in fact, we did not wait for this special debate in the House to act and, although this may not be very pleasant for certain hon. members of the Opposition to hear, I am going to quote figures and indicate steps which were taken by the government over the past few days to try and solve this problem.
I have something else to say, particularly to the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) who persisted in putting all the blame on the government and especially on Liberal members from Quebec. The hon. members for Bellechasse and Joliette stressed the fact that they had spoken today to the president of APU, Mr. Couture. I also spoke with the president of APU today. But to make it a point of honour to have contacted the president of APU today is really, in my opinion, vacuousness.
I say that every day of the week several Liberal members of the House, be it the member for Frontenac (Mr. Corriveau), the member for Richelieu (Mr. Cote), the member for Laval (Mr. Roy), the member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont), the member for Compton (Mr. Tessier), the member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Lessard), the member for Portneuf (Mr. Bussieres), the member for Charlevoix (Mr. Lapointe), the member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard), and the list is surely not complete, are concerned about the problem. I see the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) who is behind me. All those members look actively after Quebec farm problems and speak regularly throughout the week either to the president or to members of the APU executive.
I see the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) and the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Carron) who took an active part with me and with other members I already mentioned and others who are not here tonight, in meetings with various farm groups from Quebec. Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Joliette has no lesson to teach us on that score.
Madam Speaker, I have only one other thing to say to the hon. member for Joliette. To hear him speak, one would think that the government is depriving farmers of their grain on purpose.


Mr. Boulanger:: That is nasty.


André Ouellet: According to the substance of his remarks, the government is to blame for its failure to take action. Little or no mention was made of the real problem-the real cause of this difficulty, of the longshoremen's strike in the Quebec, Trois-Rivieres and Montreal ports.
Madam Speaker, to blame the government as a whole because this strike is not settled yet does not take a lot of imagination. Does that mean that the hon. member wants to deprive the workers in those ports of the right to strike? Does that mean that the longsshoremen should not have
Feed Grain
the right to strike? Does that mean that regardless of the workers' wage demands, regardless of their claims, the government should readily comply with them? They are irresponsible demands in some cases. Does that mean that every time a conflict may arise, since the interests of certain groups might be affected, the government should abdicate its responsibilities in an irresponsible way and settle at any cost the labour dispute?
The hon. member for Joliette did not have the smallest element of solution to suggest in this labour dispute which is nevertheless very important.
I think it would be advisable to enumerate the actions taken by the government these last days to bring elements of solution to the problem. We know that, precisely to help the supply, the government rerouted a ship so that it would unload its cargo at Prescott, a cargo of 825,000 bushels. More than 150,000 bushels have already been delivered to the province of Quebec. This is something that has been done in that field.
I would like to echo the remarks of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) who mentioned in his comments certain figures concerning supplies in the port of Quebec. I do not have any reason not to believe that the majority of those figures are exact, that is that a cargo has recently been unloaded in the port of Quebec, so that there are now some 719,000 bushels in the port. It is true that some 498,000 bushels of American corn constitute the most important part of that reserve.
And the hon. member is probably right in saying that this corn could be used but could also disturb the normal feeding methods.
Those bushels are there and they could be used if an agreement could be reached to allow the millers to cross the picket lines and go and get the grains.
I may say also that there are more than a million bushels in the Port of Trois-Rivieres, some 211,000 bushels in the port of Sorel and more than 2,724,000 bushels in the port of Montreal.
I do not know if the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) ate corn before coming to the House, but I think he should better listen carefully to what I say, because we are trying tonight to find some elements of solution to this serious problem. And I agree with the hon. members for Bellechasse and Joliette, and with the other members on this side of the House who said that the situation was serious, that every effort must be made to enable the millers in Quebec to lay hands on the grains that are now stored in Quebec ports.
The figures I just gave show that there are grains in sufficient quantities for about a month. At the same time, I can assure the members that three ships are now sailing towards eastern Canada and St. Lawrence ports loaded with more than one million bushels. Which might also help to solve the problem.
However, I would like to remind the hon. members that yesterday, grain handlers in Montreal voted against a work stoppage. Of course, that alone does not solve the problem, but it is something encouraging, one less obstacle, and an important sign in the present conflict at the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec City.

April 16, 1975
Feed Grain
Madam Speaker, injunctions which have been taken and gave results have been mentioned in the newspapers and various sectors. In fact, an injunction was issued in Quebec City last week following which it was possible to move out considerable quantities of grain which were stock piled in the port of Quebec city.
I must mention that tomorrow, other injunctions are to be requested in Trois-Rivieres and Montreal and I assure the hon. members that, in the discussions which I had today with the chairman of the UPA, I insisted on the fact that the UPA could, through its members, request injunctions and should at the very least try to make the longshoremen involved understand that there is some urgency and that they should show humanitarianism and allow the mill owners to load up the supplies which they need urgently. This matter was discussed with the chairman of the UPA and we shall be getting in touch again during the next few days to see what these next steps will bring about.
However, in replying to the completely unfounded accusations of the member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), I must remind the hon. members that the government has established a service which loads hopper cars in Thunder Bay to bring grain to eastern Canada. Today, 59 hopper cars were loaded and are now headed for eastern Quebec. Steps taken by the government have brought about the assurance of 300 Canadian National hopper cars in at Thunder Bay for the exclusive use of grain bound for eastern Canada.
The Canadian National and Canadian Pacific have assured the availability of 200 hopper cars for other more remote points in eastern Canada. So I can state that through the government initiative and especially the work performed during the past few days to cope with that condition, it is entirely false to maintain, as the member for Joliette has suggested, that the government has not tried to cope with that difficulty while respecting the basic right of the longshoremen who are on a legal strike in the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec City.


An hon. Member:: Farm producers also have rights.


André Ouellet: Obviously, Madam Speaker. To my mind, there is not a single member of parliament, who does not recognize farm producers some rights. That matter is not in question here. There is no need to make a series of speeches to pay homage to the farmers. I am sure we all agree on that.
I feel that the action of the government, through its agricultural policies in the last few years, has proved categorically and fully to what extent, under the leadership of our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), it has endeavoured to better understand and help Canadian farmers.
I would even go further, Madam Speaker, and say that the government is fully aware of the situation. When there is a strike, the Prime Minister said so yesterday, there always comes a time when public interest must be weighed against the right to strike. The government and the cabinet are now looking into that matter. At this point in time, Madam Speaker, I doubt that it has time to

legislate the strikers back to work in the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec City.
To my mind, if the right to strike is to have any meaning, if it is to be of value to Canadian workers, the time and possibility to use it must be allowed those to whom it was given.


An hon. Member:: You are not doing any ting.


André Ouellet: I must say a few things to the hon. member who, I suspect, would like that right to strike withdrawn since he told us to assume our responsibilities without being specific about how to do this, unless it is to order the strikers back to work.
I am sure, Madam Speaker, that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), in close co-operation, have been watching the situation closely on a daily basis to ensure that the rights on the one side will not result disastrously in the suppression of the rights on the other. When time will come to act more drastically, if need be, the government will not shirk its responsabilities. It has acted often in the House by bringing in legislation to force strikers back to work. But that cannot be done without due consideration each time a conflict is brewing somewhere and causes some difficulties.
Eastern Canada farmers have to face problems. I have mentioned some measures taken by the government to alleviate them. I am confident that such provisions are, will be and will keep being applicable and that there will be no need to legislate in order to withdraw the right to strike from workers out on a legal strike.


William Arnold Peters: Madam Speaker, unfortunately we are having too many of these Wednesday evening debates.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: It is an indication that there are a number of problems which this government is not facing up to before they becoming emergencies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: I was very interested to hear the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) defend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). That is certainly a switch. I think that in itself is worth the price of admission to tonight's debate. The minister agreed that there are certain problems and that the government has had to take some unusual measures to deal with them.
I am glad the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) proposed this motion which I believe highlights the fact that the government is not facing up to problems as they develop and before they reach crisis proportions. I do not come from the affected area but I imagine the problem is neither as bad as has been stated by the opposition nor as good as has been stated by the Minister of Consumer and Coprorate Affairs: the truth lies somewhere in between.
April 16, 1975

I was surprised to hear the minister say that the opposition should suggest solutions to the problem. I remind him that four or five years ago we established the eastern feed grains board for the purpose of guaranteeing supplies to eastern Canada. If the minister knows the provisions of the act under which we can bring grain from the Lake-head to the eastern market and have the federal government pay the eastern feed grains board for the transportation costs, he will know what we are concerned about.
Not long ago we dealt with difficulties concerning longshoremen. Some members tonight have suggested that since the government intervened on the west coast, it should intervene on the east coast. I remind the minister that many of the problems in the ports of Montreal, Three Rivers and Quebec are the result of government intervention in the last contract negotiations. I am referring to the way we settled the longshoremen's strike. When we sent the workers back, we locked them into a contract which was to run to the end of December. Not all ports were involved. The port of Saint John was not involved in that return to work legislation! workers there, in early December, negotiated for a cost of living increase and that settled the problem in the area. The legislation ending the eight-week wildcat strike in 1973 did not allow for the reopening of the contract. That is why we are facing problems at this time connected with cost of living escalator clauses.
Surely parliament will not be asked to intervene in every labour dispute. Some members suggest that strikes are not in the national interest. I suggest that not all strikes involve the national interest. Obviously, the strike we are considering affects a number of farmers in Quebec who are supposed to be serviced by the eastern feed grains board. After all, we set up this board so that it could provide, free of charge, assistance with feed grains. The government, if it so wants, can move grain to eastern Canada by rail. That movement need not cost the farmer a penny; the government can pick up the tah.
The problem we are discussing concerns, it seems to me, Quebec in particular. It concerns, more especially, the major ports, Montreal, Quebec City and Three Rivers- perhaps I ought to say Trois-Rivieres-and, as well, Baie Comeau. The guarantees have been given. The machinery for settling this problem exists. Is this, then, a matter involving the national interest? Is there not legislation for dealing with it? Clearly, what has happened has inconvenienced farmers, distributors and producers who need feed grains for their operations. But the government can supply that feed grain from Thunder Bay. The mechanism exists for providing it directly to those who want it.
It is easy to criticize the government, to be wise, with hindsight, and to say we should have adopted a different or a better feed grains policy or we should have provided financial assistance. I know that what is happening may be causing hardship to certain farmers. I also know that most people are not overly concerned about labour disputes affecting others. Only when a dispute affects one directly does it become a national issue: that is the attitude of many people. I remind the House that when it intervened only one year ago to settle the dispute affecting Montreal, Three Rivers and Quebec and eliminated a
Feed Grain
cost of living clause from the contract, it sowed the seeds for the present strike which is affecting the same ports.
Recently we were involved in some difficulties concerning longshoremen and management. Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to read an extract from the Montreal Gazette of October 29, 1974. The headline of the article is "Longshoremen, management talks on new contract open." A paragraph of the article reads:
"The port of Montreal is doing well and the other two are having difficulties," says one shipping agency president here. "Why should we pay for the others? Let each one stand by itself and if one port has trouble-well, then, just close it."
People who have experience with contract negotiations and have dealt with management know only too well that the general attitude is, "Well, Jack, we are all right in Montreal and to hell with you in Trois-Rivieres and Quebec City." That was the management's attitude in dealing with longshoremen, and it did not help. We know that Judge Alan Gold was appointed as mediator in the Quebec longshoremen's strike and submitted his report on March 19. The report was accepted by the MEA, but rejected unanimously by the International Longshoremen's Association on March 27. Shortly after that, the Quebec minister of agriculture, Rene Toupin, sent a telegram to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) asking for an injunction ordering the 2,200 longshoremen back to work so that grain supplies to Quebec farmers would be assured. Let me point out that longshoremen are not primarily concerned about the movement of grain. One wonders why management wanted an injunction ordering the longshoremen back to work when the longshoremen were not involved in the feed grain contract.
In the present case, the longshoremen's union says that the wage proposal is not bad. It amounts to a 57 per cent increase over the three-year life of the proposed contract. So the longshoremen are doing better than members of parliament who are working on the basis of a four-year contract, so to speak. The most contentious issue, say the longshoremen, is job security. Perhaps hon. members should look at that clause because they may need to be as concerned about job security as the longshoremen.
At the present time, when we are seeing technological changes, the mechanization of industry, advanced work techniques, and so on, we have not been able to establish a satisfactory way of resolving labour-management problems. We in this country have not been able to do anything about establishing any form of industrial democracy in the negotiations we conduct between employers and employees. In the case of the longshoremen they point out that the wage increases that have been offered-and they are not bad-can be easily removed if the payment of those wages is on the basis of possible deductions from the total annual guaranteed income which they had previously, and which they were able to improve by working overtime, when necessary, without losing any of their yearly benefit.
Under the terms of the Gold proposal, by working overtime they were, in effect, having this deducted from their annual guaranteed income. Therefore they might not be any better off at the end of the year than they were

April 16, 1975
Feed Grain
previously. The Gold solution really applied to the hours of work and was satisfactory. However, it did not solve the problem of the technology being used on the waterfront. Although we have been faced with this problem at least twice a year, we have not arrived at any solution.
I do not believe that, every time a segment of the population gets into trouble, parliament should be asked to do the negotiating. If we do, we will get into the kind of trouble we now have with this longshoremen's strike. The problem is that when we settled the longshoremen's strike last year we did not take into account the rising cost of living. Therefore these people were worse off after we settled their contract than were their fellow workers in St. John's who were able to negotiate a cost of living escalator clause before the end of their contract. That eliminated the problem for those people. If we pass legislation we will continue to have that kind of problem. I am very concerned because we are not able to handle the problem. We are spending a lot of money. We established a board to regulate. However, we are still running into this kind of problem.
The Eastern Feed Grain Board has the right to bring in grain from Prescott, corn from the United States, and grain from Thunder Bay in any mix it wishes. The Feed Grain Trade Assistance Act will pick up the tab for those shipments, but they must be made by rail as opposed to bringing them in by boat.
I suggest that the government is not blameless in this instance. If the feed grain agency is not working right, we should know it. The Minister of Agriculture was asked about this. He should have been prepared four or five days ago to give a detailed description of the efforts being made by the two or three agencies directly under his control. That information should have been made available to all members of this House. It is not good enough to write it out for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to give to the House when there is an emergency. That information should have been given to the House when it was requested. All members are interested in heading off the problems we face, and we are going to have a number of these problems.
The Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) is here this evening. I suggest the next problem will be in his department. But the problem is again being attacked in the wrong way. It has been decided that by using the position of the minister the problem will be solved. However, if there is going to be a problem, parliament should know the position the government intends to take so that it can try to do something about negotiating that problem.
In every strike in which the federal government has been involved, the cabinet has put more money into the settlement rather than setting up legitimate eye to eye negotiations so that those on both sides of the fence know exactly where they stand. We have already legislated the longshoremen back to work. It seems foolish to compound the difficulty by again sending them back to work.
What do we do now? Do we send them back to work with Gold's suggestion for a three year contract, 57 per cent across the board, and add to that a cost of living clause, or do we negotiate what kind of jobs the longshoremen will do, what kind of work in which they will engage, and the type of responsibility the NEA will have to the employees?

Are we going to negotiate the details of contracts? If we do not do that we will get into the same box we got into last time.
The reason for this debate is that the government has not taken parliament into its confidence. We have not been asked for our views on how to solve this particular problem. Some useful advice will come out of this debate. It would have been free for the asking if the government has sought it before the problem developed. When questions are asked in the House about government departments or agencies, the ministers responsible should give full reports.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take very long. I know that the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), and others, want to participate. Nor do I want to address myself too deeply to the specific merits of the strike in Montreal, Three Rivers and Quebec.
I usually agree with the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) on a philosophical base. I do so again this evening. If I had to agree with him on a factual base, I would know a lot less about the strike than when it first occurred. The fact is that there has not been a legal labour strike in the port of Montreal since 1966. I do not think the same can be said about many other ports in the world.
The last time we legislated a settlement in the House of Commons that involved the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec, it was to bring to an end an illegal work stoppage on the part of the workers undertaken for reasons best known to themselves, when they decided to ignore a collective agreement which had been signed in good faith. They decided that the quickest way of settling the dispute, which could have been settled through a grievance procedure was simply to walk off the job. That is hardly the type of action that is in the best interests of the labour movement or industrial relations in general.
There are very good reasons why I do not want to get involved in discussing the problems of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec, which some people know. I have had a close relationship with the Port of Montreal as a member for Montreal, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour, and as a Minister of Labour. In each of those roles I participated in the disputes that were occurring there in the early sixties as the industry began its transition from being a labour-intensive industry to the capital intensive industry it is today. Whatever the hon. member may say about industrial democracy, and about employers in the Port of Montreal, there is one thing he cannot take away from those employers; the fact is that when they found it necessary to reduce the work force by 800 people they at least paid each and every one of those workers a $12,000 indemnity. I should like to see more employers, including the government, put that into practice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member for Timiskaming is perfectly right when he says that each time parliament has to settle a legal strike we are weakening the collective bargaining process. He is a legitimate labour representative; he understands this, as I think most of us do, and I
April 16, 1975

agree with him wholeheartedly on that. But the whole system is under review by the public for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons is the tendency of labour, and sometimes of employers, to ignore the law of the land and to take the law into their own hands to settle disputes which could be settled by means of the channels provided in every collective agreement in the country.
The hon. member referred to the Post Office. I do not intend to use this debate to talk about the Post Office, though I may say I am certainly not as pessimistic as is the hon. member for Timiskaming, and as a number of other members appear to be. Indeed, I am optimistic we shall get an agreement in the Post Office without a strike, because I believe that 99 per cent of the people who work in the Post Office are decent, law-abiding Canadians who simply want to work in dignity and peace, and who fully intend to do so. It is my responsibility as Postmaster General to see whether we cannot clean out of the Post Office those bully boys who tend to dominate the 99 per cent. It is my responsibility to help do this, and that is exactly what I am doing.
As to the question of feed grain, the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) made a point, as did the minister. It was good, honest debate on the question of whether there is sufficient feed grain in the elevators or not. If there is not, then certainly there should be. But the more fundamental question is this: if the feed grain is in those elevators, what is preventing merchants from going there to obtain their feed grain if they wish to do so? The fact is that they are being prevented in some instances by people who believe that the way to settle disputes is through violence.
Picket lines are a legitimate expression of freedom, an informational device which should never be banned under the laws of this land as some people advocate. At the same time picket lines should not be used as a means of bullying decent citizens who wish to exercise their rights and follow their normal activities. It would not matter whether all the elevators in eastern Canada were chock full of grain if the Province of Quebec, where the injunction has been served, does not have the courage to instruct its police forces to provide the necessary protection for the people who want to go into these elevators and acquire the grain.
It is ridiculous, listening to the radio, to hear the Quebec deputy minister of agriculture seeking to shift responsibility to the federal government when it is a provincial responsibility to protect people after a court has decided, on hearing the evidence, that an injunction should be granted.
I shall not get into the argument about the three ports where these strikes are occurring other than to say that the longshoremen are on strike legally. I would be the last to deny them that right. In this area I share the sentiments of the hon. member for Timiskaming. After all, I can remember as far back as 1965, which is not such a long time ago, when the men had to drink out of what amounted to garbage cans; when there were no facilities for them to wash their hands on the waterfront, when people were hired on a daily basis, and when they had to bribe officials in order to get a job. That is all gone and, if it is all gone, it
Feed Grain
is because employers, as well as employees, have recognized the need for change.
We now have an enlightened management in the ports at Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec-a very enlightened management there. This does not mean employers are right in this case, nor does it mean they are wrong. All I know is that the best brain as far as port problems are concerned, Alan Gold-he is not a mediator, as the hon. member told us; he is a conciliation commissioner-was named by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) to endeavour, on the basis of his experience, to come up with what he believes to be the best solution to the problems of the port, in the interests of both workers and employers. I do not intend to pass judgment as to whether his solution, guaranteeing 1,600 hours to workers, $13,000 a year to work in Montreal, is sufficient. That is not a judgment for me to make. It is up to the workers themselves whether they feel they should accept or reject a guaranteed annual income of $13,000. I simply think a lot of people wish they had that guarantee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I do not disagree that they have the right to reject it if they feel that to do so is in their own best interest-after a strike lasting two, three, four or five months they may conceivably end up with a better settlement, possibly $500 more. That is up to them.
The point which has tempted me to participate in this debate has nothing to do with that particular aspect. It is interference by forces outside this country, namely, one Mr. Gleason, President of the International Longshoremen's Association, from the City of New York, who, from his headquarters there, has decided to dictate to the longshoremen of this country what is in their best interests. I say to Mr. Gleason: Stay home and mind your own business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Let the Canadian labour movement solve its own problems. If Mr. Gleason had his way he would lock up the Port of Toronto despite the fact that there is no right to lock it up. The ports of Trois-Rivieres, Quebec and Montreal are on strike legitimately. The same Mr. Gleason is interfering with the ports of Saint John and Halifax, and if he has his way he will lock up all these ports in order to divert work to New York where, incidentally, he accepts the same contract as he is recommending the longshoremen of Montreal to reject.
Sometimes you have to do hard things to help your friends. I have not been happy in the last two weeks taking what has been described as a hard line in the Post Office. But what has it been? It is simply that you respect the law, that you respect a collective agreement, that you respect your own signature; that if you have an honest difference of opinion on the work site-and that happens daily-you take advantage of the grievance procedure and obtain justice in that way. If in the public service the grievance procedure is too slow, and it is, then we as a government and as a parliament have a responsibility to see that justice is done by speeding up the grievance

April 16, 1975
Feed Grain
procedure. I hope that this is one of the recommendations that comes out of the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons when they complete their hearings.
As the hon. member for Timiskaming said, there are many other recommendations that are needed to bring collective bargaining in the government into the twentieth century, instead of it remaining in the nineteenth as it is at present in too many respects. I agree with him, but you must be realistic and work within the framework that exists. Sometimes you have to substitute goodwill for legality. That is the only way to bring peace to the post office until the legislation or the rules under which they have to bargain in the interval are changed, hopefully for the better, depending on the wisdom of the people who participate on that particular committee.
Coming back to the matter of feed grain, there is feed grain and there will be feed grain in sufficient quantities for the farmers in the east. The question is: Will the people be able to obtain it in a peaceful manner? That will depend upon the ability of government, federally and provincially, to see that the law of the land is enforced for the good of democracy, which is the reason we are all here.
I just want to say that it is a sorry day when an international president, in this case of the longshoring industry, can dictate to law abiding longshoremen in Saint John and Halifax-


Mr. Forrestall:: They did not listen to him in Halifax.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: No; Halifax had the courage to tell him where to go, and I am doing the same thing tonight. If the longshoremen in Saint John understand, they will look after their own interests and tell him where to go as well.
I get excited about this, Mr. Speaker, but there was an award obtained from an arbitrator in Saint John forbidding the longshoremen to pick and choose among the ships in the harbour in Saint John. That is an approach that will eventually kill the port of Saint John just when it is becoming known around the world as one of the more productive ports in the world, with a good work force, deep water, good facilities, and the ability to handle containers. Yet we have this gentleman from New York telling the industry at Saint John: "Refuse those ships because I, your international president, tell you to do so". I am telling the people of Saint John that if they know what is best for the labour movement as well as for themselves they will tell Mr. Gleason to stay in his ivory tower in New York.
As far as the strike in Trois Rivieres, Quebec and Montreal is concerned, as the hon. member for Timiskaming has said, it has to be settled. Each and every time we settle a strike in parliament we conceivably weaken the industrial relations process, but not nearly to the degree it is weakened when public opinion gets fed up with people taking the law into their own hands. The purpose of parliament is to take decisions even when they are unpopular.
Mackenzie King, who knew as much about labour as any of us living today, said that when private rights become public wrongs then it is time for members of parliament to act on behalf of the public, even if temporarily it removes the rights of private groups-in this case the MEA and the longshoremen. Sooner or later if they cannot settle their

dispute, in the best interests of the public we will have to settle the dispute in parliament, even if we have to nationalize the ports, seize the MEA, take over the longshoremen and dictate the conditions of operation through a trusteeship, if that is necessary. But I do not think we will need to go to that extreme; I am sure there is a settlement somewhere in the offing.
However, I do know one thing. In order to make the economic forces even, which is really what collective bargaining is about, it is imperative that the strike be limited to those ports that are legally struck, which are Montreal, Trois Rivieres and Quebec, and not extended to Halifax, Saint John and Toronto, which are not in a position to strike legally, and which are according to the injunction which I have read tonight for the first time, not in a position under their collective agreement, according to the arbitrator who granted the injunction, to pick and choose which ship they will discharge or load in those particular ports.
If everyone respects the law and respects injunctions which the court finds necessary to make, if the longshoremen at Saint John do what the longshoremen at Halifax do and tell this American fink that they belong to his international union, that they are proud to be members, but that they are Canadians and want their own autonomy, that they do not need him to tell them what to do and thank you very much, that they will remain open and service their customers and retain their reputations as good ports, I am sure there will be a solution found to the problems of Montreal, Trois Rivieres and Quebec.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Calgary North rising for the purpose of asking a question?


Mr. Woolliams:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. First of all I should like to congratulate the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) on his very able speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Has he any formula-I listened to him very carefully and he came almost to that conclusion- under which a union like the longshoremen's union which deals with all ports could arrange for all its contracts to become due at the same time, so that if there were a settlement in Vancouver there would be a settlement all across the nation from coast to coast? This would mean we would not have a strike going on at ten or 12 ports at different times throughout the year. I ask this question rather selfishly. I am from western Canada, and not only is Quebec suffering tonight but grain is not moving out of the prairies to supply cattle and poultry in Quebec.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has asked what we used to call a $64 question. I have always said that industrial relations are human relations. Just as you cannot legislate a happy marriage, you cannot legislate industrial peace. You have to work at it, and sometimes we are rather intolerant of that fact, and this is one of the problems.
One of the encouraging things that I have noted about this parliament is that we do not always tend to blame the labour movement for industrial strife. We forget that one of the problems in Vancouver was what we call the stuff-
April 16, 1975

ing and unstuffing of containers. We talked as though the union were attempting to obtain that right when in reality they had that right. What the strike was about was management's determination to remove that right. You remove the right through collective bargaining by a fair exchange.
The problem in the three Quebec ports, if I may say so, stems from the fact that last year some 1,500 longshoremen were not remunerated to the extent of some $12,000. They were guaranteed, however, 40 hours' pay weekly if I recall, regardless of whether or not they had to work.
This is a very generous contract like the one signed in New York by Mr. Gleason, but I have no way of knowing whether the contract is viable. It is suggested that this new contract creates a financial burden that will make it impossible to maintain operations, particularly in view of the vagaries of economic conditions around the world. It is very difficult to maintain the volume necessary in order to maintain this type of contract.
Let me say specifically that I believe there are too many units. We must remember the strike of the blue collar workers which caused so much havoc and that this was due to the number of public service departments involved. As far as I am concerned, the unit was spread too far across involving too many departments of the government, increasing the opportunity of the workers to defy the law and injunctions. The injunctions were not for the purpose of disseminating information but, rather, to harass the people who would otherwise have been pleased to cross the picket line, mind their own business and do a day's work. In other words, if everybody obeys the law, then a strike will have minimum effect, not doing too much damage other than to the parties that find their differences too great to reconcile, therefore leading to a strike.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by paying my compliments and the compliments of my party to the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Lambert) for introducing this motion today. In view of the remarks of the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) in the last few minutes, I think I should invite all hon. members of this House to join me in expressing appreciation to the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) in joining the hon. member for Bellechasse in presenting the motion, giving us the opportunity to debate a matter which every member of this House who is sincere about serving the public interest of Canada cannot help being concerned about. I want to say, through you, Mr. Speaker, that there is a great deal of truth in what the Postmaster General has said, and I hope much of what he said will receive approval from both sides of the House.
I think it is important that we remember that the subject which brought on this emergency debate tonight is not used as an attempt to debate the issues between the Maritime Employers' Association and the longshoremen. This motion is not an attempt to debate the question whether longshoremen in ports other than those that have been struck have been obeying the law or carrying out the terms of their contracts. There will be time enough to debate that matter.
Feed Grain
The Postmaster General quite properly alluded to certain things going on which are wrong and about which we all know. The point at issue tonight, I am sure all hon. members agree, arises from the fact that the producers in the province of Quebec have come to members of parliament on all sides of the House stating that they need help. This motion introduced by the Creditiste party and by the hon. member for Joliette on behalf of my party did not come out of the blue; it came as a direct request by the producers of the province of Quebec for help. In fairness, they did not come to members on just one side of the House, as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) appeared to suggest. That minister had quite an enjoyable time for a few moments naming the members-and he gave their ridings-who had discussed these problems with representatives of the producers in Quebec. Let it be very clear to everyone in the House that these producers felt it necessary to come to members on this side as well. Just as I am sure members on the government side listened, members over here listened.
The question to be answered in this debate is whether the government has satisfied us that the complaints of those producers are being met by some sort of government action, or whether in fact the complaints are well founded. I listened extremely carefully to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and made notes of his points and the steps he said the government had taken to allay the fears of the people from his province who came to him and to us, and in looking at that list I hope the minister does not expect us to take him seriously.
I am quite sure the gentleman I met this morning in the office of the hon. member for Joliette would not take seriously what the minister said. I am sure that hon. members on the government side, especially those from the province of Quebec-a province that I love dearly and which gave so much to this country-will not believe the minister. I do not suppose it is my place, as a relatively new member of this House, to unduly chastise a member of the cabinet, but I suggest-we are entitled tonight-as are the people who came to us asking that we bring on this debate-to hear a little more from the government side about the factual situation, what has been going on and what is being done about it.
With great respect to the Postmaster General, who touched on a subject that is very important but not the subject of this motion, we did not hear from the two ministers who spoke tonight a single word about the actual situation respecting available feed grain supplies for the farmers of Quebec. It does not matter how you want to slice it, that is the fact. I invite hon. members to examine Hansard in French and in English and I suggest they will not find one assurance that there are adequate and available supplies of feed grain for the farmers of la belle province. We have not had a single assurance.
Furthermore, there has not been a single suggestion tonight by any member on the government side-and we have heard from two members of the cabinet-regarding the government's intentions. In fairness, the Postmaster General said, and I agree with him, that no union in this country, no matter how justifiable its grievance, has the right to take the law into its own hands. It should be made very clear at this time, if it has not been made clear before,

April 16, 1975
Feed Grain
that every member of this House who has the public interest at heart agrees with that sentiment. I agree wholeheartedly with the Postmaster General, as does my party.
However, when you have a situation in which exactly the opposite is taking place, what does the government do? It is not good enough for the Postmaster General to ask why the provincial authorities should try to blame the federal authorities for these difficulties. This is a labour dispute that comes within federal jurisdiction, and it is incredible-I say this without attempting to use language that is extreme-that three ministers who should be involved are not here tonight.
Where is the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro)? Where is the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan)? We understand that he refused to give up a special engagement, in spite of the fact that the House of Commons of Canada agreed to an emergency debate on a matter that affects the livelihood of the farm producers of Quebec who are responsible for a tremendous portion of the food production of this country.
Where is the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand)? None of the ministers who should be here tonight are here. We heard a very fine speech from the Postmaster General on a subject which is not at the centre of the debate tonight. I know that hon. members will agree with me that we have not had answers to the two crucial questions which the representatives of the farm producers in Quebec brought not just to me, not just to my colleague, the hon. member for Joliette, not just to the hon. member in the other party, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), and not just to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or to a number of other hon. members to whom he referred tonight. Those representatives brought their problem to the House, and we have an obligation tonight to try to meet that problem with facts and at least a recommendation from the government side, or some indication as to what the government will do about it.
If that had been put forward, then of course it would be the responsibility of members on this side of the House to say something about the proposed measure, either in praise, in criticism, or as suggestions to try to improve it if necessary, or support it if it were found to be satisfactory. But we have nothing to bite on, and if any one had been listening to this debate for the last several hours, any one who had stumbled in from another planet, or even, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said, any one 50 yards from the hill, that person would have wondered what in the name of heaven we were debating. It is incredible to me that after producers from Quebec have come here and spoken to members from every party in the House and asked for help, we put on a performance such as this one tonight.
This is not good enough regardless of whether one comes from the province of Quebec or from the province of British Columbia, as I do. I am sorry to have to say that to hon. members, but I am saying it because it is true, and I might as well say it now because some of us undoubtedly will be asked tomorrow by some of the producers from Quebec what in the blazes we were playing at tonight.

I have not risen in the House tonight to say that the solution to moving the grain is to end by legislation the legal strike taking place, but I am prepared to rise in the House to say that there is a time when, barring other methods, a selective form of legislation may have to be brought forward to meet a situation which is biting at the vitals of the economy of the province of Quebec through a sector of the economy in Quebec, and which is striking at the capacity of farmers to produce food for Canadians. It may well be that such selective legislation should be considered.
I listened to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs tonight when he made a long speech about the right to strike. I believe in the right to strike, but I do not believe that any right within a civil community is absolute, and I do not think most hon. members do so either. I see the following statement in today's issue of the Montreal Star:
And, in Ottawa, Prime Minister Trudeau said ministers are looking at the possibility of federal intervention to end the strike.
Perhaps the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has not got around to reading the Montreal Star. I am sorry that he is not in the House now, but perhaps some one will show it to him tomorrow morning.
Now I want to raise a matter which I find quite incredible, and I think that even my friends on the other side of the House will recognize the logic of what I am about to say. Again I will quote from the same article, and I ask hon. members to listen to these comforting words. This is about the Minister of Agriculture. The article reads:
Answering questions in Parliament yesterday, federal Agriculture Minister Eugene Whelan hinted strongly that his department would compensate farmers for the extra feed costs resulting from use of the more expensive truck and train transport.
"We've always looked after them in the past," he said.
Should federal aid fall through, Mr. Toupin pledged his support for provincial compensation to the farmers.
He said he felt the federal government should pay for the extra costs since it had jurisdiction over the strike.
Surely in the name of heaven you do not defend the right to strike by calling on the taxpayers in Canada to pick up the tab for the guys who are getting it in the ear. It does not make any sense.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: We have not had answers to those questions tonight.
Let me come back to what the Postmaster General said in terms of the difficulties in this particular strike. I do not want to interfere with the negotiations, although I understand that they have broken down and I should like to hear from the Minister of Labour what is happening. But one thing I do know is that the Gold report came down on March 14. On March 24, 1975, the Maritime Employers' Association accepted it. If anybody would take the trouble to look at the Gold report they would recognize that the employers accepted the recommendations in one of the most comprehensive conciliation reports that has ever been written or filed in the history of Canadian labour affairs. I am sorry that my friend, the Postmaster General, is not here now because I am sure he would agree with me.
April 16, 1975

What is happening now? What will we be faced with? What will happen if tomorrow, because of the vagaries of the court system, somebody will not be able to get the injunction which the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said should be obtained at Trois-Rivieres? He said that an injunction could be used if some agreement could not be found across the picket lines. He suggested that he had said today to Mr. Couture that the UPA could ask for injunctions as an agricultural organization. But could they in law? What contractual right do they have?
It is not easy to walk into a court and obtain an injunction. I see hon. members on the other side nodding their heads and I know that some of them are learned in the law, which is a great contribution that they bring to this House. It is not that easy to leave problems of settlement to recourse within the civil legal system. There are times when the government must step in. I am not advocating for one minute that every time there is a work stoppage, especially a legal one, parliament move in carte blanche and wipe out the right to strike. But there are times when certain action must be taken, we hope, on a selective basis only.
If the threat that faces the producers in Quebec is that they will not have sufficient feed grain to feed their poultry and livestock and that their poultry and livestock will have to be slaughtered prematurely, perhaps at the wrong market time, and if they are slaughtered other than in the normal course of the agricultural business year, plenty of members on the other side of the House know perfectly well how that dislocates the entire agricultural economy and how it upsets the stability of supply which is necessary to maintain stable prices for the consumers in Quebec and outside Quebec who buy those products. All hon. members agree with this.
I say to all hon. members tonight that we have not had an answer to allay the fears that have been brought to us personally by representatives of the farm producers in Quebec. I also say with great regret that despite some of the oratory tonight, some of the invective, heckling and good natured boisterousness which goes with debates, especially debates that take place after the supper hour, we have not heard from the government a specific answer or a program to meet what may well become a very serious situation within a few days.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me remind all hon. members that when the Minister of Agriculture was before the television cameras this afternoon, as a result of questions asked by hon. members on this side of the House he admitted that he could not give any estimate of what the amount of feed grain for consumers in Quebec would be in a few days' time. That is the situation we face, and it is a situation in respect of which there has been no answer this evening.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the dockers' strike in Montreal, Quebec City and Trois-Rivieres, its effects have appeared to become ever greater as days went by. The sector of the economy most severely affected at the present time is that of agriculture, and should such a situation persist much
Feed Grain
longer, the effects would prove disastrous, even in other sectors of the economy. As a result, I wish to make my contribution to the present debate by supporting very strenuously the proposals of my colleague, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), who moved this important motion which is now before the House. I also take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Bellechasse on having raised the issue several times. It simply means that he had foreseen the need for this conflict to be settled as early as possible so as to prevent extremely serious consequences.
We are now placed before the facts and have to recognize the need to take definite steps in the very near future.
On a few occasions, the Minister of Agriculture indicated there was no need for alarm about the present conflict. On the one hand, he pointed out that there was a certain amount of cereal reserves in the grain elevators, and on the other hand, that the millers as well as the people in charge of transporting the grain to the agricultural producers had access to the ports for supply purposes. The reason behind the minister's statement was probably that he wanted to avoid interfering in the conflict and reassure the millers as well as the agricultural producers.
The situation, Mr. Speaker, has now considerably changed, to the extent that the reserves previously extant in the grain elevators are now, for all practical purposes, completely expended. As a result, the House of Commons is no longer in a position to ignore the situation and can no longer wait to take action because such idleness on its part would risk demolishing an agricultural system that is already sufficiently weakened in eastern Canada, and more particularly in Quebec.
I do not intend to describe the pitiful condition of our agriculture, for I did it earlier in this House, as I indicated the excessive cost of farm inputs, the decline of net farm incomes and the market fluctuations in that economic sector. However, what I want to emphasize is that if our farmers are now short of feed for their cattle, in addition to the rest, it might do them irreparable harm. Are we going to witness more auctions? Is the flight of our farmers to cities going to increase further? And furthermore, who is going to carry on farming?
These are very important questions, because, if agriculture is to be weakened further by an extension of the strike, that will have an impact on the rest of the economy and finally, the consumer will have to foot the bill. In fact, everybody is loosing in that sort of situation.
As for the strike itself, Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that the longshoremen are wrong or right. However, we must admit that more and more workers of various sectors are frustrated, they feel unsafe and fight a systematic and continuous increase of the cost of living, which compels them to always ask for more, and more and more often.
I also notice in this conflict that the UPA did not find advisable to ask for an injunction against the longshoremen. They let the Cooperative federee du Quebec do so because their opinion is that they are an association, therefore a union, and they do not want to fight another union. They would like the government to incur all the odium of the conflict by putting the strike to an end through an act of Parliament. I say here that the leaders of

April 16, 1975
Feed Grain
the UPA see the members of Parliament, irrespectively of their party membership, mainly those of the government, they come to us, they go to the neo-democrats, to the progressive conservatives, they often meet members of the cabinet, but they say: It will settle by itself. Mr. Speaker, who meets the greatest difficulties, but the producers? Therefore the producers, through their association, should take advantage of the law, ask for an injunction against the longshoremen association, ordering them to let the millers get feeds to distribute to their customers. It is once again the same old story of Pontius Pilate washing his hands. We know that. One has to have guts enough to state that in the face of the whole population, particularly that of Eastern Canada and of the province of Quebec.
I sincerely wish that the present situation, added to all the ones we have been experiencing for some months and some years, will be a lesson and that the government will come to grips with the labour matters.
If we have to pass emergency legislation once again to get those people back to work, let us do it. However, that should be the last time. I notice by the gestures of the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Lajoie), that he seems to be aware of the matter. Since I arrived to Parliament, this is the fifth or sixth time we came back, we even had to come back in summer time, in July, to pass emergency legislation, because no understanding was possible between employers and employees. I understand that it is due to the spiralling increase of the cost of living, and that is inflation. I believe that the federal minister of Labour, together with his provincial counterparts should agree once for all to pass comprehensive legislation in order to put an end to that kind of strike.
The government must find once for all a permanent solution to all those conflicts which are growing in number and increasingly undermining our economy. Besides, that does not solve anything since there is no end to it! We are going through increasingly difficult years and, in my opinion, it is our duty to focus our efforts on the search for new mechanisms especially adjusted to our times of constant economic disruption. I would even say that the right to strike should in fact be now considered as outmoded since it no longer produces expected results.
Those are the points which I consider to be of the utmost importance in the present debate, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, I feel that we must at any rate give farmers the immediate guarantee they will be able to get necessary supplies for their cattle. On the other hand, I ask the House to consider as well to set up new playing rules in the labour field, so as to avoid once and for all to have to intervene by passing more and more emergency legislation.


Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I am glad to have the opportunity to address the House on this matter.
May I point out to some opposition members who mentioned that the Minister of Agriculture was not here tonight that we have a very active Minister of Agriculture who wants to protect the interests of farmers. For those

reasons, the Minister of Agriculture is not here tonight to take part in this emergency debate.
As some of you know, the Minister already had an engagement to meet a group of producers in eastern Ontario and at the same time attend a consumers' symposium. When you deal with agriculture, you necessarily have to deal with consumption, and I think the Minister of Agriculture is quite aware of it.
Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the longshoremen's strike in Quebec, several statements have been made which were either exaggerations or half-truths. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, I would like to address myself to those remarks, thereby putting the situation in its true light.
When it became apparent that a strike was imminent, the minister immediately contacted his officials and assistants and asked them to keep him informed of every development taking place in eastern ports, particularly in Quebec.
Most members know that the Canadian Livestock Feed Board is responsible for ensuring adequate supplies of feed grains in eastern Canada and British Columbia. Unfortunately, we have had five strikes within one year. Some members, like the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) and especially the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin), have been telling us tonight that an emergency legislation should be passed to force the longshoremen back to work, when last Sunday at a convention which seemed to be a national mini-convention in my area and in my town, asbestos strikers were called upon on the radio to continue their strike in order to press their demands and earn better wages.
I think the hon. member for Richmond should expect asbestos miners not to be all "dummies". You cannot have it both ways, that is three days earlier, he said to the strikers: Continue your strike, apply all necessary pressures on mining companies to claim your rights; and tonight, he asks the government to present an emergency legislation to force longshoremen back to work.
I believe this is playing with people's feelings. I hope the same member will be forced to retract his statements over the radio stations in my area and tell asbestos workers now on strike: "I lied when I told you I supported the strike, because three days later I stated in the House of Commons that a back-to-work legislation should be voted concerning the longshoremen strike.
If in each of the five strikes we have had in one year's time the government had brought down back-to-work legislation, we should seriously consider with drawing workers the right to strike. But this government in not anti-labour. We trust the unions and the people now negotiating to bring about a settlement that is fair to every Canadian.
As I said, live cattle deliveries to Quebec slaughterhouses are being monitored-and I stress this because it has been submitted a while ago by some members that Eastern Canada slaughterhouses are congested because producers were unable to get feed grain and apparently a majority of them were sending their cattle in.
I must emphasize again that the minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has been monitoring the number of heads of
April 16, 1975

cattle slaughtered, and the situation is similar to that in the same period last year.
So the government is having a clear picture of the situation. Let me now give a brief outline of events in each of the Eastern ports. In Quebec City, supplies come and go normally in the port since Saturday evening, because longshoremen complied with injunctions secured by some companies. There is presently no general shortage of feed grains in the Quebec City area. Present supplies in Quebec port elevators now amount to 700,000 bushels.
Hon. members will be happy to learn that 150,000 minots were delivered to millers today.
During the first day of the strike the port of Montreal operated normally. So the problem only started recently in that area. An injunction was served on Montreal longshoremen. I agree with members of the opposition that the injunction is perhaps half respected but I think it is not incombent upon the Department of Agriculture or the government to provide millers who go in the port of Montreal to get supplies with the security they need to get their supplies out. Picket lines are perhaps respected but perhaps half respected. Trucks are allowed to load but they will find a way of boycotting delivery, that is they cause difficulties to truckers by puncturing their tires.
I think it is not incumbent upon the Department of Agriculture to provide police service within the port to ensure that trucks can run freely.
If truckers who want to deliver feed grains encounter other problems in the city of Montreal, it is not up to the Department of Agriculture to provide police service. It is transporting a problem in another jurisdiction.
Madam Speaker, there are now 2,500,000 minots in Montreal elevators. It is a matter of respecting the injunctions now in effect to allow millers to go and get their supplies and providing them with the security they need for the transportation of feed grains and I think, Madam Speaker, that we do not need special legislation to solve the dispute.


Roch La Salle: This is what we want.


Léopold Corriveau: Agreed. The hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) says that this is what we want, but we tried to learn more. I listened carefully to the hon. member for Joliette and I tried to understand his suggestions. He wants to have it both ways. We should perhaps pass a special legislation, we should perhaps ensure feed grain supplies. We are aware of it. We shall have to take the necessary steps. We have taken some.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I wish to remind him that he must always address the Chair.


Léopold Corriveau: Excuse me, Madam Speaker, I was carried away by the heat of my discussion with the member for Joliette who is asking questions.


An hon. Member:: The member for Joliette does not understand a thing.


Léopold Corriveau: Madam Speaker, I apologize once again.
Feed Grain
I would like to refer to the situation in the port of Trois-Rivieres. Up to now millers in the area have managed to obtain feed grain from Montreal or Quebec City.
The elevators in the port of Trois-Rivieres now contain over a million of bushels.
There have been instances where farmers in possession of extra supplies offered them to millers or to other farmers.
Madam Speaker, I know that tomorrow injuctions will be granted agains the Trois-Rivieres harbour stevedores, and if the Eastern producers obtain such injunctions at this harbour, the situation will be corrected.


Roch La Salle: If, if-


Léopold Corriveau: The hon. member for Joliette says: if, if. I carefully listened to the suggestions he made a few minutes ago, and I found nothing in them. Madam Speaker, I wish you would ask the hon. member for Joliette to listen, and afterwards, other members will be recognized, perhaps opposition members.
I have also heard reports to the effect there is cannibalism in some piggeries in the province.
Experts from the Department of Agriculture tell me that this problem could be caused by a more or less adequate management rather than by a shortage of feeds. Any member of Parliament who has any experience in farming knows very well that a certain degree of cannibalism may occur at any time whenever the management is not sufficient.
To this day, there has been no major change in the live cattle trade. Madam Speaker, that is what I was saying a while ago. We are keeping an eye on the slaughter houses to find out whether more cattle are being slaughtered than usual.
The hog trade would be in fact a lot more indicative than the cattle trade. There were fewer hogs slaughtered this week than last, which means that there is no serious shortage of feed grain in Eastern Canada.
What steps has the government taken to maintain the supply of feed grain in the province of Quebec? They have decided to dock a cargo in Prescott, Ontario and have her 850,000 bushels of feed grain delivered into the province of Quebec. And yet, there are people who say that the government has not assumed its responsibilities.


An hon. Member:: It is too late.


Léopold Corriveau: I should like to invite the hon. member who just said that it is too late, to at least listen, take note of my figures and check them.


An hon. Member:: Tell us that the UPA people have lied.


Léopold Corriveau: We talked to them.
Madam Speaker, those 850,000 bushels represent at least three quarters of the total volume of western feed grains required weekly by the province of Quebec. Tomorrow, freight cars will be loaded for shipping to Quebec millers.
Moreover, two ships are now entering the St. Lawrence river: the Thornhill, carrying 450,000 bushels of feed grain

April 16, 1975
Feed Grain
and the John Misner, carrying 270,000 bushels of grain also. These two ships could dock at any port, depending on the regional situation.
In Thunder Bay, the number of cars loaded with grain increases from day to day. There will be a meeting tomorrow to discuss the possibility of further increasing the number of cars loaded each day.
The railway companies have promised the government at least 300 cars at Thunder Bay, if the situation so requires. In addition, they promised cars coming from Ontario loaded with feed grain to be delivered in Quebec.
According to another rumour, it is more costly to move grain from Thunder Bay to the province of Quebec by rail than by boat. According to the figures of the Department of Agriculture, this is not the case. We should also consider the transportation costs accrued between the port of Thunder Bay and the Quebec mills.
As a rule, people forget there are transportation costs from the elevators to the mills. After a comprehensive study, one finds that transportation costs are often the same.
In brief, the government is aware of the circumstances and recognizes there is a problem which might become rather serious. The government took some measures to help farmer and provide further assistance. Exaggerated rumours do not help to solve such a problem. The Minister of Agriculture said in this House that he would not let the livestock die. He has devoted all his energies to this matter up to now, and I do not see what could prevent him from keeping on working in the same direction.
Madam Speaker, when one says that the government has been inactive and has done nothing, I feel that time should be taken to have a good look at what the government has been able to accomplish at the present time, not with a view to trying and interfere with the settlement of the strike, but rather trying and understand the trade unionists as well as the farmers. I feel that all government members who have spoken tonight have not tried, as was well evidenced a while ago, to play a game on two levels, that on a given day, people are visited in a region and encouraged to strike, and on the following day, they are visited in another region and told: The government should legislate, the government should adopt special legislation, the government should do this or that. Madam Speaker, I believe that the government has taken a totally different course of action.


An hon. Member:: That's easy to say.


Léopold Corriveau: Necessarily these are very practical matters. I was saying earlier that we had stopped a ship at Prescott to be able to supply eastern Canada. The railway companies have promised to make more cars available to the government if necessary. These cars shall be available at Thunder Bay and in Ontario, as required. A meeting will be held tomorrow in Thunder Bay to discuss the possibility of increasing the number of car loads to be shipped to Quebec. A meeting will take place with the province of Ontario, on the possibility of issuing special regulations for the Quebec flour-mill trucks that are to load supplies in the port of Prescott. There is at the present time an agreement with the Quebec government,

with the Minister of Transport, allowing truckers to move grain so that they will not be limited to half loads. Tomorrow, the government will get in touch with the Ontario government, and ask for the same privileges. Contacts have already been established. Millers from Ontario cooperatives are allowed to carry full loads on the Ontario Highways, but a law was passed recently that does not allow other trucks then those belonging to co-operative millers to move very heavy loads on the Ontario highways. This will be discussed at a meeting between the federal government and the Ontario government and, Madam Speaker, I am under the impression that the Eastern Quebec producers will be listened to. I have tried to give an account which provide perhaps a clearer idea of the situation in Quebec. The farmer from Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), is going to speak.


Claude Wagner: Madam Speaker, I can hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Corriveau) say: The farmer from Saint-Hyacinthe is going to speak.
It would be doing me great honour to credit me with the qualities, the attributes of Saint-Hyacinthe farmers. I admit however that my experience in agriculture, my knowledge of agricultural problems is in inverse ratio to the distress I feel about the problems affecting farmers of Saint-Hyacinthe. So, Madam Speaker, it is with very great pleasure that I shall take part briefly in the debate, remembering that at the outset, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister or the chief whip, the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Lefebvre), if I am not mistaken, said on a point of order that the matter under consideration is a national problem.
And he is right. The problem is of national importance- which may perhaps explain the absence of almost the whole cabinet from this House tonight-and a problem to which no hon. member should be indifferent. It is of national importance, and so much so that not only has the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) been sitting in his seat here since the start of the debate, but representatives of all the provinces of Canada on the opposition side will have the opportunity of making themselves heard, of pleading the case of the Quebec millers and of saying openly to the government that, to them, this is not a problem of secondary importance, and that when there is a crisis in Quebec they are so deeply concerned that they are moved to champion the cause of the people, the consumers and the farmers of Quebec.
It is with special gratitude, therefore, Madam Speaker, that I address my thanks to the hon. member of Belle-chasse (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) for having moved this debate, for having assumed their responsibilities and having made heard the voice of the opposition.
Madam Speaker, concern has been expressed about the absence of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). Some elements of explanation have been provided.


Léopold Corriveau: And true ones.
April 16, 1975


Claude Wagner: True ones, and which we believe. However, this afternoon, when the emergency debate was agreed to by the Chair, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) uttered a few words, shall I say so sweet, which were recorded and reported to the media, he said something like: "Why waste such a lovely evening?" So it was the prospect of that spring night which made him decide that he had better go and talk elsewhere than listen to hon. members and have the opportunity to act. I readily agree, Madam Speaker, that having lenghty debates will not help solve problems. However, it is surprising to get tonight from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Corriveau) a series of figures, disclosures, and informations which we have been demanding in this House, day after day, for the last fifteen days, and it will have taken an emergency debate for us to get that information and to lead the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) and others concerned to tell hon. members: waht is the root of the crisis we are witnessing in Quebec?
Madam Speaker, I am surprised and I think to myself: the Minister of Agriculture may think he is lucky he escaped the questions and cross-examinations by members of Parliament tonight, but tomorrow when he reads Hansard, he might consider himself slightly less lucky since his cause was pleaded by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet). I must admit, Madam Speaker, it seemed a little bit strange. It seemed a bit strange to suddenly see the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs come to the rescue of the Minister of Agriculture, and in an outstanding display of solidarity take up his cause and make himself his spokesman. We were then reminded of the days of the old solidarity when, on the matter of eggs for instance, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs made statements totally inconsistant with what he thought of the Minister of Agriculture's activities. So maybe he was just paying him back in his won currency when he was led tonight to plead so vehemently the cause of a man whose action he had unfortunately stigmatized several times in the past. In any case, Madam Speaker, lucky or not, the minister will have the opportunity tomorrow to read everything that was said and to draw his own conclusions.
I would not like to forget to welcome particularly the speech of the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey). Members for Verdun have a very special way of saying things, they are vigorous and I see that the former as well as the present members for Verdun do not change, for the well-being of Canadian society.
Madam Speaker, I would now like to say that my colleagues have showed firmness to this moment, in particular my colleague from Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), who depicted very clearly the disaster of which Quebec farmers are now the victims. The supply of feed grain is disrupted to such an extent that Quebec farmers are forced to send their cattle and poultry prematurely to the slaughterhouse. Soon this premature slaughtering will upset the whole market, which is already so unstable, very soon production costs, already too high, will be accordingly increased and once more, consumers will pay the bill. However costly and dramatic the present Quebec longshoremen strike may be, and however costly it may be for cattle or poultry producers, I do not intend to blame the
Feed Grain
longshoremen alone for the feed grain shortage in the province of Quebec.
I know what were the recommendations of Mr. Justice Gold. I am particularly aware of this clause 1.09 of the Gold report which says, and I quote:
The operation of any rented equipment, unless otherwise specified, is a duty that does not fall on longshoremen.
I also know that a new mobile hour system is proposed which may jeopardize at least to a certain extent the job security of longshoremen in Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec City.
But since the longshoremen by going on a legitimate strike have succeeded in making the governments of Ottawa and Quebec and the general public aware of the problem, and that, with the same intensity, as pointed out by the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cote) the opposition has succeeded in waking up the government by having this special debate, I ask them, and I hope that members of the government side will support me, I ask the longshoremen and all my colleagues on this side as well to take concrete and immediate action and to facilitate the free and efficient access to grain elevators to the recognized representatives of co-operatives and millers of the province of Quebec. I hope this appeal will be heard. Otherwise, the longshoremen would only compel Parliament to adopt, for lack of other means, a special legislation to force them back to work.
Madam Speaker, I feel that it would be appropriate at this time to remind all those concerned that the right to strike has reached its limit when it starts to interfere with the rights of others, with the collective right of a whole community.
Let the federal government, because of the urgency of the situation, make use of the means of pressure at its disposal and, should the need arise, make use of his legislative weapons, if the longshoremen refuse to demonstrate themselves their concern for the true interest of the people. Producers and consumers cannot and must not remain 24 hours more the hostages of ship owners and dockers who have refused far too long to listen to one another.
Why don't the union members concerned make a similar gesture, comparable to the one they made earlier in this strike; thus, it seems to me the unions would stand to gain, to win new favour-and God knows they need it at this time!-and so all the freedoms could be saved, in the best interests of society.
To conclude, essentially, this conflict and the dire effects it has already had on our farmers, and will soon have on consumers generally, raise the problem, the challenge of assuming, with maturity and in a civilized way, the choice and exercise of our freedoms in Canada.
In the short run, the government must expedite recourse to the means at its disposal, and if need be, resort to an actual rail lift from Thunder Bay to Montreal, and an actual truck lift from Prescott to Eastern Quebec, to make up for present shortages of feed grains and, eventually, if the quality of the stocks now locked up for some time in

April 16, 1975
Feed Grain
the elevators does deteriorate, to substitute new supplies for the old.
But already, this again shows how poorly the central government may be equipped, may lack the instruments required to face the consequences, which are always foreseeable of conflicts such as the one we are now up against.
In conclusion, I should like to cast a look to the future.
Tomorrow, farmers will have to be compensated for the higher costs this conflict has imposed upon them. Above all else, the government must, in the future, be ready to mitigate the effects of similar situations; it must adopt, in advance, measures of a permanent nature which are worthy of the government, and worthy of the social and economic leadership our people are entitled to expect.
And on another level, over and above that of the present conflict, the federal and provincial governments will once and for all have to define the nature of labour relations in Canada, especially, as the fact has been brought out so well, in the public sector.
A labour court will ultimately have to be established before which parties to a conflict in the public sector will necessarily have to appear for a final settlement; such a settlement, if not accepted by one or the other of the two parties, shall be imposed. The idea of such a court is not to suppress the right to strike, but to subject it to the common good when a strike has lasted too long.
The people are fed up, I should say really fed up, with the eternal perpetuation of conflicts in the public sector, as well as with those trade unionists and, I insist, those employers who have an innate tendency to hold the public as hostages.
Such, Madam Speaker, are the few objective reflections that I wanted to pass on to this assembly, and I sincerely hope that they will find their concrete application in the decisions made by the Government.


Mr. Yves Caron (Beauce):: Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure and with great interest that I take part in this emergency debate that was requested because of the urgent, and rather dramatic situation that has prevailed these last ten days in the ports of Quebec City, Trois-Rivieres and Montreal and which has the effect of interfering with feed grain supplies because of a longshoremen strike.
Madam Speaker, I do not speak often in this House, and believe me it is not because I am not aware of the problems facing my country; on the contrary, but every member somehow has his personal philosophy and mine is, on the one hand, that I believe more in action than in great speeches and, on the other hand, that this House is made up of an impressive number of members with a long experience of politics who can afford to make learned an eloquent speeches.
However, today I have a reason to speak because I would not want the voters in my riding, and particularly in Quebec, who elected some sixty liberal members, to have the impression that the opposition is the only group to stand for the interest of producers. The hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) and the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Lambert) speak on behalf of Quebec. We are indeed some sixty liberal members from Quebec and

several of us come from rural ridings and find just as much interest in this matter as evidenced in recent days by myself and the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard), the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Lapointe) and the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy) who pleaded directly in this House with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and who showed they wanted as much as I do a quick solution to that serious problem of grain supplies.
Madam Speaker, first I want to say to this House that I am not against strikes but like any other sensible person I think there are limits which must be imposed when the common good is threatened and at present, Madam Speaker, the common good is threatened in Quebec.
A reply was sent to me by the Minister of Agriculture Tuesday, April 8, last, because I told them that Quebec grain elevators were empty and producers were becoming alarmed, and rightly so. Since then and before asking that question I received several telegrams from organizations in my constituency asking me to appeal to the minister and during the weekend, several producers of raw milk and manufacturing milk came to meet me at my office and asked me to appeal directly to the minister and the whole government and ask them to take an early decision to settle the problem-as it is done for example when western supplies are threatened-either through legislation or otherwise.
The government is not indifferent to the problems of western farmers and eastern consumers, as suggested by members opposite. Let us only take as example Bill C-19 providing for a double price system for wheat grown and sold in Canada. This bill has now reached third reading in the House and if the opposition acts in good faith as it claims, it should prove it to the producer and consumer by hastening to support that bill which will greatly encourage western producers generally and Quebec consumers more particularly.
Madam Speaker, as a Quebecker, I deeply realize what can be the effects of such a strike, especially for the Quebec agriculture during the months to come and I know that it will eventually be reflected in higher prices if it is not immediately settled, which will first affect the producers and then Quebec consumers. This is why I eagerly hope that the matter will be settled as quickly as possible.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Madam Speaker, I think it is my duty to support the initiative of the opposition members in this emergency debate for the supply of feed grains to Eastern Canada, particularly to the province of Quebec, through ports now closed in Quebec City, Montreal and Trois-Rivieres.
Since the beginning of the debate tonight, thanks to the initiative, among others, of the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Lambert), who came back charging on several occasions, we have heard many different theories, excuses or attacks, but, Madam Speaker, we are still at the same point where we were at 8 o'clock, when the debate started. The means of the Parliament in an emergency situation recognized by the four parties in the House are the organization of an emergency debate; it is the only means avail-
April 16, 1975

able to the institution called Parliament, in an attempt to make the government aware of a particular matter in order to bring about a precise solution. The government, through the Minister of consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), tried to throw the ball back to the Opposition, superficially, and, I should say, without any apparent success. Surprisingly enough, he has even been contradicted several times by his colleague the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) who-and I want to commend him for it- took a positive and logical position towards the disturbed work force of Canada.


An hon. Member:: No wishy-washy he!


André-Gilles Fortin: Madam Speaker, it is regrettable of course that the Minister of Agriculture is not here tonight, but he was very well represented by his parliamentary secretary (Mr. Corriveau).
He told us the government had taken adequate measures to ensure feed grain supplies in Quebec, that they had sent ships, stopped ships, opened grain doors, closed elevators, mustered people, done some picketing as he so aptly said. But we are still waiting for a solution. Immediately after his illustrious and eloquent speech of apologies, his colleague from Beauce (Mr. Caron) says that after ten days the situation is now dramatic and that what is at stake is cattle feeding in Quebec. Their government colleague had stated earlier that opposition members were trying to play politics by asking questions, and that this debate was practically pointless. In the same breath, the hon. member for Beauce indicated that he and four or five other colleagues had been asking questions from the minister for the last few days.
How are we to reconcile this, Madam Speaker? If an opposition member is playing politics urging the minister of Agriculture to act in a dramatic situation, so does a member on the government side. I suggest also that when an opposition member puts a question to the minister and the member on the government side asks a similar question, and in both cases the minister does not act but simply submits that elevators are full and that the question is out of his hands, I feel that Quebecers were wrong in sending upwards of 60 liberal members to Parliament.
I would not want to show prejudice or divide the country, but there is something I must say, no matter what. In the eight years I have been a member of this House, we have been hearing of grain problems in Western Canada. A handful, or rather a good number of members from Western Canada-and let me emphasize they are not government members but opposition members-by holding together and making a stand and defending their area's interests and on a number of occasions they have managed to instigate emergency debates, force the government to act and bring about results for western Canada. To those who accuse me of partisanship, I shall say that we in Quebec have a talent to talk so little about Quebec's problems in this House that everytime we have that opportunity, a very limited one I must say, we systematically attack each other and display to other members of Parliament of this country the show of members of Parliament who forget the problems of their own provinces to uphold the interests of their own parties. That is the kind of show we have been witnessing tonight up to now, Madam
Feed Grain
Speaker, and that greatly disappoints me. In support of what I say, the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Corriveau) became irritated because somebody visited him in his constituency during the weekend. He would rather accuse the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) a few moments ago than talk about the problem of supplies, and deliver a message of hope or suggest a practical solution. In that respect, the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Caron) was right, the hon. member for Frontenac just said, after he read a speech which had been drafted by civil servants, that the hon. member for Richmond was being illogical, a citizen of Quebec attacking another citizen of Quebec. Madam Speaker, he said that the hon. member for Richmond, while inducing striking asbestos workers to maintain their strike, and that now, in the case of the longshoremen strike, wanted emergency legislation to be passed. He said the hon. member for Richmond approved of the strike in Thetford Mines, but that in the case of longshoremen he thought emergency legislation was absolutely needed.
Madam Speaker, if the hon. member for Frontenac and parliamentary secretary (Mr. Corriveau) really believes that, which would have to be proven, he should realize that in the case of the asbestos strike, the common welfare of our population is not involved, but this conflict lasts and will go on lasting because it was caused by the Liberal party, maintained by the inaction of the Liberal party, and today, Madam Speaker, those people are asking for justice. However, in the case of the longshoremen's strike, for the information of the hon. member for Frontenac, the conflict really threatens the common welfare.
Having said that, I would like to emphasize one thing. I received today a telegram from the Farming Co-operative of Bois-Francs, Victoriaville, signed by its managing director, Mr. Marcel Pothier, and I quote:
Situation impossible in feed grain supplies. No shipment today from Quebec elevators despite injunction. Our trucks stopped today at Montreal elevator. Stikers strengthen their positions. Our stocks at a minimum about 12 hours' operation. Thunder Bay rail shipments completely disorganized. Request emergency action.
This completely contradicts the statement of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) and the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Corriveau).
Even if this debate only allows us to learn the truth about the situation, it will represent a considerable gain for us. I received today also another telegram from the Poultry Producers' Federation of Quebec, and I quote:
Poultry Producers' Federation of Quebec includes all chicken and turkey producers in province of Quebec. Poultry producers alarmed by feed grain supply situation, caused by lack of access to national ports because of strikes. Supplies of producers will run out within 24 hours, request immediate action; otherwise, enormous losses will occur following lack of food.
That is another situation, further evidence that indicates the need to step in as quickly as possible. The common weal of the Quebec people is at stake. The matter is not, as the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) said so eloquently and so justly, of passing emergency legislation every time a major problem, limited though it may be, arises. Tonight's sitting is perhaps evidence that our

April 16, 1975
Feed Grain
present labour policy has failed. It probably shows that our bargaining procedures, our desire to solve labour disputes are not as unyielding as the economic problems facing our fellow citizens.
The debate tonight, as the one we held in the case of Vancouver longshoremen, as the ones on all other disputes since 1968, indicates the importance of updating our bargaining methods and process. It proves it is time that Canadian employers realize the importance of meeting around a table, of discussing, of finding solutions to this problem to ensure the common weal and meet the needs of the people.
In my area we are now suffering from a strike involving workers in furniture industries. It is a serious conflict, because each party is standing firm and not budging from its demands and perhaps because laws are inadequate or obsolete in today's labour world to provide means of solving problems quickly.
In the case of longshoremen, exactly the same situation prevails.
Let us suppose for a moment that we legislate longshoremen back work. What would happen? It would constrain people who are resorting to justice to obtain greater employment security, better working conditions or wages. Are they right or wrong? It does not matter. This Parliament would force workers back to work without probably having obtained what they were asking if not on the whole at least in part; however, on the other hand, it would guarantee grain supplies. But would the problem would be settled for all that? It is not sure. It is not certain that emergency legislation would solve the problem since in two years, a year or six months from now, the same problem will reappear.
Madam Speaker, as stated by the Postmaster General, it is time for everyone to understand and reappraise his position and take consider circumstances from a fair and equitable point of view.
The hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Caron) told us that the situation was dramatic and he was right. And, Madam Speaker, this must be acknowledged without reference to any party politics.
We now have the opportunity of holding a debate that will allow us to show the longshoremen, the Canadian people and the millers as well that this parliament is anxious to see our country carry on its business properly and to deal with those problems. Obviously, we shall not solve this problem tonight.
Madam Speaker, I was listening this afternoon to an interview with the head of the longshoremen's union in Montreal and when the interviewer asked him: "If the parliament voted an emergency measure, what would happen?" he answered, if my memory serves me well, that even with an emergency measure, he was not sure at all that his men would go back to work.
Madam Speaker, with such an attitude prevailing we certainly shall not find a solution. And then the interviewer asked him: "Why, after having said that you would respect the injunction and that you would grant free access to grain elevators, you no longer do so?" He answered that he did not receive the unconditional sup-

port of the Quebec millers in the longshoremen's struggle to get justice.
Madam Speaker, the picket line is considered by the longshoremen as a means of pressure to force this government to act, to make people aware and to bring pressure to bear on the millers. And the same labour leader added that if the millers were so powerful that they succeeded in getting supplies they should be powerful enough to deal with their own conflict.
And, Madam Speaker, the notorious social process is again engaged and where shall we stop? As the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) was saying: Not only the common good is at stake, but the concern of our fellow citizens is reaching its highest point. It is time to take action whether or not there is grain in the elevators and what concerns me at this time is that the millers may get their supplies without trouble or fear.
Madam Speaker, Quebec needs 1,200,000 bushels of wheat, 1,700,000 bushels of oats, 2,300,000 bushels of barley and 1,200,000 bushels of corn per month, which makes a total of 6,400,000, or 213,000 bushels per day. At eleven this morning, there were in Quebec 219,000 bushels of oats, barley and wheat. The ports of Montreal and Quebec City are now supplied by Quebec City.
Madam Speaker, this shows the extreme urgency of the situation. I do not want to take the time of the House any longer, but I want to say this: I hope wholeheartedly that a positive settlement will be found in the very near future. I hope that if urgency legislation is passed, it is not exceptionally intended for a special group of longshoremen or for a special group of Canadian workers.
I believe that we should work at the same time towards a much more permanent solution, either the use of a labour court like the one the Social Credit members have been asking for a long time, or binding arbitration or any other positive solution that would enable us to secure justice and to respect requests from both parties concerned.
Madam Speaker, this government did nothing up to now. In his reply to the hon. member for Bellechasse last week, the minister said there was no problem, that he was controlling the situation keeping an eye on what was happening and he replied in a rather sneering way to the hon. member for Bellechasse that the elevators were full of grain, that there was enough grain. But, Madam Speaker, as one can see in Hansard, that does not settle the problem since it has to do with an access problem.
In concluding, Madam Speaker, I hope, as I said, that a rapid solution may be found, considering the emergency of the situation. In the Lotbiniere area particularly, we are, a little like the Richelieu constituency, between Quebec City, Trois-Rivieres and Montreal, we are really at the core of the problem. Madam Speaker, I sincerely hope that this strike will not be pursued at the expense of producers, that the longshoremen will understand that. I hope above all that in this House of Commons we will try, and that this debate will teach us a lesson once and for all, we will try to get together in the east so as to secure justice for all people, just like the people from western Canada, who have been setting an example for us since I do not know how many years in this House. If and when we do under-
April 16, 1975

stand that, Madam Speaker, we will surely be able to legitimate the presence of Quebec members in Ottawa, otherwise it will keep on being a colossal farce since the government members will be there to defend the government's position and the opposition members to attack the government.
Now I do not believe, at least it is my point of view and that of my Social Credit colleagues, that that should be our role. We do not claim, we from the Social Credit Party, to be the only ones to represent Quebec. That is not true. But we hope that we and other members from Quebec, regardless of our party, will exert pressures on this government by taking advantage of this dispute to show them that in Quebec we are as strong as western people when it comes to cope with a labour problem such as this one.
Mr. Speaker, when a problem from western Canada is brought in the House, each time I realize that it tries the patience of hon. members from Quebec-often myself first-not because it is not important but because we are being given a lesson in solidarity and unity. I tell myself that in such situations it is exactly the position we should take and I think that in this regard the positive speech of the hon. member for Bellechasse has been a commendable example.


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, there are a number of things that should be said.


Steve Eugene Paproski: There is no minister in the House.


J. Michael Forrestall: There have only been a couple of ministers here all evening. It is quite proper for us to commend the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) for their initiative in bringing this subject matter to the floor of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: Unlike most hon. members who have risen tonight, I do not take particular pleasure in being here, largely because the problem that keeps us here is one that could have been resolved a couple of weeks ago with a little foresight and speedier action on the part of the government.
This evening we are dealing with a number of separate matters and it is important to keep them in perspective. The sense of solidarity among the members from Quebec is quite noticeable. I have sensed tonight in the debate something other than a desperate rush on the part of some backbenchers merely to support the words that come from members on the treasury benches: I think that is a positive thing. It suggests to me that there is indeed a serious problem in Quebec with respect to access to feed grains.
Coming from Nova Scotia, and particularly the area of the port of Halifax, I have known all my life that the St. Lawrence river is frozen over in the winter and I have wondered what is done with feed grains for six months of the year. There must be a serious problem or we would not be here tonight: all hon. members who have participated in the debate recognize that.
Feed Grain
What brings me to my feet tonight is my wish to remind all hon. members that, notwithstanding the grievous and potential damage that can be done to producers in Quebec with respect to their livestock and poultry, there are some things we must keep in mind. In fact, this is a narrow problem. As I see it, it is the application of proper collective bargaining procedures and, in this case, the abuse of certain of the prerogatives and rights of men who are on strike legally.
The Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) dealt fairly forcefully with this subject tonight, and the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) expressed the feelings of all of us that it is not acceptable to any member when people on strike abuse certain of their rights to the detriment, damage and injury of people who are not directly involved. I think this is something that we should keep in mind.
What seems to be happening here is that as a result of picketing arising out of a legal dispute between the Maritime Employers' Association and the ILA, serious potential grievous harm can come to producers-and this situation must be corrected. As virtually every member has said, it not only must be corrected but it must be corrected quickly.
It is important that we keep in mind at this stage a word of caution and do not unduly interfere with that legitimate dispute. What is important is outside interference in legal acts such as picketing, or the action of the president of the International Longshoremen's Association in the United States, Mr. Gleason, and his associate Mr. Sullivan, who have attempted to direct Canadian longshoremen not to service ships plying our waters.
I mentioned earlier to the Postmaster General that I think it is a measure of the seriousness and good will of Canadian port workers that by and large they have ignored this direction. I think they have ignored it properly, and I think they will continue to do so. I believe that the situation in Saint John will rectify itself and, with respect to the movement of goods in and out of Canada from overseas, the situation will become acceptable to all concerned in a short period of time. We hope it will be corrected at about the same time that the government gets around to correcting the situation in Quebec with respect to access by millers to storage elevators and storage bins.
So far there does not seem to have been any substantial damage done to the national economy as a result of the strike which is now about two weeks old. Again as the Postmaster General indicated earlier, this strike follows a long period of relative peace in the river ports. The last walk-out was in 1972 and it was of seven or eight weeks duration. It arose not out of a legal or legitimate dispute but, rather, as a result of varying interpretations of a contract that had been signed only a few weeks before the walk-out.
The third thing that I think we should bear in mind when we are considering representations to the government with respect to methods of bringing this unfortunate situation to an end is the nature of the ILA itself. We are not dealing with a homogeneous group; we are dealing with a very loose international organization-indeed, a very loose Canadian union whose strength lies in the autonomy of its separate locals, not in its national struc-

April 16, 1975
Feed Grain
ture. I think this is important because when we, unwittingly perhaps, sometimes blame labour for all the problems that crop up, we do little to serve good collective bargaining processes in Canada and I think we must be careful.
Here we are dealing with separate locals which for one reason or another have chosen to exercise their political muscle in the way that to them at the time seems most appropriate. I am not suggesting that the methods being chosen, of blocking access to feed grains, is proper; but in their minds it is proper, and if we are to overcome the difficulties of strikes, legal and otherwise, we must bear in mind that these individuals are acting in the most effective way they know.
The Postmaster General dealt with a number of areas which I wish to touch upon tonight. One has to do with the rate at which existing labour laws permit us to correct situations which exist, such as the one causing great concern in Quebec. The instruments and the procedures which are available-and I think this is apparent to everyone here this evening-are simply not adequate. They are not capable of meeting a worsening and deteriorating situation.
If the situation in Quebec city, Montreal and Trois-Rivieres has brought anything to our attention, it has to be the fact that injunctions are not quick enough, and tribunals to decide through arbitration whether certain things may be done are not swift enough. These are things we in this chamber have a responsibility to correct. Hopefully we can go a long way by means of example in the present review of the Public Service Staff Relations Act and related acts. Hopefully we will be able to find some solutions, because that is our responsibility.
It is not necessarily our responsibility to intervene in legitimate disputes within the existing framework, but it is our responsibility, where we see weaknesses, to correct them. One of these weaknesses is the rate at which governments and users of services are able to obtain corrective action where illegal activity takes place. It is our responsibility to support that type of action.
I am somewhat regretful that there has not been tonight from the Treasury benches, particularly from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), some acknowledgement of this. I am not here from Nova Scotia to make a speech on labour, but I am here to demonstrate my support for the necessity to improve some of our labour procedures which will remove or eliminate the causes which bring us here tonight. That is a problem which faces us all.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) this evening was looking for suggestions on how we might improve this situation. This is an area we must consider. We must also consider carefully the definition of when an interest is so critically affected that this chamber must intervene with legislation. It is regrettable when that has to happen, and we know that it does from time to time. Again it is incumbent upon us to find ways to obviate or eliminate that necessity.
I will make a suggestion which the minister, or whoever reads these speeches tomorrow, might consider. Quite possibly we should take, for example, the pay research

bureau away from the Treasury Board and from the staff relations board and imbue it with its own authority, establish it in an independent atmosphere, perhaps attach it to one of the universities in Canada which has demonstrated concern for government matters, and imbue it, as I said, with its own authority to do two separate things, among others.
First it should have the authority to do those cultural things which are necessary, the identification of proper pay and other benefit statistics, bring that information together, analyse it, and then disseminate it in areas where it can best be used. Money should be provided to do that, because this would be costly. Second, the government should give serious consideration to imbuing the Treasury Board with the responsibility of identifying that type of information which will describe for all of us the definition of essential services, that critical point in our day to day lives when interruption of those services requires the action of this chamber. It is the second suggestion to which I think the government should give the most consideration so that we can find some way out of the dilemma which continues to face us. It seems more and more so as time goes by.
We could have heard something of a more positive nature tonight. Compensation for losses has already been mentioned, but we have not heard very much about it tonight. This is an illegal matter. I suppose there is redress in the courts for third party damage, but it is extraordinarily expensive for a farmer to go to court and fight his way to the Supreme Court of Canada to recover losses incurred as a result of an illegal activity. I would not want to be the lower court trying to interpret just what is legal or illegal. Perhaps this is an area for very serious thought on the part of the government and this chamber, to seek out some method of compensation for innocent victims of actions arising from illegal activity, or activity which on the surface seems to be illegal.
These are suggestions, albeit not necessarily appropriate to the particular situation tonight, because there is nothing which can be done about it. But in order to remove the necessity of bringing these matters before the House in order to establish new methods of dispute resolution- keep in mind that the adversary system is probably the only one we have with respect to negotiation-we must move away from the mandatory results of the adversary system. That system brings about attitudes like, "I will not do this", and "you will not move me", and "get your policemen to move me", or "drive your truck over", or "I am here to protect my rights" when in fact those "rights" are duly protected by law, and an illegal interpretation is being exercised, or an illegal action is being carried on.
A question which keeps members of parliament here until midnight must indeed be serious. There is an hon. member here from Nova Scotia, another from British Columbia, some from parts of Ontario, a couple of hon. members from British Columbia, from Alberta, and many from the prairies because they sense a concern on the part of all hon. members from Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: We are here because we feel a need for an immediate end to this particular problem. We are here
April 16, 1975

to make sure that they have the support of other parts of Canada, we are here to make sure that those involved in illegal activity realize that we will not tolerate it. There is no misunderstanding whatsoever as to the position of, I hope, all of us with respect to illegal activity, and we want to demonstrate to those who are suffering that we will not tolerate it.
When that type of solidarity is required, hon. members from Quebec need not look very far afield because there are many men and women in this chamber who will stand with them to correct wrongs which seem to have been perpetrated upon them in the last week or so.


Mr. Claude Tessier (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I agreed to take part in this debate because we too on this side of the House share the concern of producers, and particularly the producers of Quebec and eastern Canada. We are ready to recognize and respect the rights of workers, even the right to strike, within the limits of the rights and duties provided for in the labour code. However, if we have to consider the great harm done to the producers, the agricultural industry and the economy of eastern Canada, we are ready to act. The situation has been termed a crisis situation, and we cannot sit back while it deteriorates to the point of assuming disastrous proportions. As to the role of Parliamentt and the government, it is becoming more obvious hour by hour, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself already said so, because he knows he can rely on Parliament.
As to the role of various co-operative associations, representations were actually made, and we accept them and thank those who make them, for even though we know they were working in their own interests, after all, we are beginning to think that they were also working for the common good.
This is not a test case which will afford us the opportunity to teach a lesson to some people. What we have to do is grant a salary which will ensure us the respect of the people, of our organizations and institutions, in our economy and our agriculture, and also in social peace. What we have to do is avoid stirring up merely emotional reactions. We have a duty and an obligation to base our actions on the principles which should guide legislators: first, the public weal and the common weal; second, the respect of the letter and the spirit of the law; third, the necessity to accept only means that are in keeping with present economic and social restraints as well as the needs of individuals and associations.
Finally, to accept the principles of free enterprise and freedom. Leadership is absolutely necessary and there is no room for compromise when it is a matter of respecting the law and making people respect the law, especially if the law and the common weal are involved. This leadership is given fully by the government, every hour, and if it is necessary to take action, action will be taken.
Quarrels and party politics are a dangerous game, since they weaken Parliament, and it should be known that the population is indifferent to parliamentary games since it is the results that count and all the words, opportunism
Feed Grain
and mean politics only discredit the institution of Parliament in the eyes of all thinking men.
In our own struggles, we must show maturity and logic. I would like to give an example of this. A few weeks ago, the APU made representations to get $11.60 a hundredweight of milk. Members of the APU came to meet us. They even threatened us by saying that it was essential that they get $11.60, otherwise, there would be trouble. We saw those same representatives today and they were asking us to take very severe action against other workers. Does this mean that as far as we are concerned, there is one system for one segment of society and another system for another group? I believe that in the case of milk, as in the case under consideration tonight, the government will act with authority and, as usual, we can be assured that the action it takes will be appropriate.
We have and will continue to have this authority and sense of our responsibilities and, instead of talking about it, we will continue to act. Respect commands respect, and if we want to be respected, we, the members of this Parliament, must act accordingly. We take our responsibilities with the courage it requires as concerns respect for people, rights of individuals, organizations and even unions, respect for institutions, legislators, Parliament, government, democracy and rights, respect for the human being in general, which, as a matter of fact, is supposed to be a favourite theme of my friends the Social Crediters. It is also dear to us, but this is not demagogic affirmations or empty words, but a fluid and complex reality to be built every day, and this is what we are doing taking into consideration the whole Canadian reality, this moving reality.
With respect to solutions concerning grains, those who need supplies must be supplied, and the game and whims of those who prevent them from being so must stop immediately. Furthermore, it is necessary to improve that supply by making it less vulnerable, and I ask the minister to take the necessary steps to give the proper person the necessary authority.
Then, as in cases where the situation gets worse, the government is not using violence, but when there is no agreement, the economy and public welfare are concerned, someone must decide at the proper time and place, and the resulting peace is a subject for rejoicing for the great majority, except inexperienced or professional agitators and for them, in the name of the majority, I have no pity.
I am not too eager to support tonight's speaking marathon, but I can assure those interested that the government is aware of the situation, and because the interests of our economy and agriculture are involved, a decision will be taken in due time and place.
That also is respect for the people and the rules we have accepted, and of which we are courageous enough to take the consequences, without, however, neglecting our responsibilities.
The government is prepared to act as arbitrator if and when necessary. The pursuit of the objectives of both parties remains total, and it rests with each of them to respect the common weal, otherwise the government will have no other choice but to step in.
4904

April 16, 1975
Feed Grain
As far as we are concerned, it is a principle and, moreover, a rule of conduct. I hope it will be a guideline which we will follow every time the common good, the rules, the respect of the law, of the rules of democracy, of the government and of Parliament are involved, all of which in a living and thriving democracy, ably and courageously led through all the difficulties that we are experiencing.
The difference is that some members may speak for a long time still, and as far as we are concerned, we have the duty to act in due time and we will.
But, if we agree to speak about it, we will continue to listen, then, as proof of our seriousness, I hope we will strike a balance. We will find that the people were right in electing us, because what is important is action, and we shall take it.


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I am the first member from the Prairie provinces to take part in the emergency debate tonight. As my friend from Lot-biniere (Mr. Fortin) said, western Canada suffered from serious problems in the free movement of farm produce. When problems such as those, or others such as the oil crisis, arise, the members of western Canada, of our party, intervenes to speak for the interests of our voters. But when problems affect the province of Quebec, where are the Liberal members? Hon. members from the Conservative party and the NDP are the ones who request an emergency debate.
This matter is of the utmost importance, especially for the Quebec farmers. That is why one is amazed to note the absence this morning of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and that of the Ferench-speaking ministers from Quebec, except for the Minister who has provincial ambitions in Quebec.
So, where is the Minister of Agriculture? The hon. member for Papineau told us the Minister af Agriculture had an appointment outside Parliament. I should like to point out that my colleague from Joliette (Mr. La Salle) also had an appointment in Montreal, but that he excused himself in order to be here tonight, or rather this morning.
The glaring absence of the Minister of Agriculture and Quebec ministers proves to what extent the government takes for granted the support it got from the Quebecers in the last election, and how lightly it takes a problem that strikes at the very heart of life in Quebec.
This shows very clearly that the Quebec population has no guarantee that in casting such a massive vote for the Liberals its interest will be secured for all that. Quite the contrary. It seems the more members from Quebec the Liberal party gets, the less they care for their province. [English]
The problem we are discussing tonight, Mr. Speaker, is particularly acute for the farmers of Quebec who face immediate and practical problems. These are people who, as all in this House know, are not organized with the same strength as companies, unions and other strong agencies in society. They are people who do not have protection against agencies of size and strength. The problems which these people must face, whether they are problems to do with the weather or of the kind they are facing at present,

can literally cripple them in their operations, in their capacity to continue in agriculture and to keep on doing what they have been doing. They have no strike pay to fall back on, no corporate profit to support them.
These people are virtually without protection; their only protection is an appeal to parliament when they are caught up in a dispute with organized agencies of size in the country. Representatives of these farmers have come to members of the House of Commons on all sides. They obtained an active response at least from my colleagues, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), in that an emergency debate was forced this evening.
We heard from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), that sudden, emergency minister of agriculture-I presume on the government side they choose an acting minister of agriculture by flipping a coin-a good deal of nonsense when he intervened in the debate, before he fled. I can understand his leaving suddenly after delivering the kind of speech that we heard.


An hon. Member:: At nine o'clock this evening.


Charles Joseph Clark: As my colleague points out, that minister left at nine o'clock this evening. He suggested there was feed grain at Prescott and all that farmers need to do is go and get it. He suggested there was grain at Montreal. Surely the facts placed before the House must be known even to this instant minister of agriculture from metropolitan Montreal. Surely he knows that in Montreal the practice has been established amongst dealers of serving their own customers first. That does not help people in need in other parts of Quebec. Surely the minister must know that the cost of transportation, if those farmers were to go to Prescott, would be serious, particularly for people who are operating on low incomes, low margins and face great problems.
That minister ought to know, unless he has travelled all his life on pavement in Quebec, that we are in the midst of a season when in that province certain kinds of travel on certain roads is banned and it is not possible for trucks to travel on those roads because of the heavy weights involved. When he says there is feed grain at Prescott, he might as well say the farmers should go to Saskatoon, to Rio de Janeiro or other places to which it is practically impossible for them to go. That is the kind of nonsense he spoke tonight. I say it is no wonder, having made that kind of speech, that he left at nine o'clock.
The point which must be driven home concerns the responsibility of the government, a government elected largely with the support of those people whose problem now occupies the attention of this House. The problem was referred to by my colleague from Joliette and by the hon. member for Bellechasse. It is not a sudden problem, not a surprise problem. My colleague from Joliette raised the matter in the House two weeks ago. The government knew about the problem: it knew that a problem existed for people singularly ill-equipped to deal with the kind of difficulties they are now facing. Yet even as recently as a few days ago the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) did not know what was going on. On April 8, replying to a question from my side of the House, as recorded on page 4593 of Hansard he said:
April 16, 1975

-according to information I have received today most people still have some stocks of grain and there is no real loss of feed stocks. That is, no livestock or poultry are going without feed. We are watching the situation very closely-
So on April 8 the situation was being watched closely. On April 10 his tune changed. Somebody told him what was going on and he said, "There will be some loss of poultry and livestock." He admitted the problem was serious. But even now, seven days afterwards, we still do not see any plan of action for coming to the aid of these people who are among those in Canada least equipped to help themselves when caught in a conflict between agencies of size. They face problems which literally can mean the end of their livelihood, the end of their capacity to carry on.
Let me refer to the acting prime minister, and I underline the word "acting".


An hon. Member:: As a noun, or a verb?


Charles Joseph Clark: Of course, it is a moment of glory for any members of parliament from Quebec to sit on the government side, generally in anonymity. There is an opportunity for any of them, perhaps by flipping a coin. Perhaps if it were by the loudest voice the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) would prevail. There is an opportunity tonight for any of them to be acting Prime Minister. The actor acting as Prime Minister on April 10 declined to answer because mediation efforts were then under way. That was eight days after they had broken down.
This indicates the degree to which the government keeps track of what is going on in this matter. It might be of so little importance to it that no minister of the cabinet is here now and only two showed up for the debate, but this is a very great concern to the people of Quebec who are directly affected. They are caught in the squeeze between these agencies of size against which they individually cannot compete.
All of us who come from or have any knowledge of agricultural matters know the urgency with which this problem must be addressed. We know the problem that faces the farmers of Quebec. They now face the prospect of having to try to get by without feed, having to kill cattle prematurely, and undermining what little chance for profit they now have.
This is clearly a case where simple compassion should cause the government to move to action quickly. However, we have gone on since the hon. member for Joliette raised this matter two weeks ago. Literally nothing has been done. The government has not even kept itself up to date on developments in the matter, and no minister is here tonight to explain what the government might contemplate doing.
The point has been made-I know it does not need repetition, but I will say it one more time-that governments are elected to do certain jobs. They are elected to exercise responsibility. It is not enough for someone in the back bench of the government party to shout across the floor, "What would you do?". The point is that for whatever reasons or whatever justification, the government
Feed Grain
was elected to serve as a government. It was elected to assume responsibilities, not to shunt them off.
The point that is particularly ironic tonight is that the government was elected almost primarily because of the support of people in a province toward whose interests it has cast a blind eye for the past two weeks. That is terrible.


An hon. Member:: Don't be partisan.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am advised by a member opposite not to be partisan. I am not being partisan. If it is partisan to suggest that a government, once elected, has the responsibility to act, then I am being partisan. That is a simple statement of the responsibility of government. It perhaps should not be surprising that that comes as something of a revelation to members on the other side. They either sit in silence or simply pound their desks despite the failure of the government ministers to show up for a debate, let alone come to the aid of people whose votes, support and confidence are the single reason why many members opposite are here. Those people must be asking themselves what was involved when they vested that confidence in members opposite who have shown so little concern for their condition that it required the hon. member for Joliette and the hon. member for Bellechasse to cause this debate tonight, which is proceeding without the participation and apparently without the interest of ministers of the Crown, particularly those most directly responsible.
The government has the responsibility to act, not to pass things off to other parties or agencies, and not to duck. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), who should be in the centre of the action, is not here. He at least sent an excuse. The Minister of Labour did not do that. The Prime Minister is not here. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), the new chief in Quebec, fled after making a speech. He did not dare stay to try to defend it. None are here. However, these are the people responsible for carrying out the responsibilities vested in them by the very people whose problems brought us to a debate in the House of Commons at 17 minutes after midnight on a night that most of us expected to have off. It is perhaps worth noting that while many members chose to come here and debate this question, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Labour took the night off. That is shameful.
When the parliamentary secretary intervened earlier he said that certain matters were being considered. As I understood him, the government is considering the possibility of some sort of rail transport and other options. Why so late? Why did consideration of those matters not begin when my colleague from Joliette raised the question in the House of Commons? Why has there been a delay which has caused such uncertainty and many problems for so many people from the province which elected most members across the way?
The government has a clear responsibility to act in a way which will help these people, numbered among the people less capable because of their lack of forceful organization. As the elected Government of Canada it has a responsibility to help them in a country that is increasingly dominated by agencies of size.
29557 - 35(4

April 16, 1975
Feed Grain
If this debate has no more purpose tonight, I hope that at least when the Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Agriculture wake up from the long, restful sleep they are taking while we are here, they will peruse some of the debate and see the concern that has been consistently expressed by members on this side of the House, especially by backbench members from the areas where the problems of which we speak tonight are most acute.
The government has the power to act. It has known about the problem and the seriousness of it for at least two weeks. It has done nothing. That, Mr. Speaker, is shameful.


Mr. Bechard:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Bonaven-ture-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) is rising on a point of order.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to put a suggestion to the House. In view of the late hour and of the number of members wishing to take part into the debate, could we not, with the unanimous consent, decide that those who will speak from now on will limit themselves to 10 minutes in order to allow every member who wish to speak to do so?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestions of the hon. member for Boanventure-Iles-de-la Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) that speeches be limited to ten minutes. This can only be done by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, some members' speeches are a little longer than ten or 15 minutes and I think we should carry on as we have been.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As long as they do not go beyond 20 minutes, I have no objection.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, it being well after midnight I will not take the time of the House during this emergency debate to repeat in perhaps different words the substance of the harmful dock strike at Montreal, Three Rivers and Quebec which my colleagues before me have already given. Instead, I would like to point out some of the outdated and antiquated means which the government seems to have accepted as a way of life when dealing with labour disputes such as the one we are presently discussing.
I must first give credit to the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) and the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) who are responsible for bringing this emergency debate before the House at this time. Looking at the record of Liberal management I doubt whether we in this House of Commons would even be discussing this particular strike, certainly not before we were faced with the loss of thousands of heads of livestock and poultry due to the

stoppage of grain deliveries. This is precisely my point- the fact that the Liberal government, when dealing with this or any other strikes, be they legal as is the one we are considering tonight, or illegal as has been the case much too often in the past, does not act until after the fact, after the harm has been done, after millions of dollars have been lost, after thousands, indeed millions, of working man days of productivity have been wasted.
Time after time the government sits complacently by while irreparable damage is done to the economy by strikes and walk-outs, and this during a period in which the economy certainly does not need an increase in domestic problems-there is enough reason for anxiety as a result of international pressures. In my opinion there is no question that the main cause of internal domestic inflation is the ever-increasing rate of work stoppages and strikes, be they legal or illegal. If the country is to survive the system it was built on, immediate action must be taken in this area.
I believe there is urgent need for federal legislation requiring union groups in a single public service sector to bargain with the Treasury Board on a joint basis only for an agreement of perhaps not less than three years duration. The result, in the simplest terms, would be an assurance to the taxpaying public that each essential service sector would be strike-free, except for the possibility of a walk-out every three years or so. There is no better example of the need for such legislation than the dock strikes which are taking place in Quebec today, when we consider that only recently parliament was obliged to introduce back-to-work legislation affecting dock workers in British Columbia. The railways, the Post Office, airlines and other services run the same risk of disruption as a result of the fragmentation of union bargaining.
It is ironic that when I brought the suggestion of single sector bargaining before the House, as I did on several occasions in the past month or so, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) scoffed at the idea, and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) had no comment except to say that he was not in a position to discuss labour problems at the time. Of course at that point the minister had his dredging problems to worry about, so we must excuse him for not wanting to discuss problems relating to labour.
Things are looking up, however, because in answer to a similar question regarding single sector bargaining which I put to him today in the House he said that though he could not assure me that legislation was now being considered, simply because he was not at all certain that legislation was the best way to achieve a particular result desired, he could state that a fair amount of work had been going on within the department itself to see how single sector bargaining could be encouraged; talks with both management and labour had been going on with respect to it, and certainly on the labour side he had been receiving considerable encouragement. That answer, in itself, is encouraging to me since it shows that the government does, at times, listen to ideas from the opposition. Perhaps if we are sufficiently insistent, some of them will be adopted.
April 16, 1975

Directly connected with this strike and with the emergency debate upon which we are now engaged is a private member's bill, Bill C-386, which I introduced just three weeks ago. Since it is relevant to precisely the situation we are discussing tonight, allow me to quote briefly from this bill. It is an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, and I will read the first section of the proposed amendment.
181(1) Where
(a)	a strike or lockout not prohibited by this part is apprehended or has occurred, and
(b)	the strike or lockout would, in the opinion of the governor in council adversely affect the national or public interest if it occurred or continued,
the governor in council may refer the dispute or difference that may cause or has caused the strike or lockout to an industrial inquiry commission for investigation, report and recommendation.
(2) Forthwith upon the appointment of the commission
(a)	the strike or lockout, apprehended or occurring in respect of such dispute or difference, is prohibited;
(b)	no employee shall strike and no employer shall lock out his employees, and
(c)	a strike or lockout that has occurred shall cease.
We should take note of a further clause in the same measure, clause 5:
An order made under this section expires upon the execution of a collective agreement by the parties to the dispute or difference.
What the bill seeks to do is to disencourage and, where necessary, to prohibit irresponsible actions by any of the parties to collective bargaining. It seeks to reduce or remove the danger to the citizens of our country of unlawful and irresponsible strikes, lockouts, and other actions undertaken from time to time by either labour or management when there are breakdowns in contract negotiations. The power vested in the government to prohibit or order the end of a strike or lock-out can only be used when it is established that such actions would be against the public interest. This is not unreasonable. We are not living in the age of sweatshops, child labour, 14-hour work days-


An hon. Member:: Oh?


Otto John Jelinek: -or other oppressive and inhumane employment practices. Those years are behind us, but in many respects the laws and methods which were used to correct those abuses are still with us. I do not have to tell hon. members on this side of the House that the unions have brought humanity and dignity to the process of bargaining for better working conditions, better salaries, better pensions, and many other improvements in the lot of the working man and woman. It has been a long and hard-fought battle, and they have won. Today working men and women have a say in deciding what their conditions of work will be, and how much they will be paid for doing a particular job.
In recent years management too has been embroiled in the process of improving working conditions and salaries along with efforts to improve the quality and volume of its products. In most cases better working conditions and better morale can be translated into higher quality, improved production, and fewer industrial accidents. These things are just as important to management as they are to labour.
Feed Grain
We are all thankful that, except in isolated incidences, brutal and vicious confrontations between labour and management are a thing of the past. It has become apparent, Mr. Speaker, that when such consultations occur today, both workers and management lose. Workers lose their wages, and in many cases plants are forced to close because they cannot settle their disputes with their employees. In these cases the workers lose their jobs, which is always tragic.
In recent months, however, we have seen a return of irresponsible, confrontation-type actions on the part of some labour unions and, in some cases, on the part of management. We have seen instances of the refusal of the parties to bargain in good faith, resulting in strikes which should not have been called. If we are only interested in dealing with crises after they have had a chance to disrupt the economy, and impose undue hardship on the people of our country, the present labour code is perhaps adequate. However, I cannot believe that the majority of the people, or that the majority of the members of this House, will continue to be content to deal with these situations only after they have reached the crisis stage.
Prevention is almost always more acceptable than a cure. It is less costly, it is usually less painful. The cost of a crippling national strike is too great, the bad feelings are never completely forgotten, and there are always many people who never really recover from its effects.
We must remember that a great number of workers would prefer to stay on the job, or at least would be in favour of returning to their jobs before they are ordered back by parliament. In many cases workers are coerced, even threatened, if they do not go along with the wishes of the union executive. There was an example of this in my own riding, which is mostly a working riding, recently. Just last month I sent a questionnaire to my constituents, and one of the questions asked whether my constituents would approve of the right to strike being taken away from workers in essential services. I have received over 4,500 replies to date, and over 85 per cent of these favour such a move.
Anyone who reads the newspapers and watches television knows this to be so, and that is not responsible union conduct. I know that some union leaders feel that they must be involved in controversy and confrontation with management to justify their positions and their high salaries, and I know that there are lawyers who represent unions in such situations who stand to gain much from labour disputes that drag on and on.
But we must not refrain from strengthening the labour code in order to please a few. We must update the labour code and bring it into the 1970's in order to protect the many. We cannot continue to stand by and watch our country being brought to its knees through the actions of an irresponsible minority.
Under our present laws it is necessary to move a motion in parliament in order to deal with serious work stoppages in essential services and industries. If parliament is not in session the members must be flown in from around the country, and it could take days or even weeks for legislation to be framed, debated, and approved, to send workers

April 16, 1975
Feed Grain
back to their jobs. Aside from being cumbersome and costly, this procedure is also quite often a case of too little, too late. By the time we go through the motions of assembling parliament and approving back to work legislation, considerable and unnecessary damage could be, and usually is, caused by the strike. It would be much better to place specific and implicit authority in the hands of the government to deal with emergency situations threatened by actual or apprehended strikes.
If the suggestion in the proposed bill is accepted, the government will have the authority, and will have the responsibility, to provide such service in any future situations of that kind. The government will be able to stop a strike that shows promise of jeopardizing the health and safety of the people of our country, and prohibit a strike from occurring. It will be able to order negotiations to proceed in the event of a breakdown in contract negotiations, and it will be able to impose binding arbitration on management as well as labour. There is, of course, a provision for setting aside any decision of the industrial inquiry commission on the execution of a collective agreement by the parties to a labour dispute affected by this legislation.
It can be seen that every effort has been made to respect and preserve both the letter and the spirit of collective bargaining. My idea encourages rather than discourages collective bargaining, and in the final analysis it is intended solely to eliminate irresponsible actions and conduct from labour-management relations. I would not say that it is the whole answer, or that sweetness and light and total harmony will result immediately upon the approval of such a bill. But it would be a start.
Any conscientious citizen of this country must realize that now is the time to start before our country deteriorates any further due to labour unrest. We must begin setting down concrete measures rather than ad hoc pieces of legislation. We must begin to lay the groundwork, whether it be by adopting single sector bargaining or even considering the possibility of abolishing the right to strike in essential services. This groundwork must be laid not only for the present and existing problems but, more important, for the future.


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to thank the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) for bringing this important matter to the attention of this House this evening, and giving us an opportunity to participate in this debate which is most important to every member concerned and to every member of this House.
Although he deserves commendation for that action and for a most constructive speech, perhaps the only intelligent one from the other side this evening, this may not be the best forum for the solution of an increasingly urgent problem. Because this room is too often turned into a temple of the spoken word. And that is all we heard this evening, words. All the speakers we heard from the other side tried to accuse us, they seeked one by one ministers, first or second benchers, asking where they were, whether they were banqueting or sleeping, in an attempt to have the Canadian people believe government ministers are not interested in the problems which are now of concern to

Quebecers. It is not by spending evenings here listening to such nonsense as we have been getting from the other side that we will solve the movement of grains in Quebec.
Up until now, no reference has been made to the facts. What is really going on in Quebec presently? It has been said that grains do not move because of the longshoremen's strike. What are the facts, exactly? There are now 1,200 longshoremen in dispute with the Maritime Employers Association in the ports of Quebec City, Montreal and Trois-Rivieres. The conciliation board chaired by Mr. Justice Gold submitted after the conclusion of the collective agreement on December 30, 1973, various measures aimed at solving the dispute. Among other measures, Mr. Justice Gold recommended a 57 percent salary increase over a two-year period. Present longshoremen wages in Quebec City, Montreal and Trois-Rivieres average $5.10 an hour. In his conciliation report, Mr. Justice Gold also recommended a 1,600-hour per year guarantee for Montreal longshoremen 1,400 for those in Quebec city and 1,200 in Trois-Rivieres. The members of the International Longshoremen Association did not accept that report. They in turn ask for a 52 40-hour-week guarantee, that is 2,080 hours a year for an average of $20,000 yearly wages.
They also object, perhaps rightly, to the around-the-clock availability clause, believing that such a clause could be prejudicial to them in their dealings with their employer. Since the positions seemed to be increasingly hardening as much on one side as on the other, as a result of that deadlock, the government appointed an arbitrator, Mr. Charles Poirier, but unfortunately, for the past few days, Mr. Poirier has remained constantly available to meet the two parties involved, but nobody up to now during the past few hours or days has resorted to his services. Now, even if those negotiations have not broken down, they have at least reached a standstill and this is why it is becoming more and more urgent that the movement of feed grain be restored in Quebec.
The closing of the ports in Montreal, Quebec City and Trois-Rivieres prevents that movement of feed grain and, consequently, gives rise to very serious problems for farm producers and secondly for Quebec consumers.
The current situation prevailing in Quebec ports was described tonight by several of my colleagues but the fact is that the details given by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Cor-riveau) shed a little more light on the situation as it now stands. We know, as we were told, that an injunction was granted which will quite probably be extended for a further period of 10 days for the port of Quebec City. At present, the port is open and trucks can run. Unfortunately, as was also mentioned, most of the grain supplies now available in Quebec City are made out of corn, and feed grain must be obtained from other ports. In Trois-Rivieres, unfortunately, access to elevators is entirely impossible at present and quite the same occurs in Montreal with the exception of four trucks which managed this morning to reach the elevators, load and leave before 7 o'clock in the morning, when picket lines were set up. With the exception of four trucks this morning, the situation is the same as in Trois-Rivieres. The Quebec Federated Cooperative asked today for an injunction for Montreal, and if granted,
April 16, 1975

it can take effect as early as Friday. Millers and farm producers in the area of Montreal and Trois-Rivieres must haul grain from Prescott by truck. That is no doubt quite detrimental to the economic well-being of Quebec producers because they then have to pay $7 a ton more for grain. Producers on the Northern shore which includes Charlevoix and lower St. Lawrence producers must pay between $10 and $12 more than the normal price for grain coming from Prescott.
But there is another problem. Some dealers now take advantage of the situation and sometimes ask between 5 cents and 10 cents more per cwt. Thus, in a conflict-and it is not a matter of judging whether it is justified or not-in a conflict, as the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) explained, opposing longshoremen to their employers, it is farmers and, altumately consumers who will have to foot the bill, and that is the reason why I am glad to support the request submitted by the hon. member for Saint-Hya-cinthe (Mr. Wagner), that is to ask longshoremen to act as good citizens by allowing farmers access to grain elevators now.
In an emergency situation like the one we are now facing, Mr. Speaker, we hear many different things. One speaker tonight said that pigs were eating each other; they must be cannibal pigs, certainly not pigs from Charlevoix.
I am happy to welcome the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. In spite of his absence from Ottawa, explained several times tonight in the House, the members of the Opposition have continued to criticize him in an attempt to prove that he is not interested in the problems of Quebec farmers. That is completely false, and the Minister's presence in the House at 1:45 is a proof of his interest in the problems we are now facing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Now the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is back. He must have thought it was over.


An hon. Member:: Who said he wasn't here?


Charles Joseph Clark: Five hours late.


An hon. Member:: He didn't miss anything when you spoke.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Who woke him up? Where are the other ministers? Where is your lieutenant from Quebec, Lalonde?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I think hon. members should listen to the hon. member who has the floor.


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, if Charlevoix has no carnivorous pigs and no chickens fluttering because they are not fed enough grain, the producers of the area as all those in Quebec are experiencing very urgent problems and, as all other members on this side of the House who represent
Feed Grain
Quebec ridings, we have a heart to find a solution as quickly as possible to a situation that is getting more and more difficult.
The problem we now have is not so much with supply in Quebec ports, because, as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture has indicated, measures have been taken. For instance, two ships are now on their way to ports on the St. Lawrence, another has been rerouted towards Prescott, thus making stocking possible, etc. We are experiencing a labour dispute, and in a country with a democratic tradition as Canada, we must let negotiations proceed freely and avoid bringing all problems before Parliament to settle labour relations. The longshoremen are availing themselves of a legitimate right which this Parliament has granted to them as well as to all other Canadians; moreover, theirs is a legal strike. However, as the Prime Minister indicated in the House yesterday in reply_ to a question from the hon. member for Bonaven-ture-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard), the common interest must be taken into account. And like all other hon. members on this side, I feel that the government is acting wisely, before introducing any special legislation in the House, letting the bargaining process take its course, before considering legislative action. If we were to act too quickly, as it is always the case when we introduce a special legislation to force strikers back to work, NDP members would accuse us of facism, while Progressive Conservative members would join our Social Credit friends in branding us as socialists.
If we favour bargaining and make use of every possible means of reaching a harmonious settlement to a dispute, some hon. members, as the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) did so inconsequently tonight, would accuse us of carelessness and weakness, while others would say that hon. members from the Province of Quebec are nothing but pawns in the House for respecting the rights we have granted to these people as to any other group of Canadians. The hon. members from this side are aware of the serious situation which prevails in Quebec. We know that it is extremely serious. And when the time comes, if it does come, the government will certainly not hesitate introducing a special legislation. That is what I call leadership.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I think we are privileged in this House that the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) have brought this important matter to our attention. I feel a certain sense of privilege in having the opportunity to speak on it, not only because I come from the rural riding of Battle River, in the province of Alberta, and not only because this is a matter that affects all Canadians but, more importantly, because it is an international problem that faces the whole agricultural industry. The fact is that every nation in the world which depends on an agricultural economy is among the world's poorest countries, and every industrialized nation of the world can look to its economic sectors and note that the agricultural regions are among the poorest of the country.
In this debate tonight, when talking about the agricultural industry we can show by facts and statistics, it has taken a back seat and, more importantly, that this govern-

April 16, 1975
Feed Grain
ment has turned a blind eye on this extremely important industry. This is an industry on which every one of us is absolutely dependent. I would suggest that probably no member of this House has gone for 48 hours without food, and I would suspect that most have never gone even 24 hours without food.
Farming is the business of food production, and yet what do we see in this country in terms of support for the agricultural industry? A 25 cent loaf of bread, even if the farmers gave their wheat away, would still cost 23 cents. That simply shows that farmers are not getting much of a fair shake. I would like to point out the fact that the agricultural industry is certainly an industry that has pulled its own weight in society and it deserves credit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arnold John Malone: At this late hour of five minutes to one, we could take a look at some information released by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) who, some moments ago, arrived from a Liberal fund raising meeting. It is stated that in 1940 a farmer could produce enough-


Eugene Whelan: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure the hon. member would not want to put anything on the record that was incorrect. Most times I find him to be accurate. Let me tell him that I attended the Brampton Rural-Urban night in Brampton, Ontario. It was no fund raising meeting but a public meeting called by the Brampton Board of Trade.


Arnold John Malone: I will change the word fund to fun. The important thing is that in 1940 a farmer could produce enough to feed himself, his wife and ten other people, but in 1975 a farmer can produce enough to feed himself, his wife and 50 other people. What I am trying to point out is that production by farm people, wherever they might be in this country, has significantly increased, but it is of ultimate importance that we realize that farmers are leaving farms in this country because they are not receiving the support of society as a whole. How do we know that? The fact of the matter is that every day, for the last 20 years, 31 farmers have gone out of business. That shows that agriculture is a kind of industry that is either unpopular or is receiving insufficient support. In talking to people in rural communities across the country I find that quite obviously the latter is the case.
Let us take a look at what a former Liberal member of this House, now a Senator, the Hon. Harry Hays, has to say about Canadian support of agriculture. He said:
With the exception of Denmark, Canada has the lowest percentage of public support for the agriculture industry of any country.
I want to say that out of farmers' net income Canada provides, through support of one form or another, 1.7 per cent, the United States provides 17 per cent, France provides 50 per cent, and the U.K. provides 67 per cent. This country ranks lowest in terms of the way it supports its agricultural industry. This leads me to point out that there are three sectors of our society that continually receive extremely poor support from the government, and that simply do not have the kind of clout they should have to

give these industries the support they need. Those three are agriculture, fisheries and forestry.
Two of those industries deal with food production. The irony lies in the fact that, on a world basis, food takes up 40 per cent of our disposable income, and yet not one nation in the world gives top priority to food production. What perhaps is more curious still is that most nations put the lowest priority on agriculture, and I will demonstrate this again later when I deal with the strike situation and show that a very low priority is given to people in the agricultural industry who are affected.
The Minister of Agriculture has stated in some of the information that he circulated to our offices that farmers get fewer subsidy dollars than most other sectors of our economy. The average tariff protection for farm products is 8 per cent, but for non-farm products it is 16 per cent. This is another proof that farming in this nation is not protected. In Canada more than one third of all jobs are directly or indirectly related to agriculture. That simply emphasizes the fact that we should be giving the highest priority to agriculture because it affects one third of all the people in this country.
Let us take a look at the present situation, at the strike damage and at how it affects the agricultural industry. What are we doing about it? I should like to point out that here is an industry whose members cannot strike because of its very structure, because of the way farmers are organized, and because they lack the mechanism with which to fight back. Of the 35 weeks following the start of the crop year, at the end of July, 1974, there were only six weeks of free movement of grain to the port of Vancouver. The rest of the time there were either strike actions or derailments of trains on the trackage.
Let us take a look at the agricultural industry as it relates to what is coming up soon. In this year ten contracts which will affect the movement of grain out of Vancouver come up for renewal, three of those being related to railroads, two to the Government of Canada, two to longshoremen-one to the workers and the other to the foremen-one to the handlers, one to tugboat operators, and one to marine pilots. Every one of those contracts has the potential to stop the grain industry. Yet do we ever see legislation to make these contracts run out at the same time, or even to give compensation to the agricultural industry which cannot fight back?
Tonight we are back in the House again, this time because strike damage is being done to the agricultural industry in the province of Quebec, more specifically to a group of people who are not in a position to fight back. Farmers are not in a position to protect themselves from strike action.
To make the situation even worse, labour organizations are striking against management, thereby incurring major expenses. Instead of either labour or management absorbing the expense, it is charged to farmers. This is done through demurrage charges which, I charge, is something which is illegal because there is no precedent in our society for two people incurring a direct cash cost and charging it to a third party. This is no longer merely a nuisance or an inconvenience. It is a direct expense which is finally charged to a third party. Farmers do not have collective bargaining powers. When their prices go up they
April 16, 1975

cannot establish new prices in the market because the market establishes them itself.
So we find that a group of people from one end of this country to the other are simply victims of the collective bargaining system, with a government unwilling to take action to give the protection they need. Farmers have doubled their output in the last ten years, while others in our society have increased their output by only 40 per cent. The way this country responds to that is to shrug its shoulders and say, "So what".
We are here tonight to debate an issue of paramount importance, yet a third minister has arrived just moments ago, and no minister has stayed here for longer than the duration of his own speech.
This is a problem of tremendous importance to an industry, and I simply repeat that agriculture, fisheries and forestry are considered to be low on the totem pole.
When these problems arise, people simply turn a blind eye and do not care. Considering once more how agriculture is treated with a low priority in this country, recently the cost of food was reported by Statistics Canada to be reduced. There is a hoop-la about that. Not once has it been mentioned that the reduced cost of this food is borne by the farmer. The farmer has paid for every cent of advantage which has gone to the consumer for cheaper food. I think we should recognize that farm people have certainly increased their efficiency, and they are doing it more cheaply, yet they do not have the protection of society which they ought to have.
According to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, 460 million people live in a state of malnutrition. To paint the picture clearly, that is as many people as there are in Britain, Germany, France, Italy, and the rest of Europe. While there is a famine aspect to the world food crisis, the malnutrition aspect is an old scandal and one which the rich, well fed nations have learned to live with, Mr. Speaker.
We witnessed just recently what we in this country called an energy crisis. We worried about where we would get fuel to heat our homes and to drive our cars. Through that crisis there was only a whisper of the fact that nitrogen fertilizer is 100 per cent a product of the petroleum industry. As we look around the world we note that this year we will fall three and a half billion tons short of its nitrogen fertilizer, requirements. No emphasis was placed on that problem, and the simple reason was that it dealt with agriculture. It is about time that this nation began to realize what agriculture is. It is the business of food production, and without it we do not live, we do not develop strong minds and bodies, and we do not have a society of value or worth.
Part of this debate tonight is meant to give a status to an industry which has been held far too long at the bottom of the totem pole, along with fisheries and forestry.
To share some information, I would like to point out that Canada is the world's largest exporter of rapeseed. Rapeseed was brought into this country after studies and experiments at the dominion experimental stations. The investment in those experiments was extremely small, yet
Feed Grain
rapeseed has developed into a billion dollar industry for this country. When we consider the importance of agriculture to Canada and compare that with the amount expended in agricultural research, we should be ashamed.
We should also recognize just the very fact of growing wheat. Most people do not realize that if it were not for experimental studies, which are continually developing new varieties of wheat, the province of Manitoba and most of southern Saskatchewan would not be able to grow wheat longer than five years, because that is about how long it takes for the species of varieties which cause rust in wheat grains to develop enough strength against the rust resistant varieties. I am trying once again to demonstrate that it is the experimental stations which are making it possible that the wheat industry continues in southern Saskatchewan and in most of Manitoba. The amount of money we put into that is extremely small.
We are once again in an emergency debate with regard to agriculture because we have allowed it to grow to the crisis stage, rather than looking at this as a major industry, and with a philosophy and objective that this industry should not only be protected from coast to coast, but we should give it a major importance both in research and support prices and in terms of selling it abroad. This is an industry which could become as well to do as any other, and which could assist us in an economic way. Certainly the data we have ought to underscore that. It is a simple fact that Saunders wheat brought another billion dollar industry to this country, which cost the experimental stations almost nothing in terms of their work.
In 1978 the international soil scientists conference will be coming to this country. The support of the federal government for that conference is so meagre that it is shameful to announce it in the House. Yet in Vancouver this year there is tremendous support in the form of millions of dollars going into the international urbanization conference which will be held in that city. I do not begrudge it getting that money, but I simply point out that the agricultural industry, which feeds us, gives us healthy bodies and minds, protects us from going blind from a deficiency of vitamin A, and which provides protein and energy for our bodies, is the very industry we simply do not recognize as having importance in this country.
We are here tonight because there is a crisis in Quebec, which is just another crisis heaped upon crises because the government started off with the wrong philosophy in the first place. We are talking about animals which are about to starve, about poultry which will not be getting food, about elevators which are empty, and about transportation to them and other elevators which are full. But farmers do not have that transportation, and yet we are being told that the farmers of Quebec can get grain. The fact of the matter is that the roads will not provide sufficiently, and there is nothing to account for the expense. Once again the government has not cared about the most important industry.


Mr. Pierre Bussieres (Portneuf):: Madam Speaker, I am obviously quite happy to take part in this debate which deals with feed grain supplies to farmers and agricultural
4912

Feed Grain
producers in Quebec. The urgency of the situation has been stressed often enough, and yet comments in today's papers tended to fit with the description given by the hon. minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouel-let), to the effect that the situation is serious but, thanks to the measures taken by the government, has not yet become an emergency.
When farmers are hampered by a problem, society as a whole is affected, and not just a marginal group, a small group, not just agricultural producers, but each and every citizen who depends on agricultural products for his food.
Unfortunately, that element is not always felt in the reactions of public opinion. It can be frequently noted that whenever there is an increase in the price of agricultural products, whether it be milk or butter or other food products, it is immediately followed by an outcry of indignation in the papers and among people. However, no one worries about the income of farmers.
When there is a union claim for a salary increase, people agree, they say it is fine, and one should make a good salary. But in fact, who cares about an increase in the farmers' incomes? Who cares constantly about working hours and working conditions for farmers? Farmers in Quebec still have difficulties now which stem from a labour dispute. That workers' dispute, that labour dispute which is at the root, at the origin of that difficult situation for farmers makes the situation even more tricky and delicate.
We on this side of the House believe that the labour relations system in Canada should be a liberal system, we believe in negotiations, we believe in the right to strike as a means of obtaining better salaries and better working conditions.
We often talk in this House about labour disputes when strikes as means of pressure are put into practice and cause hardships, but we very seldom hold emergency debates to emphasize labour disputes which are settled.
In today's papers, there was mention of a labour dispute which has been ironed out, but nobody during the debate tonight has stressed it. This labour dispute which has been solved through negotiations dealt precisely with harbours, and particularly with the Montreal harbour. That is not very far away from the discussions we are having. With their acceptance of the last propositions made by the harbour authorities, the members of the Montreal harbour labour union (CNTU) have definitely put away the threat of work stoppage they had held over the harbour for two months. It is said that since the Trudeau government already gave premiums on salary scales, a majority of union members could be obtained to solve the problem.
There was no need for special legislation, there was no need for a special debate, the strike was solved, but no one talked about it. But if a labour conflict is troublesome-it is normal that a strike be troublesome, it is a means of pressure-immediately we want a special debate. I do not want to say that respecting the right of longshoremen to strike solves the problem of feed grain supplies for our farm producers, far from it. What I want to say is that we should distinguish between one right which belongs to the longshoremen and another which concerns supplying. The longshoremen have a right to strike, the have a right to

use a means of pressure to improve their working conditions, we respect this right until, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said, this really endangers the common good.
The longshoremen have the right to strike, the farmers have the right to obtain supplies to feed their animals. Not only do they have this right, but they also have the duty to do it. They have the duty to feed their stock to maintain good meat quality and also to protect the balance of farm production. They also have the duty to think about the consequences that their neglect at feeding their stock could have on the population, and also the duty to think that insufficiency or malnutrition could cause irreparable damages to our farm production. It is an awareness of these duties that this debate should give all members of the House, an awareness of this need, of this duty of farm producers to feed their cattle and of our own duty to examine their possibilities of improving and simplifying their grain supplies.
As a short term solution, I would like to repeat what my colleague for Charlevoix (Mr. Lapointe) said earlier, that all members of this House ask the longshoremen in the ports of Quebec City, Trois-Rivieres and Montreal to allow the millers to obtain supplies in the next few days.
Madam Speaker, I would like all hon. members here in this House to agree unanimously on this request to longshoremen. They are not forced to go back to work by legislation or by bludgeon. We say: You too must realize that farmers have a fundamental duty to feed their stock; let them gain access to the warehouses so they can supply themselves, then go on exerting pressure by strike, because the strike can continue.
I am convinced, Madam Speaker, that the longshoremen will hear the voice of reason and that, if we all agree to make this request, they will follow it.
On medium term, we must ensure that other loads are given priority and that the appropriate means will be taken to bring them where they are needed. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) has also reassured us on this point tonight, as did the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Cor-riveau). And I am convinced that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) will confirm these words.
When there are problems, cataclysms, in other countries, airlifts are organized immediately, countries get together to transport, in no time flat, tons of foods of all kinds, anywhere in the world. It is unthinkable that within our own country, we should be unable to get organized too, to transport from one end of it to the other, the feed required to nourish what will feed us in turn tomorrow and to supply the farmers with the grains they need. It is inconceivable that such steps should not have been foreseen, that they cannot be taken quickly.
Over the long term, I believe the Canadian Livestock Feed Board should be authorized to set up reserves and charter adequate means of transport to mitigate such situations. That authority, Madam Speaker, the board should have; and it is up to the government to see to it that it gets it.
April 16, 1975

At the World Food Conference in Rome, according to the newspapers, discussions dealt with the means to store food supplies in countries stricken with famine or droughts. We have heard of it here too, in Canada because the Canadian delegation took a very active part in those discussions. The Minister of Agriculture himself took part in them.
Regardless of conditions or circumstances, supplies of grains should be ensured in situations such as the one we now know. So much the better if we can ensure the storage of food products in needy countries, but we should also be able to ensure the same to our eastern producers who are now in difficulty; at other times, western producers will have problems, and we must make sure the feed they need is then available. The Canadian Livestock Feed Board must have the means and authority to give those assurances.
In his summary, the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) appealed to the honesty of hon. members, and especially to that of the Quebec members who sit on this side of the House. In the same breath, Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Joliette implied something when he uttered a word, the word "cowardice", hinting that some members whom he urged to be honest could be cowards. If we look into the meaning of honesty, we find that it is to describe things according to reality. I wonder how he can urge anyone to be honest when he himself, by implying the word "cowardice", was surely not giving a true account of things and of the exactness of duty, of the sense of duty, of the trust, of the integrity of Liberal members, of my colleagues on this side of the Commons.
Madam Speaker, the situation now existing in the province of Quebec could lead to many things. It is obvious that due to higher costs, our farmers' income will drop. Not many people in our society agree to a lower income. Every day there is talk about indexing, salary increases. Even we are talking about it. Farmers will get less income. Their income had already dropped because of the higher cost of living and following a labour dispute, it will decrease still more. This is not normal and should not happen again.
Also, one wonders whether some animals when they are sent early to the slaughter-house, do have the quality that they could have had, and this is detrimental to the consumers, even though it will not be necessarily detrimental to health, but the product will not have the same quality.
Also there is the danger of an imbalance in our production. If we send cattle to the slaughter-house before the proper time, it is clear, in view of the period where the supplies will not be the same, there will be an imbalance in our production.
Then, to conclude, I wish to remind the members of three suggestions which I feel should be accepted. First, we should ask the longshoremen to allow the millers to have access to supplies; secondly, as Canadians, we should take measures in order that grains reach the places where they are needed; finally, we should give to the Canadian Feed Grain Board the authority and powers necessary to meet such difficulties.


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make some comments on the motion before the House dealing
Feed Grain
with grain tie-ups in Quebec ports. First, however, may I join with other members of this House in complimenting the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) and my colleague the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. We are considering an important and urgent matter, namely, a situation which is preventing feed grain supplies from reaching feed mills and livestock producers in certain communities in Quebec.
There is some argument about the extent of the emergency. Obviously, if this matter is not resolved quickly, some livestock and poultry producers will have no option except to ship to market, and there will be a surplus on the market and prices will be depressed. It is most unfortunate that members on my side of the House once again were compelled to act because of the government's lack of leadership in this situation.
On March 19, less than a month ago, we debated a similar sort of motion dealing with grain movement on the west coast. Strikes, labour disputes, work stoppages, poor rail facilities and services have plagued the entire movement of grain in this country, particularly in the last year. When grain began moving on the St. Lawrence on October 3 last, it was the first such movement of grain since August 7. Obviously, a new method for approaching these difficulties must be found. I submit that only one other industrialized country has lost more man-days through strikes than Canada: that situation is totally unacceptable. The record shows that last year we lost 9.2 million man-days through strikes, an increase of nearly 60 per cent over what we lost in the previous year. That is not a good record of achievement for this government.
The government was warned many times, particularly by members on my side, of feed grain shortages in Quebec and in Quebec elevators. Obviously, those warnings were almost totally dismissed or ignored. It is true that Quebec producers are the most seriously affected, but it is also true that the entire regional economy will suffer if some agreement is not forthcoming immediately. Every Canadian is affected in some way by these disputes, and we feel their effects long after they are settled.
If the government's performance and reliability does not soon improve, and drastically, we stand to lose valuable export markets for our grains. When potential buyers regard Canada as an unreliable supplier of grain, their attitude not only hurts one's pride but it hurts the Canadian economy. We accept orders, sign contracts and then cannot deliver on time. We make commitments to provide food aid, and cannot even deliver the food to the ship which is to carry the food to where it is most needed.
Obviously, inflation and the uncertainty brought about by continuing inflationary pressures continue to be factors in the breakdown of contract negotiations. Unless we are prepared to tackle the problems at the root of our difficulties and allay the fears of organized labour, of public servants and of those on low or fixed incomes who are afraid their incomes will not keep up with the cost of living, we shall continue to see unrest in those segments of our society.
On July 8 last the government was given a clear mandate to govern and to show leadership in solving these problems-and it still lacks an effective policy for dealing
4914

April 16, 1975
Feed Grain
with them. Indeed, we have seen little or no action for coming to grips with this problem. We must give immediate attention to the establishment of a public disputes commission. The difficulty is this: no body or tribunal has been established to examine contracts now in force and to deal with problems and grievances before contracts expire. No single body has been established to encourage or to promote the renegotiation of a contract before its expiry date. I submit that there is necessity for such a commission and its establishment is more urgently needed now than ever before.
If the government does not actively seek a new approach we shall see a repetition of this dismal performance-if not with the grain handlers, then with the public servants. The Canadian people are dissatisfied and impatient, and look to this government for leadership. Government members asked for suggestions. My colleagues have offered suggestions and alternatives in this debate and on previous occasions. So far the government has failed to act: that is the crux of the difficulty.
Let us set up the machinery that is required. Let us restore good faith between management and labour. Let us at least attempt to avoid similar situations. That is a responsibility the Canadian people gave to this government. If the government would move in that direction, Madam Speaker, I am certain it would find support from this side of the House.


Albert Béchard: Madam Speaker, I will try to confine myself to the limits I suggested earlier and for that reason, my comments will be very brief.
But I thought it was my duty to participate in this debate for two main reasons. First, because in some way I have suggested this debate tonight because of the question I asked the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). Indeed, they can laugh in the opposite, they congratulated themselves a short time ago. They say that it should not have partisanship, but if they want to have some, there are others who are able to do so.
Madam Speaker, I would like to repeat for the sake of those who did not hear it, and I believe that with my question I woke up the Opposition and even the member for Saint Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) who was far away, heard it and he came back to give his speech tonight and there was only partisanship in the first part and there was fairly good common sense in the second one.
So, Madam Speaker, I repeat the question I asked yesterday. I was referring to a telegram from the Poultry Producers' Federation of Quebec, which has been delivered to my riding office in Bonaventure, but thanks to a very great organization, was immediately transmitted to me and this morning I had the Federation telegram in my office here on the Hill.
Here is the question I put to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan):
Has he received a telegram from the Quebec poultry producers association-

. . . then I reminded him of the substance of the message. Here is the Minister's answer:
Mr. Speaker, we have received many telegrams but I am not sure if I have seen that one concerning the possible shortage of feed grains. The grain elevator in Quebec City has been opened for two or three days now and grain is moving out of that area. Other ships are moving into the area.
.. . that was said a moment ago. And then I asked the hon. Minister of Labour and in his absence the right hon. Prime Minister, the following question, as reported in page 4807
of yesterday's Hansard:
I asked the Minister of Labour, or in his absence, his parliamentary secretary, or the Prime Minister, whether the government intends to take legislative measures identical to those Parliament passed to settle the longshoremen's strike in the port of Vancouver to settle the strike now paralyzing the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec City?
Here is the Prime Minister's answer:
Mr. Speaker, there always comes a time in a strike when the public interest must be weighed against the right to strike. The government and the cabinet are now in the process of looking into this matter.
That is what rang a bell in the ear of the Opposition. I quote again:
For the time being we have no statement to make, but one thing is sure: the Minister of Labour and the government are watching the situation
very closely.
Madam Speaker, at the very beginning of this conflict in the port of Montreal, it were members on the government's side, among whom the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Lapointe), who first brought this to the government's attention, followed by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Caron) and the hon. members for Compton (Mr. Tessier) and for Laval (Mr. Roy) and others. Then people will say that the government is aware of the longshoremen's strike thanks to the Opposition.
When the possibility, and the newspapers referred to this at length yesterday, of a settlement other than the one now expected is envisaged, we then say: We must ask for an emergency debate and we shall take credit for it. Those are the people who are asking us to act and to unite, to defend the interests of a seriously affected area and to co-operate not as supporters but as members for an area affected at this time.
When I heard this evening at the very beginning of this debate the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), I felt we were back in that dark period which we have unfortunately known in Quebec under a government which has now disappeared and which was called the Union Nationale, when the workers and public servants were fighting to unite, to form unions, in order to defend their rights, and God knows that they were downtrodden during that dark period, well, I felt right back in that period once again. This unhealthy situation was fortunately corrected by a government to which the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) belonged, when citizens were allowed to unite to defend their interests and to do so in all freedom.
It is all very well to charge the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) with every imaginable sin, but are the hon. member for Joliette and all the others who accused him of those misdeeds aware that there are laws giving those people the right to strike? Do they know that even the Minister of Agriculture as well as the whole cabinet must
April 16, 1975

obey the laws of Canada and the legislation that we, legislators, adopt here in Parliament?
Madam Speaker, I did not interrupt the hon. member for Joliette when he made his speech tonight and I hope he will extend the same courtesy to me and let me make my comments.
The situation is serious and we do not need, as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) said tonight, to be told about it by the member for Joliette. We do not spend our lives in the clouds, but on the ground and in the province of Quebec. We know the difficulties the farmers have and that the present strikes are creating.
The government will take its responsibilities and, as far as I am concerned, and such was the purpose of the question I asked yesterday, I hope that when all means have been exhausted in an attempt to settle this dispute, I hope that the means used in similar circumstances will be taken as quickly as possible.
The second reasons that prompts me to take part in this debate, Madam Speaker, is that farm animals are not the only ones to be looked after at the present time. I represent the people of Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine, and for those who realize what an island is, they will learn perhaps, if they don't already know it, that the people I represent must bring in all their winter supplies before the closing of the shipping season in the fall, because once the shipping is stopped, they cannot think of bringing in supplies except by plane at a prohibitive cost.
Then, when the shipping season opens, the CTMA ships of the Magdalen Islands are berthed in the port of Montreal since the previous fall. All the merchants put in their orders, everyone orders whatever goods he needs; when one is isolated, one knows how important to those people to see the start of the navigation season.
So, now, those boats are standing, waiting in the ports of Montreal and Quebec City. They are kept from loading the supplies so urgently needed in the Magdalen Islands. Trucks are even stopped which come to the hangars to drop their loads; they have to turn around. The situation is this: not only will the animals not have feed in the near future, since a telegram said 24 hours in the case of poultry, but the population of the Magdalen Islands is about to suffer seriously from the longshoremen's strike. That is why, Madam Speaker, after all I said a while ago, I ask again the stevedores, and in this I join the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) and those of my colleagues who spoke before me, I ask the stevedores to show some human decency, some sense of charity towards those people; I ask them, if they want their rights to be respected, to at least show respect for the rights of others, and allow the goods being rent to those islands to be put on board the ship which is waiting only for their permission, that the stevedores at the hangars where those goods are loaded for the islands, who are not on strike, might do their work and send the "Madelinots" the food, the clothing and all they need to go to work at this time of year, and so help these people who have been inactive and unemployed throughout the winter.
Feed Grain


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Madam Speaker, I feel it is my duty to help my colleagues with this current problem, in the middle of the night, to speak about the shortage of feed grains in the province of Quebec. What harms this province, harms the whole country, and especially the farming industry and the people who depend on it for their livelihood.

Only last week we were informed of the government's plan to play a useful role in helping to feed a starving world-regions and countries whose people are in dire need of food. Yet tonight we look to a government which will not even see to it that our own food production is maintained. I have been speaking to a number of members from the province of Quebec and they have all told me- even those on the Liberal side-that it is time to do something.
This afternoon in the agriculture committee we were told by Mr. Coutu, president of the Canadian Pork Council-he is also president of the Federation Producteurs de Pore de Quebec-that the situation is very serious. But still the government does nothing. It has been pointed out by more than one speaker throughout this long night that there is not one member of the cabinet present during this debate.


An hon. Member:: That is not so.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: There is none in his seat at the present
time.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is here.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: The absence of ministers shows that the government cares nothing for the interests of the farmers and feeders of Canada, and particularly of Quebec. This Liberal arrogance was also manifested in the agriculture committee yesterday afternoon. I was present at the meeting, along with my hon. friend for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga). The witnesses were members of the Canadian Pork Council, headed by their president Mr. Coutu, as I have mentioned.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I must remind the hon. member that no report of what was said in the committee can be made in the House tonight.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: All right; I have not made any report of what was said in the committee.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I should like to call your attention to the fact that the Minister of Agriculture has been right here with us. He just happened to move from one area of the House to another to get back to his seat.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member knows very well that what he has referred to is not a point of order.

April 16, 1975
Feed Grain


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: In the time allotted to me for questioning in the committee, I asked Mr. Coutu to inform the committee of the effects of the feed situation resulting from this vexing strike. As we know, it is preventing Quebec farmers and feeders obtaining badly needed feed grain from the elevators. The Liberal member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Daudlin) immediately asked the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Saint-Jean (Mr. Smith), to rule me out of order and prevent the subject of my question being raised.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. In accordance with the ruling of the Chair a few moments ago, no mention must be made of what was said or done in the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I hear shouts from members opposite, Madam Speaker. That is typical of the arrogance of Liberal members. I am not mentioning what the chairman said, but I will say that the chairman did not rule me out of order.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Madam Speaker, on a point of order I want to bring it to your attention that you were quite right. If the hon. member was told he was out of order in the committee, he is out of order in this instance.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I want to tell the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) that what is not allowed in the case of the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack) is not allowed in the case of the hon. member for St. Boniface.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I did not report anyone's words; I was just reporting the actions of the Liberal members in that committee. This request by the hon. member for Kent-Essex shows how much the Liberal Party cares about the interests of the farmers and feeders of Quebec. It shows how much the hon. member for Kent-Essex cares about Canadian agriculture, though he comes from an important agricultural riding in western Ontario. How his action in the committee furthers the interests of agriculture, I cannot understand. It is typical Liberalism at its lowest ebb of mediocrity.


Eugene Whelan: On a point of order, I think it would be of interest if the hon. member were to make it clear that he was the only Conservative member attending the committee at that time, and that there were never more than two of them at the committee.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I did not say how many members were at that committee meeting; I am only saying how much the Liberal Party cares about the feed grain crisis.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. The hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga) is rising on a point of order.


Peter Elzinga: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, since the Minister of Agriculture has referred to the
[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).]
committee, may I point out to him that at prior meetings we have always outnumbered the Liberals.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: If the hon. member wants to waste another hour on an alleged point of order, I am ready to listen to him. That is not a valid point of order.


Thomas Gordon Towers: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Madam Speaker, let them heckle all they want, it only shows their arrogance and their lack of concern for this crisis.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: If your party was concerned, there would be many more of your members in the House.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I congratulate the mover and seconder of the motion, my colleagues for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) and Joliette (Mr. LaSalle), and I thank you, Madam Speaker, for granting time for the debate. Mr. Coutu before the committee this afternoon informed the House that the situation is desperate.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but no mention of what was said or done in a committee can be allowed at this time. Is the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) rising on a point of order?


Thomas Gordon Towers: Yes, Madam Speaker. The point of order I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) through the Chair, is that apparently the government cannot manage the business of the House. The reason there were not more members in the agricultural committee this afternoon was because we were discussing agriculture in this chamber.


Eugene Whelan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, yesterday afternoon when PFAA was under discussion in this House there were no more than four Conservative members in the chamber, so there were a lot of members who could have been in the agricultural committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I suggest to all hon. members, and especially to the hon. member for Lot-biniere, that it is highly irregular to talk about assiduity in the House at this time and during this debate. The hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack).


André-Gilles Fortin: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Madam Speaker; I had not yet dealt with assiduity, but now that the Minister of Agriculture is here, instead of playing politics and accusing Progressive Conservative members of not being there, surely he should take advantage of this debate, thanks to the initiative of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), to advise us of the steps the government will take, instead of letting this debate continue forever and fruitlessly.
April 16, 1975


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I am indeed gratified that my remarks are causing some reaction in the Liberal ranks. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture knows what I am about to say. I do not have to quote the origin of my information, but I got it not very far from where I got the other. There is an immediate danger that an estimated 40,000 hogs could be prematurely dumped and sacrificed on an already sluggish market as a result of this illegal deprivation of feed to the farmers resulting from the action of the longshoremen. Does anybody want to contest that statement? Yet the government still does nothing.
About a month ago we had a similar situation on the west coast, the stoppage of our world grain trade by the grain handlers in Vancouver. This stoppage went on for more than three months and the government would not act. The official opposition acted. We forced a debate on the question, and while it was going on a settlement was reached. But it took two weeks more of procrastination and protest to get the grain handlers back to work and the grain moving.
We now have a similar situation, this time in the east. So far the government has done nothing. It says it is studying the situation. I hope it is. It is waiting to read the temperature-Celsius-of the farmers of Quebec. If anything is done the opposition deserves top marks and credit for standing up tonight for justice for the Quebec farmer in this ill-defined just society, headed by a Liberal government which refuses so frequently to govern. Even with a clear majority it still refuses to govern.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: You are still living back in 1958.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Let me remind them that the clear majority granted to them was granted in good part by the farmers of Quebec, which is part of their power base.
Tonight the cabinet is watching the press and the level of publicity from this debate. Last night's Ottawa Journal had this to say. There was a report headed "Cabinet may order men back" and it went on to say:
The cabinet is studying the possibility of forcing striking Quebec longshoremen back to work, Prime Minister Trudeau said Tuesday.
I hope it is, and that it has the guts to do it. What is there to study? All the cabinet need do is act and legislate the longshoremen back to work. If it cannot do this, then it could order an injunction giving needy farmers and their starving cattle, hogs and poultry access to the grain supplies in the Quebec elevators which are so fanatically and illegally picketed, thus withholding grain from the public. This reminds me of the ancient Bishop Hatto of Bingen who would give his hungry people no food.
I call upon the Prime Minister, the cabinet, and government benches, on behalf of the Quebec farmers and feeders, to put an end to this impasse by seeing to it that feed is provided to the livestock of Quebec farmers. In yesterday's Ottawa Citizen there was a picture with a news item showing Quebec trucks lined up at the Prescott elevator to load up with feed grains to be transported to Quebec to help in this serious situation. As a member representing the riding of Frontenac-Lennox and Addington in eastern Ontario, I hope our Prescott elevator supplies help allevi-
Feed. Grain
ate the shortage and play a helpful role. But there are, of course, limits to supply, and Quebec's problem this week could become our problem in Ontario next week. Then if we run out of grain and the longshoremen, abetted by this do-nothing Liberalism here on Parliament Hill, continue to control the situation and feed remains unavailable in Trois-Rivieres, Quebec and Montreal, most of eastern Canada will then be helpless and immobilized as far as this phase of our food production is concerned.
The government has a duty to perform, which is to stop this illegal sideshow run by the longshoremen's union at the elevators in Quebec. Their strike is no doubt a legal one, but their action in picketing grain suppliers is illegal. They are not classed as grain handlers, and their action is victimizing the farmers and feeders of the province of Quebec, starving their livestock and crippling and disrupting the production of food in this country. This must be stopped-immediately, forthwith, and now. I call upon our philosophic Prime Minister, his supine cabinet and his bewildered and misled followers, to govern themselves accordingly and move to alleviate this hardship and injustice that is being perpetrated upon the farmers and feeders of the province of Quebec.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, after six hours of debate that I watched with interest, you will understand no doubt that I will try to limit my intervention in a gesture of friendship for my colleagues on this side of the House in particular who described the situation in great detail and explained to all members of this House that their colleagues on the government side were unanimous in deploring the urgency of the situation and the importance of finding a solution in the near future.
During this debate, Madam Speaker, I was particularly struck by the extremely sensible comments about Quebecers by my colleagues of the official opposition. And if I recall, a few years ago when the party opposite was in power, I was not a member of this House but I was nevertheless following what was happening here in the House of Commons and for having consulted abundantly the pieces of legislation that were passed at that time I remember quite well that eastern Canada and eastern farmers did not obtain to the best of my recollection legislations suited to the needs of Quebec farmers. Without wanting to pass any final judgement, perhaps I might be permitted to consider and hear with a little skepticism that sudden interest and somewhat extreme manifestation from members opposite for Quebec farmers.
I remember a few minutes ago, or let us rather say a few hours ago, hearing a member of the Official Opposition who did us the courtesy of saying a few words in French, but I must add that those few words in French indicated to me rather clearly that if he had a certain, at least apparent, respect for one of the official languages which is that of the man talking to you, there was a rather obvious lack of understanding of what is a French-Speaking Canadian and the way he acts in politics.
I think our friends opposite too often identify the activities of Quebec members with bombastic speeches and

April 16, 1975
Feed Grain
cutting interventions in the House of Commons or elsewhere.
I think those who somewhat know us realize that we have some sort of lobbying methods which may be more important and more efficient within the framework of a party, and which consist of regular meetings with the ministers concerned and official and often unofficial representations to them, which should not necessarily be identified with those long speeches intended, as my friends opposite have often said, "to be on the record".
That is not our line, and I would invite my friends on the other side to stop telling liberal members from Quebec that we do not speak up enough in the House. I respect them enough to respect their way of doing things and stepping in in due time, and I hope they will show their respect for our personality which leads us to act by using the means we think most efficient in the way we think most appropriate in the interest of our constituents and in the interest of the Quebec people as a whole.
Madam Speaker, it should no doubt be recognized that our debate tonight represents an extremely important step in the dispute we have been discussing for several hours.
I also think that the tribute we paid to the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) seconded by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), was well deserved. I think the hon. member for Bellechasse in particular, and even my friend from Joliette with some reservations, on the whole made interesting points, but I think what we should keep in mind tonight at this late hour and as this debate drives to a close, is the fact that we should understand that all parties represented here in the House of Commons should unite to understand how important it is to make the government realize that it is urgent not to consider in detail the situation but to take a decision.
I think that, as a government member, it is my duty to endorse the action that will be taken by the minister concerned. On that point, I trust him entirely, and I urge him not only to consider the emergency of the situation but also to take action since, in my opinion, the situation has reached a degree which warrants government intervention. Even though I respect, as most members do, the workers' right to strike, even though I accept straight away that collective bargaining formula, I think public interest demands, at the present time, that the government take the matter into its own hands and take the action requested by the circumstances and which, to my opinion, justifies the drafting and tabling of special legislation. I think we must not dodge the issue. It is of course easy to try to protect altogether the worker, the union, the government and the opposition and to adopt a middle of the road solution. But I think that period is over with, and, as a government member, I think the representations submitted to the Minister of Agriculture are likely to indicate to him that the problem has reached such a point as to warrant government action, and I am convinced that hon. members opposite will be the first to support a legislation designed to enable Quebec farmers to get supplies, as they have the right to do, in order to distribute to Quebec consumers the food they need for their families.


An hon. Member:: It is very important.


Gilles Marceau: Madam Speaker, I think that... Oh, I am sorry, things are changing so quickly, Mr. Speaker; I think, looking at all of us here tonight, at this time when both hands of the clock are meeting, that it would perhaps be the time for all parties to join together. It may be the time for each of us, irrespective of the political party we belong to, of our nationality, of our cultures or language, to understand that the situation the Quebec farmers are now requiring that we join together and, that in a movement of collective solidarity, we tell the Minister of Agriculture that we trust him, that we urge him to take immediate and concrete action to meet the needs of Quebec farmers and at the same time of the Canadian people who is looking at our government, who trusts them and will continue to trust them and to support them for the action they will take hopefully very soon.


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, leave has been granted to the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) to move the adjournment of this House, pursuant to Standing Order 26, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the continuing longshoremen's strike in the ports of Quebec City, Trois-Rivieres and Montreal which prevents millers from getting the feed grain supplies normally required for animal feed, and endangers the life of thousands of animals.
May I commend the hon. member for Bellechasse and the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) for bringing in such a timely motion, and may I commend all hon. members who have, and are, participating in the debate at this late hour. I see the time is now 2.15 a.m., and after listening to the debate for some 6 hours and 15 minutes I feel somewhat like the man who married a widow who had eight children. Everything that had to be said has been said, and everything that had to be done has been done- by the opposition side only. We have urged this government to action, but now all we can do is hope that the Liberal administration will react in a positive way to the extent that these ills will be cured with regard to the crippling situation we have now in Quebec.


Albert Béchard: You did not hear the last speaker.


Peter Elzinga: The hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack) attempted to gather opinions for some individuals from the Quebec region on this depressing problem. One individual he questioned appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture on behalf of the Pork Council of Canada. I should like to relate to the House the opposition which the hon. member met from the Liberal members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. It was their feeling that they did not have to discuss this pressing problem. This is just another example of the Liberal arrogance we have been experiencing and it is typical of their approach to the serious problems facing us as a nation.
The reason we enjoy our liberty now is that in the past people were allowed to speak out. People had enough brains to reject what was false and to hold on to the truth. I submit that that should be the basis of our public policy
April 16, 1975

in Canada today. Yet we see attempts time and time again by this Liberal administration to muffle members of the House. There is also an indication that the government does not know, or is not completely aware of the facts regarding this strike. On April 8, as recorded in Hansard at page 4593, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) said:
Mr. Speaker, according to information I have received today most people still have some stocks of grain and there is no real loss of feed stocks. That is, no livestock or poultry are going without feed. We are watching the situation very closely and moving as much as we possibly can by all means, as I have said.
Two days later, the Minister of Agriculture abruptly changed his mind. As recorded in Hansard of April 10 at page 4672, he said:
Mr. Speaker, the condition is rapidly deteriorating and unless injunctions are obtained to disallow the picketing at the elevators in Quebec City and Trois-Rivieres, there will be some loss of poultry and livestock. We know people are being asked to share the feed that is in the area and feed is being trucked in from Montreal and Prescott. We do not think, however, that this will be sufficient to look after the needs that will be there in the next day or two.
I would like to share, now, with the House points that were brought out in conversation with the millers' association. Contrary to the statements made by the Minister of Agriculture, the association feels that the situation is reaching dramatic proportions. They are preparing an injunction to force the port in Trois-Rivieres to open if the situation does not change by the weekend. They are confusing "provisions" with "abcess". The minister said that there seems to be enough grain. The millers' association says that the grain might be there, but they do not have access to it. Producers were leading their stock to slaughter in Beauce last week, and this week it is mostly in Nicolet, St-Hyacinthe and Yamaska. Farmers are blaming this on lack of feed grain.
Producers usually replenish their supplies every three or four days. If the grain is available in Prescott, producers cannot truck it from there every three or four days. Producers are not even thinking of the cost of the strike to them in terms of increased grain costs; their main concern is to get enough feed for their stock. If producers have to truck the grain from Thunder Bay or Prescott, the increased cost of the grain would be prohibitive. In Quebec, trucks were able to pass on Saturday and Sunday, but in Montreal and Trois-Rivieres they cannot. Some producers in southern Quebec have already sent some calves to slaughter because of feed shortage, calves that had not attained the normal weight for slaughter. In the province in general, producers will have to slaughter shortly because they cannot change the feeding habits of their stock.
It appears that the minister is unaware of the real truth, and I would like to pose a couple of questions to him in my closing comments because this government is not coming forward with the answers which the country is looking for. It is my sincere hope that the Canadian people will not again be disappointed. Since the hour is late and, as I said earlier, what needs to be said has been said, all we need now is action from the government. I ask the minister if he plans to introduce special legislation to deal with this serious situation. The Canadian people are looking to him for action.
Feed Grain


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Speaker, without downgrating the importance of the special debate which started at 8 o'clock last evening, I must inform opposition members that we on the government side have not waited for this debate to make representations to the Minister of Agriculture or to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. I for one made such representations a number of times, and other names were quoted here by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or by my colleague from Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard). A couple of other names should be added, among others that of the member for Pontiac (Mr. Lefebvre). I join my colleagues to appeal to both parties affected by the strike in Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec City. I urge them to take into serious consideration the human problem referred to by the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine. It is not only a matter of moving feed grain. The sending of goods to the Magdalen Islands for instance is also involved.
I was amazed at the remarks by the hon. members for Saint-Hyacinthe, Rocky Mountain (Messrs. Wagner and Clark) concerning the contribution of the minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs. They seem to be surprised that the minister participated in this debate. They implied that the minister was speaking on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture.
The hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) could speak on his own behalf for various reasons. I shall mention at least two. First, as minister of Consumer affairs, he knows full well that if the strike goes on in Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec City, this will mean production costs to cattle producers in Quebec will go up. And you know what happens in this case, higher costs are often passed on to the consumer.
So I am glad to do justice to the hon. member for Papineau.
We all know, on the government side, that the hon. member for Papineau has been very concerned for several years by the question of feed grains supplies for Quebec. As recently as yesterday afternoon, cabinet ministers were accused of not having been present yesterday evening or during the night at this emergency debate. I have been told by authorized sources, Mr. Speaker, that representatives of the FPA have met yesterday afternoon with three members of the cabinet of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who are the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet); those representatives have informed those ministers of the problems which the cattle producers are presently facing in the current situation. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Corriveau) have set forth a list of measures the government has been taking for some time to ensure a normal supply to Quebec cattlemen. But I have to catch the attention of the minister of Agriculture and also, hopefully, of the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. I believe there is an area in need of improvement, Mr. Speaker. It is that

April 16, 1975
Feed Grain
of railway transportation to the East. I heard representations by those responsible for purchasing at the Cooperative Agricole Papineau. Since last January, railway transportation of grain to the East has been extremely limited, and I am asking the Minister of Agriculture to make the necessary representations to whom it may concern. Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, I get the impression that the authorities of the Canadian Wheat Board do not consider consumption important for the domestic market. I know that foreign markets are very important for Western wheat producers, but I believe that the priority must be given to domestic consumers. I join my colleague for Portneuf (Mr. Bussieres) and the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) in asking the minister to give more power to the Canadian Livestock Feed Board. Mr. Speaker, I have made this suggestion several times in the past and I know that it will not be welcome among Western members. But we Easterners want the Canadian Livestock Feed Board to have more power to ensure a regular supply for Eastern livestock producers.
Therefore, I would like to suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that he seriously consider the increased costs that the present situation will bring about for livestock producers, and I hope that if he needs any help from members on the government side to support his requests from the President of the Treasury Board or the Cabinet we shall be behind him so that he may offset in one way or another the additional cost that Quebec cattle producers will have to bear because of the present situation.
Let me make a further suggestion which was made to me by someone who deals in feed grain because mention is often made of millers, even in the motion of the hon. member for Bellechasse. Not only are millers experiencing difficulties in obtaining supplies of feed grain, but cooperatives as well. One of the suggestions made by a representative of a very important cooperative on the Quebec side of the Ottawa Valley is that the government should perhaps seriously consider building regional storage facilities which could be supplied by rail. Among others, I think of the Cooperative Agricole Papineau which has its headquarters and plant in Plaisance. Since it is located west of Montreal, it would be much more economic for it to get its supplies by rail-the Canadian Pacific serves our area-if we had such a warehouse in our area.
In conclusion, I join with all the members who have already participate in this debate to urge once again the parties involved in this labour dispute affecting the three ports I mentioned to carry on serious negotiations around a table and arrived at a settlement soon, so that our Quebec producers will be normally supplied with feed grain.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I must warmly congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) as the previous speakers have done it, for his excellent job in proposing to the House a motion under Standing Order 26 in order to discuss this urgent matter of feed grain supplies and in particular the strike now going on in the province of Quebec.
I think that every member of this House is prepared to congratulate the hon. member for Bellechasse. First because he himself is a farmer and as such, is deeply concerned by the problem of agriculture of which he has a

thorough knowledge. Since we have had the opportunity of taking advantage of his knowledge in this House, we have been able to appreciate his devotion and concern over this matter in the committee on agriculture.
However, I heard my hon. colleagues tonight and this afternoon try to take the credit that the hon. member for Bellechasse deserves for putting this motion forward. Things have been said on the Progressive Conservative side by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) and on the government side through the question asked by the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard), who pretended to be the first one to raise the matter yesterday when he asked a question to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I invite the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack) to check in Hansard where he will see, on page 4651 of the Debates of House of Commons of April 9, that the hon. member for Bellechasse was the first one to raise this matter of the strike in the ports of Quebec City, Montreal and Trois-Rivieres. On page 4651 of Hansard- and I shall not read again the motion he has put forward in its whole-he said and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 26, I request that an emergency debate be held on the feed grain supply in eastern Canada, and more particularly in Quebec.
And he listed all the effects of this strike that had been going on for more than 7 days and has worsened from day-to-day.
Yet, the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Made-leine tries to take the credit that the hon. member for Bellechasse entirely deserves. I remember quite well that in 1962 when we arrived in this House as a result of the general election of 1962, we raised for the first time the feed grain issue in Eastern Canada.
I remember quite well that the government of that time, day after day, week after week, promised to come up with a solution and now, in 1975, we are still at grips with the same problem. After 13 years, the situation is exactly the same. There is still no solution. We heard pious wishes from all sides and I do not know how many Ministers of Agriculture made promises though we are still facing the same problem today. This is an important issue which threatens our economy and Canadian consumers and tonight we heard some interesting comments from government members. For instance, I liked the comments made by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) who did not simply state: I have confidence in the minister and he will solve the whole problem in due time. He asked instead for immediate measures and we fully agree with him.
I also support the comments of the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Bussieres) who said that there should not be any problem for a government which can use an airplane overnight to move food products to the Western world or to Bangladesh. Why could it not move food products from Western Canada to the port of Montreal or to the farm cooperative of Granby or to any farm centre in Eastern Canada?
Mr. Speaker, there are members who have been kind to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), as if they were afraid to expose themselves.
April 16, 1975

There were members who said tonight: we have other means of pressure, we have other solutions within our reach to force the government to act. We of the opposition have been blamed for wanting to make speeches and have been told that such speeches would not move grain. If our speeches did not move grain, they have made it possible for some members from the province of Quebec to express their views on as important a problem as the one we are faced with today. They have enabled some Liberal members who did not have the opportunity before-I do not say they did not avail themselves of it, but they did not have it before-to speak openly in the House, and enabled us to see what they think of the problem.
Mr. Speaker, there is no need to say this is an important problem, since several members have stressed it. The strike that is now going on in the ports of Trois-Rivieres, Montreal and Quebec is jeopardizing food supply in Quebec for several months to come.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take either the millers' or the employers' side, I do not want to take one side, but I would like to refer you to some court judgments. I admit as everybody does that the strike between employers and employees is legal. However, if I refer to a judgment in a trial of Dusessoy and Hersees, in a case of retail clerks union put before Mr. Justice Aylesworth, mentioned in Carrothers at page 462, and I quote:


An hon. Member:: What page?


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Page 462 and you can refer to it.


An hon. Member:: And what date?


Gilbert F. Rondeau: In 1963, you will see that this is a very interesting judgment which has a direct relation to the present conflict and I quote:
. . . the secondary strike pickets (that is those who prevent the entrance of the employer's suppliers or customers) were declared illegal because they violate the right of trade. These cases present some remarkable aspects, not only because of the prohibition of secondary action, but also because the decisions were taken while considering the conflicting interests. The proposal was as follows:
"The right... of the respondent to take part in picket lines in a secondary strike ... must give way ...
So the members of this House should be serious and refer to that judgment.
. . . must give way to the right of the petitioner to trade; the first right... is exercised for the benefit of a particular category, while the second is a much more fundamental and important right... as it is exercised for the benefit and in the interest of the community as a whole. For the purpose of the act. .. the interests of the community as a whole must outweigh those of the individual or of a particular group of individuals".
Mr. Speaker, unlike those who talk nonsense on the other side, those judgments still have their full value, particularly in the current conflict. We recognize the right of longshoremen to strike, but on the other hand, we oppose picket lines which hinder trade or deny the right to supply millers. Those judgments should allow the Minister of Agriculture to take more urgent measures, more effective means to meet the situation.
Mr. Speaker, Quebec producers now have problems, consumers will have some too. Moreover, farm animals have also theirs, not because of animals but because of the
Feed Grain
stupidity of men who have been looking for solutions since 1962, but offer nothing except wishful thinking.
Mr. Speaker, if government members reproach us for speaking too much, we are really anxious to see concrete action not expedient, temporary measures, but positive measures which will solve the problem of feed grains in eastern Canada and will do so for good.
Mr. Speaker, the problem in this House is, in fact, similar to the difficulties in the Babel Tower. In a country as affluent as ours, in a country where grain is abundant, there is a transportation problem between the East and the West. I support the action of the member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Lambert) in this House. If Liberal members have, as they alleged, efficient leverage and better means than speeches and words, well, now is the time to prove it.
It is easy to blame the opposition, but only the government party can act. Government members are the ones who can take measures. Tomorrow, when Canadian consumption will be jeopardized, when hundreds and thousands of farmers will be on the brink of bankruptcy because a situation has been allowed to deteriorate, it might be too late. I believe that in such situations supply is involved and we should be able to agree that supply is vitally important for a province. Our Quebec farmers will soon lose millions of dollars.
I would not want the Minister of Agriculture to put forward, by way of a solution, the same ones I have seen since 1962. Anytime there were losses, the Minister of Agriculture offered long term loans to compensate for the losses suffered. The Minister of Agriculture should not suggest as a solution to delay the interests on losses brought about by a situation which the government could have settled otherwise.
When we see such absurd solutions as the ones we have known up to now, some so-called proposals or solutions suggested by the ministers, we are aware that farmers and producers are always a little poorer, always more in debt and that financiers are always a little richer.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Gilbert F. Rondeau: It is pitiful to note that in our economy on a whole for the past two years, the various groups of producers have been in a bad way. Only the banks and their branches as well as monopolies which belong to banks have prospered. The finance companies and banks have prospered. The financiers have thrived, but farmers as other social classes have been in a bad way. All we can offer them is debts, all we can offer them is deferred interests.
Mr. Speaker, since 1962, in every budget speech in, every throne speech, I heard about saving measures to help farmers, but those saving measures, before being tabled in this House, always amounted to the same thing: a bigger farm loan than before, more debts than before and then, we hear government members boasting of having saved agriculture.
Well, Mr. Speaker, when one sees the farmers' situation, when one sees that the number of farmers is decreasing every day in Canada, that debts on farm loans, farm

April 16, 1975
Feed Grain
securities, securities on machinery, on livestock constantly increase, that banks are doing a roaring trade with farmers, and that today we still are in a situation where there is a huge difference between the prices paid to western producers for their production, for barley, oats and corn and other grains, and the price paid by eastern farmers for the same production, for the same grains, well, that scandal was exposed.
I have been hearing this same old story, this tune, those pious wishes, since 1962. No solution came out of them. No solution since how long? We suggested grain elevators in eastern Canada where grain could be taken at harvest time and be moved immediately so as to prevent any labour dispute.
The hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Bussieres) admitted a while ago in this House, and he was right-


An hon. Member:: He spoke well.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Yes, he spoke well and I congratulate him. And when the government-
I am not here to reproach him, when I hear an hon. member say something sensible, I am the first to recognize it. The government can solve the national harbours problem tonight if they want to. The minister could have solved the problem seven, ten days ago.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) spoke well.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: The hon. member for Lapointe, and I said so a while ago. He was not satisfied with flattering the minister, he asked him to bring in a serious solution. When animals begin to destroy one another, it is absurd, it is a perfect Babel, and the opposition members are not responsible for this state of affairs. Those responsible, those who maintained or supported and tolerated this situation are those now sitting on the front benches, those who have the power to solve problems but do nothing, lead nowhere, administer nothing, but let the bureaucrats decide everything. I am anxious to see the Minister of Agriculture assume his role as he wanted, as he wished and as he advocated when he was a member on the government side and his predecessor was sitting in the Chair of the Minister of Agriculture, the former member for Medicine Hat. I recall very clearly that when the present Minister of Agriculture was sitting not far from us, across the aisle, he seemed to know all the answers then. He would grumble and criticize-although not too loudly-the then minister of agriculture, and I would rely on the present Minister of Agriculture. However, I am somewhat disappointed by the time he needs to make up his mind, although I am willing to admit something: he may be competent and knowledgeable, but I feel he is prevented from acting by his officials who make decisions much too often in all departments. These are the real administrators of this country, while ministers only pretend to administer their respective departments. Ministers are not responsible for decisionmaking.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. The hon. member for Richelieu.


Mr. Florian Cote (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, at this late hour, I shall try to be very brief and perhaps overlook all

that has been said since the start of the sitting which, to my mind has lasted much too long.
Contrary to some of my colleagues, I am not so pleased with the debate held tonight. For some, it was a happy occasion because they were able to express themselves. If I were the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), I would be happy because, as he said, he learned something from the Liberals tonight.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Prosper Boulanger: No points of order are allowed after two
o'clock.


An hon. Member:: It is too late.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Shefford on a point of order.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the House that the only thing I learned tonight from the Liberal members, is that two of them I suspected of having Le Page glue on their seats, finally managed to prove that it was not so.


Florian Côté: Just as he does not know anything in agriculture, he does not know what a point of order is, because he would not have risen to say what he has just said.
As I said earlier, I have not learned anything from what has been said tonight, except that I fear there was more harm than good done to the farming community, to the consumer and to the negociations where tension will increase because everyone looks up, because there might be "exploitation" at some time. I shall be very glad if it is not the case, but I am afraid that such will be the result of the dabate. I find it unfortunate that the opposition members ... to try to be as brief as possible, I should like them to understand. First, I do not blame the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), but I did not appreciate the way he accused the hon. members from Quebec. I do not like what the hon. member for Shefford has just done but I appreciate the spirit in which the mover put this motion forward, because I think he did it with good will. I want to prevent new accusations from one side and the other. When there is an election like the one which has just been held and when it is said that Quebec liberals do not know the problems of agriculture in Quebec, you, Social Credit and Progressive Conservatives, are told that the farmers decided to trust us. So, it is useless to hurl accusations to one another and to be hurt after such a long debate. Personally, I do not mind this very much, because I know who people trust and I think that the Minister of Agriculture knows it too. Because when leaders of APU, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and Cooperative federee come to Ottawa, we see them long before they go to the Social Crediters or the Progressive Conservatives, or even to the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) to whom I am very grateful. So let us forget all that and be practical. Very often we do not rise because we have very easy ways to promote our views. No mention was ever made of the discreet but very significant work done by the hon. member for Saint-Jean (Mr. Smith). He fights to
April 16, 1975

maintain the rights ... and if the hon. member for Shef-ford (Mr. Rondeau) came more often to the agriculture committee sessions, where I never see him, he would realize why perhaps all parties in this House agree that he is one of the best. In that committee, work gets done without fights.
I would now say a few things while the minister is there. The opposition will think I speak for the first time. What I shall say every Liberal member has said, because we know when to ask for measures. But I shall make to the Minister of Agriculture a suggestion we all put up together. On that, I ask the member for Joliette to convince the members in his party, in order to avoid repetition of this present hardship to the Quebec farmers and also to the Quebec consumers. I recommended three years ago to the agriculture committee that the Canadian Feed Board be given more powers, as mentioned by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Bussieres) and the member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont). The first ones to object were the Progressive Conservatives. Let us not forget it was the western ones. At one time I would have liked the member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) to rise . ..


Prosper Boulanger: He resigned at that time.


Florian Côté: No, that's true, he was in the opposition.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), on a point of order.


Roch La Salle: I shall be very brief, Mr. Speaker, and mostly very practical. The hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cote) is inviting me to rise on this question; I would like to remind him that they have been in power for about 30 years and that they should stop creating opposition about things that they have not themselves realized. You have the power, you should solve these problems!


Florian Côté: Thank you for this reminder-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Richelieu says that as a government member, he has many more effective means of action than the opposition and he also says that three years ago, he recommended more power for the Canadian Livestock Feed Board. I would like him to explain to me what use government members are if he was not able to convince his own solid government to implement this idea three years ago.


Florian Côté: First of all, I shall reply to the question of the hon. member for Joliette who did not let me finish. I was not accusing him of not having risen. He could not rise to make representations on behalf of his party because he did not belong to it at the time-


Prosper Boulanger: He had resigned.
Feed Grain


Florian Côté: If he had let me finish, I would have told him that I was not accusing him. I was saying what I would have wanted at the time. Now I think that he may have the chance soon to convince his colleagues to support us so that we may be unanimous in the agriculture committee. In reply to the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) I would say that if we were not so efficient, they would have increased their representation in the last elections. It is in the province of Quebec that farmers told us that we were capable, us Liberals, that we had the best solutions. The people said so, not us.
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the possibility of agriculture in eastern Canada relying on at least 10 million bushels of wheat from the Wheat Board which has them available for international trade and supplies for internal consumption in eastern Canada. But the Canadian Wheat Board sees to it that there are available supplies and means of transport for shipping it in eastern Canada and in the four corners of the country.
So, in support of what my hon. colleague from Gatineau (Mr. Clermont) and the other one from Portneuf (Mr. Bussieres) are saying, this problem has been existing for three years now. Two years ago the grain handlers began to strike in the fall. Last year we were concerned with petroleum. This year we are not having quite the same problem, but we fear a shortage. Farmers have that feeling even if there is still grain in eastern Canada. Such fears, such apprehensions encourage speculation from dealers.
If there were any available ... I do not know who would be paying the bill. I am not sure about that. Would it be the farmers' organizations, either the APU or the provincial government. What matters is that this grain would be in eastern Canada and would be shipped before the closing of the St. Lawrence Seaway. Thus it would cost us less to ship this grain by boat than by rail. So we would be sure that if there is speculation during a strike it would not be to the detriment of farmers.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say for those who perhaps are not listening to us but who will be reading about it in the newspapers that at the present time there are injunctions-


An hon. Member:: Injunctions.


Florian Côté: -yes, injunctions and thank you. Injunctions have been claimed, but unfortunately, the injunctions claimed to date have been asked for by bodies which buy grain to resell it to farmers. The farmer has not asked for injunctions. I have asked representatives of the FPA this afternoon, and I hope that the farmers in the Trois-Rivieres area, who own large quantities of grains, will ask themselves for injunctions, several of them. They might not be respected, but at least if the farmer as such, the one who is really involved, would ask for injunctions, there might be some pressure on the government, on the state, on the provincial government, for as far as the Department of Justice is concerned, at the provincial police level, laws are not complied with, and pressure will be put to bear on this jurisdiction. In Ottawa, the federal government will be urged to settle problems, not by incurring a reprimand

April 16, 1975
Feed Grain
or seeking to revolt, for what is being done here tonight is of no help for agriculture.
I will therefore conclude, Mr. Speaker, by asking the hon. member for Joliette to convince the Progressive Conservative members to give their consent for the Canadian Wheat Board, which their predecessors established in 1929, to be more generous, since we are presently experiencing difficulties in getting a bit of Western grains, about ten million bushels, for Eastern Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is rather late in the night, and I feel we should go and get some rest.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) has just said-


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Bellechasse on a point of order.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: May I ask the Chair if I could put a question to the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cote) who has just completed his speech, for I would like to ask him a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have to remind the hon. member that he should ask the hon. member for Richelieu and not the Chair.


Florian Côté: It is agreed, Mr. Speaker.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have always been told that I was to address the Chair in order to tell an hon. member something. So, in these circumstances, I would ask the hon. member through you if he agrees that the Canadian Parliament has a very great responsibility with respect to problems which might arise within our society and that it is the duty of members of Parliament, be they on the opposition side or on the government side, to raise those questions and problems when they arise, or under the standing orders of our assembly, in order to focus the attention of the Cabinet on some particular question and that such a way of acting is not unreasonable. Does the hon. member agree with that way of looking at things?


Florian Côté: I believe I do, Mr. Speaker, I am ready to accept that with some reservations. We should be careful. Considering the very broad jurisdiction of the Canadian Parliament and its administrative procedures, the acts which were passed and the powers some agencies were interested with, when it comes to believing that one is right in trying to urge government to pass bills faster than the acts which were designed by that very Parliament, then I have reservations. That is why I am saying that as members of Parliament we should try not to prove people that we have been strong, that we loved them; crying on the left shoulder knowing that favors may be obtained from the right one, that is what my reservations are about.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, the answer just given by my colleague, the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cote) was a small part of my speech. I should not exceed 20

minutes since the mover and his party, the Social Credit of Canada are willing to hear me for about 20 minutes. I will try to interest them and make them understand certain things. I do not know as member for a small town on the island of Montreal, if they wonder why I rise to speak.
First, a few hours ago, I was talking with one of my best friends who is simply a longshoreman, an honest man who has earned his living for 30 years in Montreal harbour and who knows that there has been a debate taking place here since 8 o'clock. The first thing he did was to congratulate the mover, the member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), for this emergency debate, and that proves that he is a serious and sincere man. But he told me, a few hours ago, that we should not forget that the speeches we will hear tonight could bring certain of our members to start a small rebellion that there is a more serious conflict than you would think. Then I asked him the reason? I am speaking as a Montrealer, not as a farmer because I do not know agriculture. I do not know if that will please some of my colleagues in my party because that is the opinion of a worker, a longshoreman but expressed so eloquently by my colleague from Richelieu (Mr. Cote). He is afraid that we are preparing an early measure forcing them to return to work. They have been fearing a little for a few hours already. Is it that fear-
I do not have any details to give because there is a part I can tell, and the other does not concern the House.
I will tell you the part that concerns us. When one talks of a friend, of a worker, if one does not have respect for the friendship of a worker who confides anything to you, that is a proof that one does not have any dignity at all.
So the part I want to tell you about a man I did not and I will not name is that he fears the government, and particularly when he refers to the Minister of Agriculture, that the government should proceed too rapidly to reach a decision within a few hours. I answered: There is no question of a few hours.


An hon. Member:: No.


Prosper Boulanger: There is a question of allowing you to use all your rights, all your privileges because your strike is legal and to use all that to defend yourselves. But, on the other hand, we, in the government-I was talking about Parliament then-members both in power and in the Opposition also have a duty to fulfill, that of ensuring that the people of this country are well served. At present, there is no mistake about it, you are depriving farmers of part of their income and also run the risk of depriving the consumer. In a few weeks, if that ever lasts a few weeks, there will be a danger of depriving people of food and by the same token a danger of speculation called the black market of prices, etc.
So, we have a duty to fulfill, and a decision must be made. Our friend from Bellechasse, I agree, was serious. On the other hand, I told my hon. friend the expert from the area of Joliette (Mr. La Salle), that is perhaps less serious. When one thinks that he pretended at one time to be a defender of Quebec, of French Canada, and he left the party because he was badly treated in that party, but he has not yet succeeded to convince anybody of his western
April 16, 1975

group to help us bring back order, then justice in the Eastern Canada. You have done nothing of the kind.
Mr. Speaker, it is the first time that I attack him in this House-


Roch La Salle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Prosper Boulanger: It is the first time that I attack him in this House, but it is not the last one.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Joliette rises on a point of order.


Roch La Salle: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, because of the words used by the hon. member for Lange-lier-


Some hon. Members:: Mercier!


Roch La Salle: I mean Mercier (Mr. Boulanger).
As the Progressive Conservative Party was not aware of the interests of Quebec, he may have been late during this debate, and as I think he met a longshoreman who took part of his time, I would like to tell him that we never got such co-operation and support as regards the problem of Quebec from members of that party from every province, as many government members have shown, even members of the Social Credit party.
Then, I think that the hon. member for Mercier is late with these news.


Prosper Boulanger: I will invite him to join another party.
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if it is a valid point of order, but he understood quite well that I was in no way referring to what the Progressive Conservative party has just said tonight; I was referring to its past, he knows quite well what I mean, he understood me pretty well. However, I want to show him tonight that it is not easy for you in the official Opposition, with three good guys from Quebec, to be understood by millionaires of Western Canada. Now, you know everything.
We, Easterners, from Quebec, the Maritimes or elsewhere, who are unable to make ourselves understood by your party and you do not even realize it. You are trying to blame the government, that is the Liberal party that is leading the country. You should at least understand that we have absolute majority, a mandate from the population and that means: We trust you. Lead the country. There is an expression that says: A government must govern. But we have enough diplomacy to choose a typical Minister of Agriculture, an expert in his field. He is not a comedian, he has no desire to make jokes.
The Minister of Agriculture has a responsibility and he intends to assume it and discharge his duty. But you know there are some petty politicians in the opposition, in the Social Credit Party who believe that they can solve all the troubles in the world with a stroke of the pen. That is called clownery. And it is to be heard here only. It is time for one among us to let you know it. It is easy to drift in demagogy. There is nothing easier than to criticize. But did you accomplish miracles when you were in power in Vancouver, British Columbia? You saw what happened there. Anyhow we will not speak about it, because I do not
Feed Grain
wish to deviate from the subject. Moreover, I did not say to the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) that I had met the longshoreman, but that I had spoken to him on the phone.
Coming back to what he told me, it is true that I heard my colleagues say to the Minister: You will immediately take some action, you will see to it right now. Granted, I speak as a Montreal member who meets the labourers and the blue collars all day long and all week-ends long, to express myself correctly. I agree that important measures have to be taken, but mind you: we should not ask our longshoremen what we did not dare ask those out West; we should not be too strict either. Let us not forget that out West, before they decided to take emergency measures, they sought our advice; they even criticised us and almost compelled us to let things go for nearly seven weeks. I am not asking you to waste seven weeks, because the matter is really an emergency, but I ask the Minister of Agriculture, and even my colleagues are asking you to decide, knowing your sound judgment, your sense of responsibility, I ask you when the time comes to prepare a draft, either for the return to work or to request a stoppage, once again I ask you to consult with the Minister of Labour and see whether it would be possible to settle the problem within 24 hours. Because we can cause a lot of damage to these blue-collar workers, the Montreal longshoremen. I sympathize with the farmers and I understand them very well, although I merely eat the food that they are producing for us; it will certainly require greater efforts to produce it, and I am sure that the farmer is earnestly and honorably earning his income. There must be justice, so that they can be paid like everybody. I agree that they have low incomes. Yet, we must stop complaining that all farmers are starving, living in distress, and without a cent in their pockets. This is exaggeration again. Personally, I was born in a small village called St. Eugene de l'lslet; my parents had a farm, and although I cannot say that I grew in the field, it was certainly not far from it: this was meant as a pun. When I inherited my father's farm, I was so scared that I gave it away to my eldest brother and said: do whatever you want with it. I was scared. Well, if I was scared at that tender age, you realize how unhappy my brother was with it during the 30 years he kept it. It is true that it is not that profitable. However, we still have a decision to make, which means nearly what you had in mind to do shortly-I will not tell you what it was-and I know that you are going to do it, I know that you have understood your Liberal colleagues. I hope that a decision will be made shortly and that it will benefit both parties, that justice will come for everybody and that the Opposition will have lamented in vain.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I raise the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Bellechasse on a question of privilege.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I do this in all honesty and I know the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) will understand why.
I am willing to understand that in the heat of the debate he used expressions which he knows, having been the Acting Speaker in the House of Commons, are unparlia-

April 16, 1975

Feed Grain
mentary. For me, I do not accept to see the speeches of the Social Credit members termed as clownery.
I think we have-


Prosper Boulanger: There is nothing unparliamentary about that!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I go on
with my question of privilege. I would not want the Canadian people to have the impression that the members of this House, in the exercise of their duties, act like clowns. They act as members responsible to the Canadian Parliament, to the people, and I would request the Chair to ask the hon. member for Mercier to please withdraw this unparliamentary expression of "clownery" attached to members as respectable as any other member in this House. I therefore request a decision from the Chair.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) is asking the Chair. Order, please. If hon. members will kindly let the Chair decide and not take the decision themselves, the hon. member for Bellechasse is raising a question of privilege regarding certain comments made by the hon. member for Mercier.
Nevertheless, I am not too anxious to accept the invitation extended by the hon. member for Bellechasse. This in fact is an invitation extended to the Chair asking to pass judgment on the comments of the hon. member for Mercier. The words used by the hon. member without necessarily being those one hears in the great British parliamentarism, or its way of saying things, do not have ~ anything anti-parliamentary. I do not think his words have attacked the reputation of any member, I do not think his remarks, at least those I have heard, have reflected on the frankness of hon. members. It is a matter of appreciation. If the hon. member for Bellechasse wants to give the Chair an opportunity to review the proceedings of tonight's debate tomorrow, and if he himself deems it appropriate to raise that question again on tomorrow, he can do it when orders of the day are called.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I accept your decision, but do you allow me to think that what he might have attributed to us can be thought of them?


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I raise the question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Mercier on a question of privilege.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, all I have to say on this question of privilege is as I have been in this House since 1962, I have heard the Leader of the Social Credit Party (Mr. Caouette) and all the members of the same party using at any time the word "bouffon" or "boufonnerie" and even others terms. I wonder why my good friend the hon. member for Bellechasse tries to put a question of privilege about this by pretending that it is not an antiparliamentary expression, since I heard his leader using it many times.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. In view of this late hour I shall invite the hon. members to go back to the main issue

of the debate. As it is very late, it may be easy to have exchanges under a question of privilege or a point of order but as there are a few more members who wish to take the floor to express their views concerning the problem of grain, this matter which has been so well presented by the hon. member for Bellechasse, I hope that these members as the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard) will have the opportunity to take the floor and to express their views before breakfast tomorrow morning. The hon. member for Drummond.


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, at 3:25 a.m. I shall be very very brief. I wish first to congratulate the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) for having moved this motion. I do not doubt his sincerity, on the contrary, but what surprised me in this debate is that we have accomplished the miracle to say in seven hours and 25 minutes what the Prime Minister said in less than a minute in an answer to a question put during the oral question period yesterday afternoon.
I am referring to the public interest which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) emphasized when he spoke of the interest of the farmers and consumers, as opposed to the right to strike. While being very conscious of the public interest demonstrated very ably during the many interventions in this debate, I hope that, as a result, the strikers, first of all, will get the message and stop interfering with the movement of feed grains; otherwise, I am convinced the government, as it usually does, will assume its responsibilities if the situation continues to deteriorate.
In closing, I stress the fact that unfortunately some tried through this debate to enhance their personal prestige instead of considering the public interest, simply and solely, as they should have.


Denis Éthier: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in this debate tonight and I would have preferred to let all the Quebec members speak, since this is a problem that concerns mainly the Quebec people. However, since the Opposition has so mischievously attacked my Liberal colleagues from Quebec, I deemed it my duty, as an Ontario member, to take part in the debate so as to tell the Canadian people what the Quebec Liberal members are doing for agriculture.
First of all, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) for giving us this opportunity to discuss publicly what my colleagues from Quebec as well as all of us discuss in caucus, namely the farmer's problems, to settle this dispute, to correct this unfortunate situation existing in Quebec since the beginning of the longshoremen's strike.
The hon. members from Quebec, my Liberal colleagues have again and again, since the beginning of this conflict made representations to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to give the assurance to the Quebec producers that they would not be deprived of the supplies needed for their poultry and their cattle. I believe those representations were fruitful, considering this strike situation that we all regret. I repeat that their representations were fruitful for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (M. Ouellet) ably explained at the beginning of
April 16, 1975

this debate what this government had done up to now to provide for the supplies needed by our Quebec producers.
As I said earlier, in spite of the longshoremen's strike we all deplore, contrarily to the members of the opposition, we do not reprove this strike but we regret it.
I deemed it my duty to participate in this debate because my constituency is adjacent to the "belle province", and not to refute the arguments from opposition members, not to bring upon myself political publicity like the hon. members for Joliette and Bellechasse (Mr. La Salle and Mr. Lambert) but to back up my Liberal colleagues from Quebec for their constant dedication for their farmers.
Since I represent myself a country riding, I understand very well the anguish and the unrest which the Quebec producers are experiencing presently. During all this debate, nothing has been suggested by the opposition as a solution to this sad situation, except maybe by the hon. member for Bellechasse. All the others have kept criticizing.
Mr. Speaker, a number of my colleagues on the government side made a positive contribution to this debate. First the hon. member for Shefford, I believe.


An hon. Member:: No, not Shefford.


Denis Éthier: I can have a word or two about the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau). He said in his speach that the situation could have been settled a week ago, ten days ago. It could have been solved in one day. Of course, when they think of mingling in a labour dispute. We, on the liberal side, respect the bargaining process. We still believe in negotiated agreements. I simply wish to state briefly to join those among us, from either side, who urge that we speak together and that our voice be heard by longshoremen, so that they make an exception in view of the present hardship to Quebec farmers and that they open picket lines, so that farmers get their supplies.
In view of the late hour, I shall conclude by urging members and Quebec producers themselves to trust the minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). I urge you to compare the improvement in agriculture since the hon. Eugene Whelan took over this portfolio two years ago. I am certain that if we give him our confidence, the situation will improve, hopefully without interfering in a labour dispute.
Feed Grain


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to take the time of the House now, but I shall take only one minute. I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to inform the House that today, April 17, 1975, at 3.30 a.m., is the birthday of the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Duquet). I shall not mention his age today, but on behalf of all members of this House, I wish him a Happy Birthday.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, before this debate comes to an end may I, on behalf of all my colleagues in this chamber, thank the officers of the House, the interpreters, the Hansard reporters, the heads of the page staff, and the protective staff who have worked so diligently and remained with us through this long and important debate.
May I call it 3.30 a.m. Mr. Speaker? Thank you and good morning.


Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, as it is very late, I would like to join my colleagues of the opposition in thanking sincerely all the people who contributed to the efforts made to explain to the Canadian people the present problems in Quebec and particularly in our three main ports. I thank those who are present and even those who are not. I am sure that tomorrow they will notice that some of their colleagues spent the night not at doing nothing, but at discussing a serious problem, which concerns the Westerners who spoke tonight as much as the Easterners who did the same. Finally, Mr. Speaker, we can say that tonight there were no Westerners and no Easterners but Canadians, members of Parliament who are Canadians, who are truly Canadian and wanted to discuss the problems, be they from Quebec, from Ontario, from the East or from the West. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the interests of the people that we represent must always come first in this House and I believe that we must put aside all party politics and try to solve their problems.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I believe that those who contributed to the printing of the Hansard and who helped us to express ourselves truly deserve sincere congratulations.


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, may I apologize for my raspy voice which I have had since last night. I do suggest that it is regrettable that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has not been able to rise in the House and present to us some kind of solution to the problem that was brought before the House tonight. I regret that very much.

April 16, 1975
Feed Grain


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, after listening carefully from last night on to this late hour to all those who took part in this debate, I should like to let you know that I am of those who believe in all sincerity that in our modern times it is not necessary for us members of Parliament to spend a whole night to try and impress upon Canadians that members of Parliament in Ottawa do their job. Even if we have emergency debates, I sincerely believe it is not necessarily to have them dragging on until half past three or four o'clock in the morning so that we can boldly say on the next day: We did not adjourn until whatever hour in the morning. You will realize too, Mr. Speaker, that we still have work to do tomorrow, particularly those who will sit on committees and that this makes it a fairly difficult task for us.

There is no doubt in my mind that the fact that we are sitting here all night will not impress any constituents or in fact any Canadians, and if there are any hon. members who say so I must tell them that I do not agree with them because I believe, as was mentioned by an hon. member on this side a while ago, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) very ably answered the question that was put to him in the House by saying that the matter was being looked after, and also that the Department of Agriculture was doing its best. We know what the problems are.
I do not think hon. members should sit here all night and play the ball game in which each of them rises and voices an opinion in repetition of what was said all night. We are not accomplishing anything. While we are talking about the rules and regulations of the House, I suggest that a provision should be brought in to stop-here I will use a word which might not be to the liking of every one- this nonsensical discussion which is taking place until the wee hours of the morning.


Robert Elgin McKinley: I rise on a point of order. In some ways I have to agree with the hon. member who has just spoken. I think it is kind of hon. members to have stayed around until this late hour, but we have to recognize the fact that there are problems facing this country. There are also problems within the cabinet, such as the problem of abortion. There is a fight going on between two ministers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please, I invite the hon. member to express his point of order. Right now he is prolonging the debate on the arguments put forward by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay). I do not wish to prevent the hon. member from raising a point of order, but according to our rules he is not entitled to speak a second time. If he wishes to make his point of order, he should do so directly.


Robert Elgin McKinley: I agree with you, Mr. Speaker. We must recognize that there are problems facing this country and sometimes it is up to the opposition to make the government take action I think all members of the opposition were trying to do that today. If the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) does not like it, then all I can say to him is that if it is too hot, he should get out of the kitchen.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I rise on the same point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. This is hardly a point of order.


Peter Elzinga: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I agree sincerely with the point made by the hon. member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. McKinley). I must say that I am very disappointed with the point made by the hon. member for St. Boniface. He should not be so quick to judge others by his own character traits.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: On the same question of privileges


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Surely they can put their message across before twelve o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must say that none of the remarks that have been made were points of order. Perhaps I should add that the best judges of our actions are the people of Canada. I think we should leave it to them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could get the unanimous agreement of members who are here that it is time for us to go home.


Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, since it is 3.40 a.m., I shall only take a few minutes to congratulate both movers of the motion and ask the minister whether he thinks Quebec is still part of the Confederation. I want to ask him to take the necessary measures to solve the problem.
April 16, 1975


Mr. J.-Roland Comtois (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, I listened rather attentively to most of' the speeches made tonight. To conclude, I think there is an urgency to revise the rules of this House. I am perhaps repeating what some said, I think the point was made, the problems were pointed out, and in the future those who sit on that committee should perhaps agree in an emergency debate on limiting the participation of the different parties represented in this House to a few members only. In this way, the same purpose would be met in a much shorter period of time. I know there are other members on the government side who have not spoken; just like me, they listened and could easily intervene at this point, but I think that out of decency this debate should be brought to an end at this point. I want to point out once again before I sit down
Feed Grain
that I think the rules are being abused when debates are prolonged in this fashion and that those same rules should be amended as soon as possible.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 26 (13) I am convinced, and definitively, that this debate is over.
I therefore declare the motion carried.
Pursuant to Standing Order 2(1) the House stands adjourned until two o'clock p.m.
At 3.34 a.m. the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to Standing Order.
t

Thursday, April 17, 1975