1976-10-27

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to put a question of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the importance of the principle of decentralization of departments and agencies of the Government of Canada to those areas which benefit, but also to public servants and their families who are affected thereby, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the President of the Treasury Board make a statement on motions at the earliest opportunity:
(a)	Disclosing the long range plans of the government for such decentralization including the number of employees and the agencies to be decentralized;
(b)	The basis upon which it has consulted and will consult with public service representatives, including the notice period to employees it considers appropriate;
(c)	Its plans to absorb into other agencies those public servants who for legitimate family, personal or other reasons cannot move;
so that the people of Canada and the Public servants involved can be assured that there is a full public disclosure of a master plan.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be presented to the House only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENSION ACT
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, because Remembrance Day is only two weeks away I believe there is urgency to this motion. That is why I ask leave to present it under Standing Order 43. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That this House urges the government to introduce an amendment to the Pension Act to provide for pro-rata pensions to be paid as of right to widows of veterans whose disability pensions were less than 48 per cent, as recommended in the Woods Report, in the Hermann Report, and in several reports of the
Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, and that notice of the introduction of such an amendment be given prior to Remembrance Day, 1976.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House for the presentation of such a motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, under S.O. 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss an urgent matter.
Considering that the CBC refuses to broadcast advertisements designed to inform the consumer, and I am referring to the French advertisement sponsored by credit unions and the Consumer Protection Board under the slogan "Le gros bon sens"; considering also that the privately owned TV network saw fit to air those advertisements which are partly free, thus recognizing the importance of informing the consumer; and finally, considering that the state network gets subsidies from public funds and that its audience is entitled to the same services, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle):
That the House unanimously urge the Secretary of State to suggest that the CBC change its code of ethics to allow the broadcasting of advertisements which consumers are entitled to.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

October 27, 1976
Advance Payments for Crops
across the way can come up with valid, constructive and well reasoned suggestions for modifications to the legislation, the Minister of Agriculture for Canada will be the first to accept those ideas and try to incorporate them in the legislation so that this bill can be, in fact, the very best bill possible for Canadian farmers all across the country.
One other point hon. gentlemen across the way made had to do with the matter of interest charges. I shall not deal with that extensively because the answer is already on the record in the intervention made earlier today by the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. 1 suppose the point opposition members are trying to make is that somehow this legislation treats farmers in eastern Canada, and farmers who are not grain producers in the Wheat Board area, differently from the cash payment legislation relating to specific grain, which legislation has been on the statute books for some time.
The point is that there has been an effort in both pieces of legislation dealing with grain and other crops to treat producers in exactly the same way, especially in relation to interest. If the advance is repaid in the normal fashion as contemplated by the legislation and as has been demonstrated by our experience with the grain legislation, then of course interest is not payable. But in a case where the advance is in default, or where the producer chooses to repay it in terms of cash instead of the delivery of crop, then of course the advance does begin to attract interest.
It is probably important once again that members know the history of that particular provision which really results from the experience with the grain legislation. Originally the cash advance legislation dealing with grain did not contain a provision calling for the payment of interest. It was upon the recommendation of farmers and farm organizations that that provision was put in, in order to avoid what otherwise would be an abuse of legislation if an advance were taken with no intention of delivering the grain but rather in order to have the advance as an interest-free loan to be used for other purposes.
Farmers and farm organizations in western Canada perceived that as an abuse of the legislation, and recommended that the cash advance legislation relating to grain should be changed to recognize that problem. The amendments were made to the legislation a considerable time ago. Obviously they have been very well received and very widely approved. The legislation the Minister of Agriculture is now presenting is of course legislation which follows upon exactly the same principle. It does not specifically relate to grain, but of course expands the principle so that it will relate to a number of other crops across Canada whether they be produced in western Canada or in any other part of the country.
I think the principle the Minister of Agriculture has put before the House in the form of this particular legislation is very good; it is sound. This is a principle which I think farmers in parts of Canada who are not used to the grains industry on the prairies will welcome when they see this kind of provision, and I know producers across the country are very anxious to see this legislation proceed through the House of Commons and the Standing Committee on Agriculture so that the advantages of cash advances for crops, other than grains, will become available to farmers across the country.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate on Bill C-2 I cannot help but note that the hon. member ended his remarks by wishing the bill very speedy passage through the House because of the great need for this legislation across Canada. There would have been a great deal more speed had he not recited all the little goodies he thinks his great idol has brought before agriculture in Canada. He even went so far as to suggest that it was a great stroke of business to change the Wheat Board Act so that the final payment cheques would not go out in the same year. He did not say that the reason that happened was that they were paid out on October 1 of one year because there was an election on October 30 and they wanted to make certain that the farmers knew who was paying out the money. It kind of backfired that time.
Then he went on to suggest that the speakers on this side of the House who held up the grain stabilization bill in 1971 would rue the day. He did not say that any astute statistician or mathematician who studied the facts should come to the opposition members and thank us because the price of wheat was so low that in no way could we have been wrong in holding up that piece of legislation in 1971.


Mr. Goodale:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will permit a queston in due course, but not right now. You had 25 minutes to speak and have allowed me only five. At the time of the stabilization bill the price of wheat was so low that there was no way the farmer could benefit from stabilization at that low price. When it was passed in the last session, at a time when the price of wheat was $5 a bushel, the concept was different. All farmers who participated in the grain stabilization program should be truly grateful for the Conservative party and the work it did. I might mention also in all fairness the assistance we received from the NDP on that particular point. They like to claim all the credit, and I think I am being over-generous in giving them a little.
The interesting thing about Bill C-2 is that this is the first piece of federal legislation which also assists the Alberta treasury branch and says that the Alberta treasury branch will be considered as a bank. There have been many debates before in this House of Commons and I have often argued in respect of similar legislation that the Alberta treasury branch should be included.
I well remember when a former minister of agriculture, my friend's predecessor, the then hon. member for Medicine Hat, and I argued that point. He was unreceptive to it. So I want to thank the minister. He has learned from the errors of his predecessor. However, he has not learned the lesson in respect of his grand design about controlling everything. This piece of legislation smacks of a little bit more control being sought by the federal government. Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being six o'clock this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
October 27, 1976


Ralph Goodale: Amendments have been approved by the House, the pool is now fully effective and is sanctioned by law. This is a subject we considered earlier, this spring, in debate.
Other changes include the new quota system, the block shipping system, the producer-election of the advisory committee to the Wheat Board which has now been formalized by an amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act, a poll among rapeseed producers about the preferred method of rapeseed marketing, the purchase of 6,000 grain hopper cars for the exclusive use of grain movement in western Canada, a boxcar repair program, the Mants Report on boxcar allocation procedures, the appointment of port co-ordinators for Thunder Bay and Vancouver, and the Snavely Commission on the cost of transporting grain by rail, and the Hall Commission on grain handling and transportation.
I could not leave this extensive, important and impressive list of achievements relating to western agriculture without referring specifically to a measure which members on the other side of the House would prefer to forget because they fought it every step of the way. They know it will be to their continual discredit that on the floor of the House of Commons they battled the Western Grain Stabilization Plan, which was a plan brought forward by the government in an attempt to alleviate the effects of those recurring "bust years" in grain incomes, a plan which has been well received by grain producers and farm organizations, and one which the opposition knows very well has received a warm response from western Canadian farmers. They would prefer not to see it on the statute books because they know it will stand there as a credit to this administration, and to their discredit, because they tried to block it and prevent it becoming law.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about operation LIFT.


Ralph Goodale: The hon. member across the way likes to refer to operation LIFT. I have noticed something very curious about the opposition-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with Bill C-2. I have sat here with a great deal of patience listening to the hon. member making an election speech as though an election were coming up, reciting all the Liberals have done. I believe that at this point, so early in the session, some degree of relevancy to the subject matter before us for consideration should be adhered to. I can well understand that as the session proceeds into an election year, maybe in 1977, members opposite will want to trot out all the little goodies for which they have been responsible, and send their speeches home to their constituents. But surely after only a few days of the session have elapsed, we can stick to the legislation before the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: 1 think the hon. member might have strayed a bit, but he was referring to the bill-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: -and he should be allowed to continue.
Advance Payments for Crops


Ralph Goodale: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) had been in the House earlier today to hear the speeches of his hon. friends in connection with this bill. Most of what they had to say had nothing to do with the measure at all.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Two wrongs don't make a right.


Ralph Goodale: They referred to a number of extraneous matters, and the comments I have put on the record deal with the western grains industry, with legislation relating to grain, and with many of the points which members opposite raised, especially the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar who tried to convey to the country the impression that somehow there had been no activity affecting western agriculture. I believe the last I put on the record a few moments ago completely answered the point the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar was trying to make, and demonstrated that western agriculture has received a great deal of attention in the House of Commons, and will continue to receive attention.


Some hon. Members:: Get back to the bill.


An hon. Member:: Otto's little boy. Did Otto approve that speech?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Filibustering the first piece of legislation from that side.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. I think the hon. gentleman should be allowed to continue his speech.


Ralph Goodale: I can understand the sensitivity of hon. gentlemen across the way when it comes to the subject of western agriculture because they know, as I have demonstrated just now, that the list of achievements which I have placed on record is an impressive one. Canadian farmers regard it as impressive, and members opposite would rather not have that list repeated because it demonstrates their complete ineffectiveness. They would prefer not to have these things on record because they know it inures to their continuing discredit in western Canada.
Bill C-2-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ralph Goodale: -expands upon a principle which has worked effectively over the past few years, with some amendments, in the interest of western agriculture. It is a principle which farmers generally would like to see extended to other aspects of agriculture, and the Minister of Agriculture is now responding to that concern.
Hon. members across the way have made a number of comments suggesting that the Minister of Agriculture should listen carefully to what goes on in committee and accept suggestions for modification. I have read Bill C-2 and believe it to be sound, but one thing is clear about the position taken by the Minister of Agriculture when it comes to the proceedings of the standing committee. The minister is very receptive to ideas which come forward. I am sure if hon. gentlemen

October 27, 1976
Advance Payments for Crops
realistic and positive way to overcome the very considerable difficulty they were experiencing at that time.
What has been done in the period since those dark days of crisis that western agriculture was facing? I think of such things as expanded credit facilities and the long-term Government of Canada guarantees for the Canadian Wheat Board which have assisted that particular institution in western Canada to pursue more vigorously and effectively world markets for Canadian grains.


Mr. Towers:: Don't forget LIFT.


Ralph Goodale: It is significant too that in that period, beginning in the early seventies, the Canadian Wheat Board was encouraged by (She government and the minister responsible to pursue vigorously as we in Canada had never done before international markets for barley and feed grains. We are now a significant exporter of those particular grains and it is because of those efforts in the early seventies to win, keep and service those markets that we now have these very important markets for western Canadian feed grain producers.
We have as well the annual commitment by the government of Canada of $10 million toward a new market development fund to enhance grain marketing opportunities at home and abroad. Farmers and their organizations, as well as others, have taken advantage of this fund to develop and find new marketing opportunities.
We have as well new research facilities. I know my hon. friends opposite are very interested in this subject and we have joined in discussions on this question in the Standing Committee on Agriculture previously. Obviously research is an important matter in the field of agriculture and in this area we have seen some important developments, such as the new crop science division at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon which is doing significant work in the field of agricultural research, in addition to the normal research facilities of the Canadian Department of Agriculture. I think as well of the new protein-oil-starch pilot plant in Saskatoon which will shortly be doing important new work in developing new ways of processing our grains and oil seeds.
Then there is the two-price wheat program which was the subject of debate in previous sessions of this parliament. This was an important measure which, long after the hubbub of debate in the House subsided, has established very clearly its relevance and has paid dividends to western Canadian agriculture.
In the same period that we have been working on these matters, we have also substantially increased ttyg level of available cash advances to the western grain industry and have improved the ways in which those advances can be repaid. This, of course, refers to the amendments discussed in this House and approved by the House of Commons in previous sessions of parliament, under which legislation the available level of cash advances was increased to $15,000, with the repayment terms for farmers being made more broad and flexible, so that if farmers wished to avail themselves of the legislation cash advances could be more tailored to their

particular needs and to the way they ran their farming operations. That is probably a small, technical change which has taken place during the last few years, but an important one, one that shows the general upgrading and improvement of facilities available to western agriculture.
Of additional interest are the improvements in the timing of Canadian Wheat Board final payments and adjustment cheques. Often times in the past it seemed that these cheques would come at an unfortunate time, or at least not at the right time so far as the planning of a farmer's income and tax position was concerned. Amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act have corrected that particular situation and prevented the rather unfortunate development which occurred a couple of years ago when some farmers were perhaps caught by surprise and received two final payments in the one taxation year. In some cases this served to defeat their tax planning. It is, of course, the intention to make that income position as certain as it possibly can be, and changes in the Wheat Board Act have been passed by this parliament to deal with that particular aspect. I think as well of the implementation of the deferred cash ticket option for grain producers on the delivery of their grain so that, again, they can exercise greater control over their income position.
In another area I would mention the development which began to take place four years ago with the provision of reliable production and marketing information for producers to be placed in their hands in the spring, well in advance of seeding time. It is important that a farmer should be able to take advantage of that information to plan his production and marketing for the coming year. Because of a practice which has been implemented by the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, with the co-operation of the Department of Agriculture and the Wheat Board, information is compiled, prepared, and distributed to each farmer in the prairie region early in March each year so that he can have the best information which is available to production and marketing experts, and farmers can them make their own decisions based on the material they have.
Determined efforts have been made to remove the longstanding inequities which have existed in our system of domestic feed grains marketing in the past. This has been the subject of extensive and sometimes heated debate in the House, and it is important to remember that the government has now for many months been endeavouring to find that important national consensus as to the proper shape of a domestic feed grains marketing policy which will, with equity and effectiveness, meet the needs of grain producers and others engaged in agriculture in both the west and the east.
I think of another achievement which is significant in the establishment of a separate marketing pool for malting barley effective for the crop year 1975-76. This again has been the subject of discussion in the House of Commons earlier in the session.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It was last session.
October 27, 1976

government brought in advances for farm stored grain, there was concern that it might be abused. I am sure both ministers will hasten to agree that the application of that program has been exemplary, to say the least.
I am glad to see the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson) in the House. I know he is very interested in the problems of the west. I hope he will be vocal and tell this House what can be done for the west, what cabinet failed to do in the past, and about the many petitions which he made on behalf of western Canada which were turned down. I am sure the hon. member will perform a very useful function in the remaining days of this parliament.
I did not intend to speak very long. However, I did want to express in the strongest possible terms the concern of my colleagues and of people in western Canada with regard to the paucity of agricultural legislation, the absolute disregard the government has shown with respect to the agricultural industry. We are not led to believe the government has any interest in bringing forward legislation to improve the position of Canadian farmers.
It is not good enough for the Minister of Agriculture to continue to use the hackneyed phrase "things were never better for the farmer". The minister knows in his heart that is not the case. He knows the problems of the farmer are more serious than ever before. The farmer looks to the years ahead with apprehension. He does not have a sense of security with regard to government policies. He cannot look to the future with any degree of certainty.
The government must look seriously at farm input costs and assistance to farmers. Farming is a very substantial business. As I pointed out previously, for someone to get into any sort of farming operation in western Canada, he requires something in the vicinity of $150,000 to acquire a reasonable amount of land and equipment. It is difficult for someone earning a salary in the city to conceive of the amount of capital investment required to get into farming. The farmer looks ahead with apprehension because he knows the substantial amount of money that is required to get into farming.
There are many aspects of the law with regard to taxation and capital gains that this House must study. The government should bring in legislation to minimize the impact of death in a family and the turning over of the family farm to children or families of farmers who are no longer capable of, or interested in, carrying on the business of farming.
These are some of the concerns people talk to me about in my constituency and have discussed with my colleagues. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture, who I see is making notes, will reply to us about some of these concerns and that we will be able to get some very detailed consideration of our suggestions in committee. This may improve the effectiveness of the legislation which in principle I think we all heartily endorse, and for which we commend the minister on bringing forward at this time.
Advance Payments for Crops


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I should like to spend a few moments in this debate this afternoon discussing the general principles of Bill C-2, the cash advance legislation. 1 am interested in the tenor and tone of the debate up to this point since it has been, to this stage at least, dominated by westerners. I think it is all very well and good that those of us from that great part of the country should have the opportunity, as we do frequently, to put our particular concerns and points of view on the record on matters affecting agriculture, an industry very much germane to our way of life and to the economy of western Canada.
I think we should also consider the very important point that the legislation before us this afternoon is legislation that applies to farmers generally all across Canada, the expansion of something that has been available in western Canada with respect to grains for some considerable length of time, and has been very well received and approved by the farmers of western Canada.
The argument has been made, with some merit, that a principle that is so effective and well received should in fact be expanded and become available to producers in all parts of the country, so far as that is possible. In presenting this bill to the House the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is attempting to respond to that particular desire.
I was interested in the remarks of my hon. friend, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn), and the concerns he had about agriculture which he outlined in his concluding remarks. He particularly referred to the farmers in the western context, and that is a valid expression of concern. I think some of the same points apply to farmers in all parts of Canada. However, I think the tone he struck in the last few moments of his remarks might have been a little misleading in that they implied that very little had been done or was now being done to respond to the concerns of farmers.
It is probably useful to bear in mind some very recent history in this regard that might clear the waters that unfortunately, and perhaps inadvertently, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar tended to muddy. In trying to bring about that clarification I will deal specifically with the areas he was discussing, namely, the concerns of farmers in the prairie region which he and I both have the honour to represent in this House. I should then like to direct some specific remarks to some of the points which were raised earlier in the House having to do with agriculture on a broader scale, that is, within the national context with which this legislation deals.
It is important to remember some of the rather significant changes that have been brought about, particularly having to do with the grains industry in western Canada in the last four or five years as this government has attempted to respond to the concerns of grains producers. You do not have to think back very many years, Mr. Speaker, to the period between 1968 and 1971 when the grains industry of western Canada was facing nothing short of a crisis situation as far as the incomes of the grain producers were concerned. The government was faced with a challenge in assisting producers in a

October 27, 1976
Advance Payments for Crops
take place within the area designated. That, at any rate, is my interpretation. I ask, how will this bill affect a product which is traditionally traded across provincial borders, that is, traded interprovincially? Perhaps the minister will answer such questions during the committee stage. Will this bill apply to those products which customarily are traded interprovincially?
No doubt the government has in mind the best interests of farmers; unfortunately the government's intentions are by no means contained in the language of the bill. The two are entirely different. Mr. Speaker, a bill which empowers the minister to regulate, to choose the agencies to which money is to be paid and to lay down all the regulations which may be necessary for the administrator, is not satisfactory. It is contrary to the principles we espouse.


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I feel obliged to speak briefly on Bill C-2 which provides for advance payments with respect to crops other than those administered by the Canadian Wheat Board in its designated area. As my colleague said, it is nice to see the two ministers opposite who share responsibility for the agricultural industry sitting next to one another, conferring and doing their best to pilot this bill through the House. That, of course, immediately brings to mind something we have often discussed in the agricultural committee, the division of responsibility in certain fields of agriculture between the minister responsible for the Wheat Board and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). We all know of the difficulties connected with the administration of agricultural policy. However, the division of responsibility leads to duplication and overlapping, evident especially in legislation and programs relating to all agriculture in Canada.
I remind the minister that he was not able to listen to part of my speech in the throne speech debate. 1 had hoped, when he introduced the legislation, that he would refute the implication in the Speech from the Throne that this is the only legislation we shall see during the present session of parliament relating to agriculture. He did not deal with that matter when he spoke in the throne speech debate.
As I said previously, the Speech from the Throne is little but a philosophical exposition of what the government intends to place before parliament for dealing with various aspects of the economy and other matters. The particular bill we are now debating is, I submit, the only agricultural bill to which the Speech from the Throne makes reference. This bill attempts, inadequately, to continue a principle advanced originally by the Conservative government, the principle relating to advances on farm stored crops. If this is the total extent of the agricultural policy of the government, I am apprehensive about the importance it attaches to the Canadian agricultural industry.
I am glad the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board is here. I know he is aware of the circumstances. I hope he is planning action to meet some of the problems being faced in western Canada.

There is a possibility that net farm income in Saskatchewan will drop by some $200 million this year, notwithstanding the fact that we have had an exceptional yield of high quality. Farmers in Saskatchewan face increased costs that are phenomenal. Machinery costs are increasing far in excess of the guidelines laid down by the Anti-Inflation Board.
I appreciate that an attempt is being made here to extend the application of advance payments for farm stored crops. I hope that the government does not believe that, because it has made this gesture, this completes its responsibility to the farmer.
Problems also arise with good crops. Grain is stored in rather unsatisfactory circumstances on farms. We hope the system will be able to sell this grain. I hope there is an aggressive sales plan and that the government will be able to obtain a good price. A record grain yield has led to some grain being piled on the ground, in machinery sheds or other temporary storage. What steps is the government taking to ensure proper and safe storage of grain in western Canada needed because of the substantial crop yield we have this year? We are extremely grateful, if not to the government certainly to the deity, for the blessings we have had bestowed upon us this year.
I hope the minister will accept some of the constructive suggestions being made on this side with respect to this legislation. I ask him to tell us why there is a limitation on the application of this bill, as pointed out by the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), with regard to organizations which are apparently the only entity qualified to receive assistance under the provisions of the act. This will be somewhat of a restriction on the effectiveness of it.
I hope that in committee we will gain an understanding of the application of the bill. I trust the minister will be receptive to a full discussion and suggestions from interested farm groups, producer groups, and members on this side.
I am concerned about the fact that early in this session we are dealing with this particular piece of legislation. It is certainly an important bill. However, it is the only suggestion from the government side with regard to a policy providing for a viable agricultural industry in this country. It causes many of us on this side to be concerned about the priorities of this government at a time when the agricultural industry is and will be facing increased input costs.
In order for someone to get into farming today, he must have substantial backing. The minister should look very closely into this. I hope the minister will discuss this with the members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and be open to suggestions regarding amendments to the Farm Credit Corporation Act in order that improvements can be made in that legislation.
In terms of the application, granting, and repayment of credit, I am sure that everyone will agree that farmers are superior'to almost every other segment of society. They are the most trustworthy and have the best record with regard to repayment of their obligations. At the time a Conservative
October 27, 1976

It is somewhat difficult to understand where this bill would begin, where the price stabilization legislation would begin, or where either would leave off. There are some crops that you cannot store so it would be difficult to apply the bill to them. The marketing of potatoes, pears, and other fruit for processing, and indeed the marketing of most of the vegetables that grow in the early part of the season, would be outside the limits of the bill. Yet the intention of the bill is to relieve the farmer of his bank loan. Unless a price stabilization board is established immediately no relief will be available to the farmer under this bill.
Under what circumstances will payments be made to the farmer? This is not set out. There may be a regulation to cover this, of course. I think the minister should be ready to answer questions like this when the bill comes before committee, and if he has the information it could shorten the proceedings. Apparently the bill will not cover processing crops, but is there a special reason for this?
Let us assume the farmer is in arrears or default under the terms of the bill. What supplementary aid will be available to him? As I understand it, such default is defined as a legal obligation under this legislation and would impair any credit he might seek in succeeding years when it is time to plant. Is it the government's intention that he may receive the aid necessary to avoid default, or is he to be left in that position? Is there a relationship between this bill and any assistance he might receive under some other bill? I do not think the principle should be applied in such a way that the farmer does not get the help he needs. Will the market price be a factor in triggering this, or is this to be left to regulation?
It is interesting to watch the minister responsible for the Wheat Board standing guard over the Minister of Agriculture. Frankly I do not know which minister is infringing on the other. I thought the Minister of Agriculture was not his usual, bombastic self when introducing this bill on second reading. Perhaps he needs someone in the House to hold his hand. The minister's demeanour may be significant. Perhaps it has something to do with the policies he has espoused. I am glad to note both ministers sitting together. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture needs help.
I wonder if this bill is part of the minister's policy to coerce farmers not presently organized into joining organizations which meet with his approval. If that is his intent it is deplorable, and such policy is deplorable. As was mentioned, in Prince Edward Island there are multitudes of farm organizations which do not qualify as marketing agents and which, by virtue of the language of the bill as printed, will put their farmer members at a disadvantage.
The minister's intentions in this regard should be made clear. As well, how will the program be administered? Will it be administered perhaps with the help of provincial governments, as well as that of banks and the staff of the Department of Agriculture? How will this be done? Certainly it would not be proper to allow only card-carrying members of organiza-
Advance Payments for Crops
tions of which the minister approves to benefit from the legislation. That would not be in the best interests of democracy.
The government's incomplete program has forced provinces to establish their own programs for helping farmers. I was interested to note that when this bill was brought forward for second reading today, the headlines of one newspaper alluded to the expense the province of Ontario would be put to in providing support for its agricultural sector.


An hon. Member:: Have you seen the bill?


Mr. McCain:: We are told that the province is to spend some $70 million. Apparently the Liberal leader of Ontario says he will support the bill. I have not seen it. The leader of the Ontario New Democratic Party also approves the bill, so please do not be so critical. After all, if hon. members opposite are at one with their party colleagues in Quebec, they must also be at one with their party colleagues in Ontario. They are sending reinforcements to Quebec; perhaps they ought to send some to Ontario. Try that little twist.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Send the Minister of Agriculture.


Fred Alward McCain: I deplore the government's defaulting on its responsibilities in agriculture. Perhaps that course should be described as disgraceful. During the last ten years pretty well every minister in the Trudeau government has tried, on behalf of the government, to evade financial responsibilities connected with agriculture. If the government had not evaded them, British Columbia and Alberta would not have found it necessary to embark on a subsidy program. Other provinces of Canada would not have found such subsidy programs necessary. Pork producers, cow-calf operators, and others producing in the field of agriculture would not have found it necessary to approach their respective provincial governments for subsidies. Therefore it is clear that provincial governments are shouldering the responsibilities of the federal government. The provinces are staggering under the burden of subsidies, a burden which it is the ultimate responsibility of the federal government to shoulder.
I submit that if the benefits of this legislation are to be available only to card-carrying members of organizations acceptable to the minister, it represents a further default on the part of the federal government and is contrary to principles of Canadian democracy.
The regulatory provisions are an important part of the bill. The language is not clear. What is the precise meaning of clause 14 (a) which reads:
for determining, in relation to any crop, what is a significant portion of the crop in any area represented by an organization:
Other parts of clause 14 are equally vague.
We are debating a short bill, Mr. Speaker, an incomplete bill which purports to deal with a principle. I can only say that the drafting has been faulty. It is not clear.
Let me deal with another vague point. The bill says, in so many words, that the marketing of the product concerned shall

October 27, 1976
Advance Payments for Crops
where interest is referred to here. If there is a payment in cash rather than delivery of the goods, the interest comes into being, and the hon. member may recall-and I ask him to confirm this-that there were actual demands in the west for this kind of provision because it was felt that it was an abuse for someone with no intention of delivering a product to take the advance and then later repay in cash and try to have an interest free loan, which is not an advance against delivery. I am sure the hon. member will recall that in the western case.


Mr. Neil:: If that is the explanation, I accept it. I would have hoped that the Minister of Agriculture would have made this explanation initially. I can see the reason for it, but on the other hand if an individual farmer is in a position to pay in cash for a loan he has received, either by a cash advance from the Canadian Wheat Board or under this particular bill, I do not think he should be penalized for it. However, I think this is a clause we will discuss in more detail when we get into the committee stage of the bill.
As I said, it appears after reading the bill in some detail that we will have to spend considerable time in committee listening to representations from members of various organizations and producers to determine what their feelings are with respect to this bill. Quite frankly, as mentioned a few minutes ago, if the organization is to be the lender and has to do all the administrative work with respect to the loan, it seems to me that it would have been much simpler if the bill had contained provisions for the producer to borrow directly from the bank and to have the loan guaranteed by the federal government, because a bank is set up to lend money. Banks have the facilities and the staff to process loans; organizations do not, and the cost an organization would be put to as a result of handling the administration of these loans would have to be passed on to the producer.
It seems to me that in the long run if we consider the interest which is paid by an organization to a bank, and if we add to that the cost to the organization of administering the loan, the total cost of the program will be in excess of what it would cost if the producer borrowed directly from the bank. I would suspect as well that members of organizations will be reluctant to disclose the yield of their crop to the organizations because those organizations are usually made up of fellow producers. Certainly the producer organization would have to satisfy itself that the borrower will not default, and it would be necessary therefore that the borrower disclose the extent of his production to the organization.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, while I am in agreement with the basic principle of the bill I think we must take a good hard look at it in committee. I think we will have to request producer organizations and others for their input. I would suspect that after the committee meetings a number of amendments will be advanced to make this bill more satisfactory to the producers.
[Mr. Lang.)


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I think the greatest favour we could have done the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) today would have been to allow this thing to slide through immediately after his remarks. However, I think he needs the comments of the members of the House.
Aid to marketing has been pretty well neglected, with few exceptions, during the past ten years, and the principle of intended support to the agricultural industry is certainly espoused by every member of the opposition, regardless of party. The method by which the principle is to be adopted is of great concern, however. I wonder what percentage of the agricultural industry is organized. There has been a great deal of publicity about labour organization, and if my memory serves me correctly statistics show that 30 per cent of the labour force is organized and 70 per cent is not. But what percentage of farmers belong to an organization that will qualify them as producers entitled to the benefits of this bill?


Mr. Whelan:: Over 80 per cent.


Fred Alward McCain: Certainly commodities have been named which are not eligible, and there are large numbers of other items which are not eligible. A small percentage of potato farmers are organized and could take advantage of this legislation, but unless potato farmers, corn farmers, and other agricultural producers can exploit their membership in the Federation of Agriculture or some such organization as a means of using this bill, its benefits are not available to them.
In the case of the Price Stabilization Board, historically if there were not an organization per se which had the marketing, managing, and financing capability, there was provision in the legislation to allow the provincial minister to become the administrator of such a program in co-operation with the Government of Canada and perhaps the banks. Under this bill, however, there seems to be no opportunity for agriculture to organize to take advantage of advance payments. If this deficiency is not corrected before third reading I am afraid the minister will come in for a great deal of criticism.


Eugene Whelan: Prince Edward Island has a marketing board.


Fred Alward McCain: I do not argue that, but let us carry it one step further. Let us take the point that was made earlier that if the farmer pays the organization in cash then he is subject to interest charges. That was my understanding of the explanation. The Marketing Board of Prince Edward Island is not marketing potatoes. If that organization were used, the farmer would sell to the licensed dealer, who in turn would pass over the cash to the organization. He would not be operating within the literal limits of this bill, however, He might be operating within limits which the minister could call acceptable, but he would not be operating legally as the bill is written.
There are potato organizations in New Brunswick to which potato farmers belong. They are not agents through whom the farmer can market his crop and pay his bill in kind rather than cash to avoid interest payments, however. 1 think the minister should give this matter serious consideration.

will have to establish a granary system. We will either have to can commodities which cannot be stored for long periods of time, or freeze dry them or process them in some other way. Even potatoes can be freeze dried and can be processed into other forms, and in this way stored for long periods of time. This can only be done with proper storage facilities such as granaries. I suggest that Canadian farmers have not been sufficiently well off in the last ten years to be capable of developing a granary system which would provide long-term storage on their farms, with or without cash advances. If such a system is to be established, the government will have to provide some assistance such as has been provided for the storage of grains through terminal elevators and the country elevator system with the capacity to store a whole year's crop.
I do not see any mention in the bill of an effort being made to provide an orderly marketing arrangement either in this country or on a world basis. Therefore unless the provisions of this bill relate to grains which are not now covered by the Canadian Wheat Board cash advances, such as rapeseed, farm organizations as well as other agencies and even marketing agencies in Ontario will have to take some action with regard to some of the commodities that are named. They will have to make an input into those commodities before this legislation proves useful.
The sum of $200 million has been mentioned. I assume that this would cover cash advances on rapeseed. If that is so, then this should have been stated in the bill. I suggest to the minister that when he speaks about paying back cash advances within a year from September, some farmers might find difficulty with it. What do you do with a tomato crop, with potatoes, cherries, apples, or any other commodities which cannot be stored for longer periods of time? I think there are provinces like British Columbia which have some fruit storage facilities which could handle the situation for that period, but in most cases we are talking about two or three weeks.
When we are talking about perishable fruit and vegetable crops, we are talking about getting them on to the market. How long can you keep pumpkins, squash and so forth on the farm? They may be kept in a cellar for a little while, but they cannot be kept in a field or in a barn for very long. On the farm there is not a 12 month storage facility. We are talking about a couple of weeks. Many of the advantages in the cash advance programs which come under the Canadian Wheat Board cannot, as I understand it, be applied to root crop commodities and other commodities with which we in eastern Canada may be involved.
I look forward to the discussion in the committee. I certainly do not see anything which warrants a long debate in the committee, and I am not particularly interested in delaying the Minister of Agriculture. We may get on to something much more important if we allow this to pass. However, I would be very surprised if farm organizations are not interested in appearing and finding out just what they will be able to do if they are to participate in this $200 million. If nothing else
Advance Payments for Crops
interests them, it will be the sum of money we are going to put into this, and I hope that if the Minister of Agriculture has a brotherly love relationship with the Minister of Transport, and if he will turn this amount of money over to rapeseed producers in western Canada, then he should say so, and if not, I think some farm organizations will be very hard pressed to find out how they can take advantage of it.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, my remarks in connection with this bill will be relatively brief. I have had an opportunity to examine the bill in some detail, and it is obvious to me that the bill was not presented to or discussed with various farm organizations before it was prepared and submitted to this House. It is an unusual bill. As the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) said, it is either a simple bill or a complicated bill. It is typical of other bills we have been dealing with over the past several years. It is filled with inconsistencies, and it is difficult to interpret.
Looking at the bill it appears that an "organization" is the lending agency, as far as the bank is concerned, and there is a general description of an organization. It means an organization of producers. I look forward to getting a more detailed explanation of what organizations are entitled to participate, because it seems to me that there are very few organizations which have the staff, the administrative capacity or the bookkeeping facilities to handle loans under this legislation.
Certainly if widespread use is made by producers of the provisions of the bill, there will be many loans to process, there will be considerable bookwork and people will be required to make certain that the loans do not go into arrears, and when an administrative structure has to be set up to do this kind of thing, it will be costly.
The hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) spoke about the question of interest. There were also some comments made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and by the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, I gather, suggesting that the producer would not be called upon to pay any interest. I was hoping that, when the hon. member for Elgin completed his remarks, the Minister of Agriculture or the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board would have stood up and given an explanation.
However, if we examine clause 7 on page 6 of the bill, it
says, and I quote:
Where a producer repays all or part of an advance made to him by an organization by direct payment to the organization under clause 5 (b)(i)(B) or (C), no interest is payable on the first
(a)	$500, or
(b)	10 per cent of the advance,
whichever is the lesser, so paid by him, if the advance is fully repaid without default.


Mr. Lang:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question. I wonder if the hon. member will agree that a few years ago in the House we inserted exactly this kind of provision into the western bill on cash advances, and that in effect if the product is delivered as originally agreed upon, no interest is paid, as is apparent in the first part of the clause

October 27, 1976
Advance Payments for Crops


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I was sorry to see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) leave because I had the notion, when one of my colleagues was making a few comments, that he would explain this bill, if that is possible. I am surprised that none of the western members have indicated that this bill may be a bill to provide cash payments for rapeseed because it was not possible to do it in any other way. That might be what this bill is all about. If it is, then the Minister of Transport could probably tell us that better than the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan).


Eugene Whelan: Why?


William Arnold Peters: The minister asks why. I am sure there has been some monkey business in the past about rapeseed. Perhaps there is a wish to provide for cash payments and this is really in the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board rather than the Department of Agriculture. Possibly it could be explained in that way.
I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture has not referred this to the farm organizations so that there would be some feed-back.


Eugene Whelan: It is a false statement to say that they did not know anything about it.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's comments. I have been a little worried about the Canadian Press representative in the gallery because, after seeing the bill and having listened to the minister and the remarks made by members of the opposition, I am sure he would have one hell of a time writing about the bill. This is either the most complicated or the most simple legislation we have had. It either does not say anything or it says everything.
If we are talking about grain crops we are talking about growing crops, we are talking about much of agriculture in this country in which over-production is easy. Perhaps we are talking about a food bank in which to hold the crops produced in the current year so that the producer will be able to continue in business in the coming year. This may be the beginning of such a program. If so, it is over-simplified and is not the kind of legislation that would allow the kind of impetus that would make this possible.
I think the minister will agree, because of the remarks he made at the World Food Conference in Rome, that we are prepared to over-produce in this country if markets are provided on a long-term basis, or if we produce for an export market in commodities where there is a world need. But we will not accomplish that through a cash advance program. We will have to establish a granary operated by the government in which the farmers would be able to place their crops, and then the nation as a whole would be in a position to carry out the kind of commitment Canada would be making toward a world food bank.
I find that one section of the bill eliminates cash advances for those crops under the Canadian Wheat Board which would

have been excluded in any case and which are covered under other legislation. It is indicated that the crops concerned are grains, oil seeds, root crops and other field grown crops that are prescribed. I have not heard any farm organization, apart from rapeseed producers, asking for cash advances. I have not even heard producers of potatoes, who have been in trouble for many years in the Maritimes and in parts of Ontario, asking for a cash advance.
There is a season when potatoes are sold and the producers want a reasonable return on their product. They must either be sold in the crop year or disposed of for uses other than table use, or else a cash advance would be of no great advantage. Where it would be of advantage is on those commodities that can be stored beyond the normal sales period. Many of them can be held for considerably less than 12 months. For those crops that can be held longer than that, cash advances would make sense because they would permit the farmer to prepare for the next year's crop without having received the full return for the previous crop. That was the reason for cash advances being paid in western Canada in the years when wheat sales were almost nonexistent. The cash advance was paid so as to provide the farmer with enough money to produce the second crop. In all cases we wrote in protection which allowed the Wheat Board to collect the advance when the sales were made, and if the sales were not made in the second year, then the cash advance could be paid out again on the second crop. This could go on for several years, as has been the case on a number of occasions.
I can see the advantages of this bill with respect to rapeseed and other oil seeds in western Canada which come under the Wheat Board. I do not know why efforts have been made to put these commodities in the same position as grain under the Canadian Wheat Board. It may be that Ontario has specific problems in the same field which would warrant cash advances. But it seems to me that cash advances are being offered to farmers who are not in a position to take advantage of them. It is mentioned that these farmers must form an organization, but the word organization is so undefined that one does not know whether it involves a marketing agency. Is a marketing agency going to take possession of the stock, and is the minister really thinking of bringing in another bill? I certainly hope he is thinking of bringing in a bill which would enable farmers to store crops against future deliveries.
It seems to me that whether we make an advance to a farm unit or to an organization, we are really talking about crops that can be stored from one year to another, crops which in times of abundance can be stored in a granary for future consumption not only by Canadian consumers but also for world consumption. This would even out the ups and downs which take place in various countries because of unpredictable weather conditions. There may well come a day when many of our crops will have to be stored, not so as to gain a higher price but so as to provide for the hungry people of the world. Canada can play a role in such a situation.
If we reach a degree of sophistication which will allow us to provide a guaranteed supply for international consumption, we
October 27, 1976

was that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) saw fit to pay an indirect tribute to my right hon. friend from Prince Albert by saying that the advance payments policy went back to the year 1958 when my right hon. friend was Prime Minister of Canada. Now, 18 years later, the Minister of Agriculture is still hanging on to the coat-tails of the Prime Minister of that day, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), proving the worth of a policy which has stood the industry in good stead over the years.
The problem is that the Minister of Agriculture does not seem able to perceive the depth of the policy which the then Prime Minister, the right hon. member for Prince Albert, was seeking to implement. The government of that day brought in this policy in an effort to alleviate the plight of farmers in those years because of the indiscretions of the previous Liberal administration. Advance payments, however good the scheme may be, do not take the place of good, sound policies of administration involving trade, etc.
I was somewhat concerned this afternoon to hear the Minister of Agriculture, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave), say he was referring to supply-management as implemented by the President of the United States. I was wondering whether this devious Minister of Agriculture was trying to implement further control over agriculture in Canada through the presentation of this legislation.


Eugene Whelan: R. B. Bennett was accused of doing that when he started the Wheat Board.


Thomas Gordon Towers: It is a good job there is a Conservative government every few years to bring in and put in place policies which will stand the industry in good stead. The hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) mentioned the fact that the bill has come to us without notes or explanation. This concerns me because, if one turns to the back page, one finds that the whole bill appears to be tied up in regulations. Why cannot these regulations be spelled out in the legislation itself rather than being left to the Minister of Agriculture and the governor in council?
There will be a great requirement for adequate administration if this program is to work. I am reminded of a story I read long ago. I believe it was in "Uncle Tom's Cabin", one of the slaves had to weigh his cotton at the end of the day's work and, if his cotton did not weigh up, he did not receive his rations. I fear that this is what the Minister of Agriculture will do by regulation, that is, he will demand that there be producer marketing boards or producer groups in control of the producer if the producer is to qualify for any payment.
Reference was made to the Canadian Wheat Board and to the distribution of advance payments through that medium. The key to the success of that program is the permit book. I would warn all producers who become involved in this program to ensure they do not lose any of the freedom which they are justly proud of at the present time. They will have to exercise a
Advance Payments for Crops
great deal of good judgment when they enter this program because, as good as the program may be, all commodities do not fall into the same category as grain. I think, for instance, of the man in Prince Edward Island who two years ago had to destroy his whole crop because he could not find a market for it.
What happens to the producer if he has taken the advance payment and does not find a market for his produce? This is the reason I say there must be regulations spelled out to deal with situations and circumstances which are bound to arise because there is such a differential between the movement and sale of grain and the movement and sale of other perishable farm products.
The hon. member for Elgin referred to the situation when the repayment is made in the form of cash rather than through the sale of produce. From my reading of the bill, if a producer decides to make the repayment in cash rather than in produce he would not have to pay interest on the first $500 or 10 per cent of the advance payment. I ask why the producer of perishable and other farm produce should be treated differently than the grain producer? In last year's Bill C-10, which was brought in by the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, it is particularly spelled out that the producer and each such shareholder, partner or member, jointly and severally guarantee repayment of the full amount in default, together with interest thereon at the appropriate prescribed rate per annum from the date of the making of the advance payment, in the event of a default by the actual producer. There would seem to be an inconsistency here. I do not know the reason for it.
Perhaps the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board and the Minister of Agriculture are still not communicating in an effort to bring in policies that are consistent. For the life of me I cannot understand why there should be a differential here. Therefore I believe there will have to be a fair amount of dialogue in respect to this bill prior to its passage.
The government really is not guaranteeing that there will be an adequate price for the product when it is sold. It would be far better if the producer did not have to rely on advance payments. He would be better off if he could finance his operation alone. It would be far better if the government would provide for reasonable markets and a reasonable return.
The Minister of Agriculture seems to be an inward rather than an outward-looking Minister of Agriculture in regard to attempting to provide markets for agricultural products. I have reservations about the benefit of this legislation because it seems the only benefit that will accrue to the producer is the fact that he will not have to pay interest on the advance. That is what it amounts to, Mr. Speaker.
While this legislation may help some producers, and I do not deny that, it does not take the place of an adequate marketing system whereby the producer is ensured a fair price and a fair market for his produce. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to be heard in this debate. I look forward to an opportunity to debate the bill in committee.

October 27, 1976
Advance Payments for Crops
To conclude these brief remarks, Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate my party's support for the intent of this legislation, though I have many reservations, only a few of which I have had the opportunity to mention. I am certain many others will be advanced by my colleagues who are to follow me in this debate. But let me signal to the government and the minister that this bill will not clear committee stage as far as we are concerned until we have had ample opportunity for consultation with and input from farm groups and farm organizations, and from those producers who have no representation at all. If the government refuses to consult, then we in this party must ensure that those consultations and input do in fact take place.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few brief remarks on the bill before the House today. The first thing I want to do is to agree with the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) that the bill as drafted is rather complicated and fails to answer a lot of questions. Once we get to the committee stage we may be able to get some of the answers from the minister and make final judgment.
The other thing that I wanted to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member for Elgin has already talked about it, is that the minister should consult more closely with the farm organizations. It seems to me this is a very important part of governing people-seeking consensus from various organizations relative to one's portfolio. It seems to me the knowledge farm organizations have of this bill at the moment is not very great.
As far as the bill itself is concerned, we support the principle, the intent of the bill to make cash advances available to more farmers for more products. It is something that we in this party have talked about for many years as likely to be of some help to a number of farmers in Canada who are not eligible under the present cash advance program which is restricted to the Wheat Board area in western Canada. There are a couple of things, though, that I do have some concern about after looking at the bill very quickly.
I notice there is a ceiling limiting to $15,000 cash advances to any one person or operator. I understand the maximum number of people working in a unit can be three, which means that in some cases larger co-operative farms would be excluded from this legislation because, as I understand it, they only qualify for a cash advance when not more than three people are participating in the operation of a co-operative farm. Now there might be six or seven families participating in the running of a farm and it seems to me this is one of the areas we should examine in committee to see whether or not we might amend that clause in the bill.
The other question that occurs to me is whether or not the cash advances pertain to corporations, to companies such as Heinz, which might be involved in a certain aspect of farming. Would they qualify for an interest-free cash advance when they really do not need one? Or is the scheme limited to the ordinary producer, the ordinary family farmer? These are
(Mr. Wise.]
some of the things that cross my mind as I take a quick look at the bill.
The other point I wanted to make is that a bill such as the one before us today, albeit it is going in the right direction, is by no means the answer to the problems farmers face. Many people say: "Well, things are very good; out in the prairies the price of grain is very high; farmers are doing well; they do not have many problems." But farm income historically goes up and down like a yo-yo. It is about time the government brought in more adequate farm income stabilization programs covering not just prairie grains or certain crops in Ontario but all farm products in this country so that farmers would enjoy support and stability of income. In this way more people would be staying on the land and there would be greater production of food in this country. All we need to do is look at the statistics concerning farmers leaving the land.
Farmers are still leaving the land at a very alarming rate and we are not going to keep them on the land just through an expansion of the cash advance program. What we need is a farm income stability program. We could use the model in British Columbia as one very good example brought in by the provincial NDP government. That is something that could be copied here in Ottawa at the federal level.
If the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) really wants to keep farmers on the land he has to resolve some of the other problems such as the problem presently afflicting cow-calf operators. The federal government should be paying a lot more attention to this problem and coming forth with a program costing tens of millions of dollars to support cow-calf operators, to fill some of the gaps in some of the provincial programs that are already in existence. That is one way of helping the ordinary farmer in this country.
Another point, and 1 know the minster shares my views on this, is that we should be looking at the feasibility of a national marketing agency forecast to help the cow-calf operator, to give him some security and some collective process in the market place. These are things we have to look at in the long term if we really want to help the food producer in Canada. Cash advances are only a very small part of helping producers. If we want to help the farmers, we have to keep them on the land, and we will keep them on the land by guaranteeing them an income. If we fail to do this farms are going to be larger and larger and agro-business will become more and more powerful. In the long run this will hurt not only the small rural community but it will hurt the consumer in the price he pays for food at the receiving end.
Rather than go on at length at this time I should like to hear some more spokespeople from the Liberal side, perhaps the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, answering some of the questions that have been raised, before participating at the committee level in terms of asking precise questions about the way in which this bill would apply to the various produce groups across Canada.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate on Bill C-2 let me say how pleased I
October 27, 1976

application. It appears on the surface, at least, to extend to some degree a similar program presently in operation, for example in the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, to the producers of farm stored crops throughout the rest of Canada.
However, in no way does this bill extend the advance payment program to all producers. For example, producers of most, if not all fruit crops, and the producers of most vegetable crops will not be covered. Nowhere in this bill do I see any opportunity for them to be included.


Eugene Whelan: Why won't they be included? Even tobacco growers are.


Mr. Wise:: The minister asks why they won't be included and mentions tobacco. 1 cannot for the life of me see how in the world producers of flue-cured tobacco would ever take advantage of this bill. However, that remains to be seen and 1 shall be anxious to get their comments on it.
The throne speech made some mention of the government's intention to communicate with farm organizations and farm groups. We on this side of the House, particularly in this party, have always maintained that consultation on agricultural legislation with farm groups and farm organizations is of paramount importance, indeed essential. In my discussions with farm organizations yesterday and today none of them indicated that they had even possessed a copy of this bill. In reality, Mr. Speaker, the government does not discuss. It pretends to discuss, and in fact continues to ignore.
Not having had an adequate opportunity to review this bill, and not having had an opportunity of seeking the views and advice of producers, we are at this time unable to uncover many of its shortcomings. However, some questions are obvious; for example, the definition of an organization. For many crops, perhaps a hundred or so across the country, there is in one form or another a marketing board, a marketing agency or a marketing commission. On the other hand, none of these exist for other crops. Producers of grain corn are a case in point. Will the corn council constitute an organization and meet the requirements of the act to qualify, if, of course, the corn producers wish to participate?
What in the eyes of the government will in fact constitute an organization? Will producers who for some reason or other do not have a so-called organization be excluded? Another example is the definition of a producer. Who will constitute a bona fide producer? Will he or she be obligated to produce a certain volume of produce, or will that produce have to have a certain dollar value to qualify?
Another section of the bill that concerns me is clause 5, which provides:
The Minister may give a guarantee to an organization under this Act only if
(a) he is satisfied that the producers to whom the organization proposes to make advances have produced a significant portion of the crop in question in the area represented by that organization, and that the making of those advances will facilitate the orderly marketing of that crop in that area;-
This provision would make one wonder whether, if in the opinion of the minister certain market or other conditions did
Advance Payments for Crops
not exist, any advance payment would be made available to the producers. It also seems to indicate that producers in certain areas may not in fact be eligible for the scheme. I asked an official in the Department of Agriculture, in the particular division that I would expect to administer this bill, who is going to finance the interest charges? His reply to me was, "The government". Clause 7 indicates that only a partial exemption of interest payments would be permitted by the government, namely, interest on the first $500 or 10 per cent of the advance, whichever is the lesser. This really means a maximum of $500. I see the minister in charge of the Wheat Board shaking his head so perhaps we will hear some clarification from him or other members of his party.


Otto Emil Lang: There is a total exemption.


John Wise: So far as those producers under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board are concerned, when it comes to advance payments the interest charges are in fact picked up. This particular bill, as I read it, provides at the present time that only a portion of the interest charges will be picked up to a maximum of $500.


Otto Emil Lang: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Wise: Normally I would, Mr. Speaker, but I have only a few brief remarks to make and I am quite certain the minister will pose his question later. Let me just say that if that is the case, then this bill really discriminates against the producers.


Eugene Whelan: It is not the case and I said it was not.


John Wise: Well, the minister will clarify the situation at the end and this will resolve our difficulties. However, it appears from reading the bill, and it appears to the farm organizations and farm agencies involved, that the bill is discriminatory in nature since it does not provide the same benefits and assistance to producers outside the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board.


Otto Emil Lang: That is wrong. Do not mislead.


John Wise: These are a few questions which come to light immediately. My colleagues and I will be raising many others during this debate and also in committee. Given the experiences of the past, when the government operates or offers a plan, be it to farmers or to other sectors of our society, this in itself is reason for caution and concern. We intend to question the amount of financial assistance, both the total and the maximum amount given individuals and partnerships. This must be done to assess fairly this program's usefulness and effectiveness.
We are concerned as well, Mr. Speaker, again because of experience, about delays in making the advance payments themselves. When the government says that payments will be made soon, this provides small comfort or satisfaction to producers. Ask the producers who have yet to receive payment for livestock losses under Bill C-28. Payments to Ontario wheat producers are always late, usually long overdue.
80001-34!4

October 27, 1976
Advance Payments for Crops
ducer organization applying for a cash advance represents a significant portion of the crop for the area in question. On this point my department will take appropriate measures to guarantee that such organizations do, in fact, represent a significant portion of the crop in that area. The organization must also indicate that making such advance payments will facilitate orderly marketing of that crop.
It must also satisfy the government that it will repay the money borrowed to make advance payments. The act covers all the possibilities of producer default, but the experience of the Prairie Grain Advance Program indicated that there is a very small percentage of producers who ever default on the advance payments.
In the case of producers the portion of the crop on which an advance payment is made is to be stored by the producer, either on his own premises, on another farm or commercially, providing the grain is stored in his own name. A producer cannot receive an advance if he is in arrears or in default for a previous advance.
Applications for advance payments must be made before a set date and must include all relevant information as required by the act. The maximum amount advanced in any crop year to one producer eligible under the act is $15,000. Multifarmer units can receive a maximum of $30,000 or $45,000, depending on the number of parties involved. These levels have been established similarly to those under Prairie Grain Advance Payments.
Yet in all cases the amount of an advance payment possible under this act cannot exceed one half of the unit market price payable for that crop in that crop year. For example, if Ontario wheat is selling at $3.50 a bushel, and I use this only to show what we will be lending, then the payment can be up to $1.75 a bushel in the first year.
The logic behind Bill C-2 is not new for Canadian agriculture. The act would ease the cash flow to farmers of storable crops when they need it most. However, there are many other similar programs in agriculture which provide stability to farmers.
In addition to the Prairie Grain Advance Payment Act, mentioned previously, we also have the Western Grain Stabilization Act which helps to protect western grain farmers from large, unexpected declines in returns from the production and sale of their grain. Such drops in the market are caused by factors beyond the control of both the farmer and the government.
Furthermore, the Farm Credit Corporation makes available large amounts of money to producers to assist them in establishing and developing sound farm enterprises. The Agricultural Stabilization Act provides a miminum support level for named commodities under the act at 90 per cent of the previous five-year average. In addition, other commodities can be designated for support if the need arises.
We also have a Crop Insurance Act which provides Canadian producers with insurance in the case of crop damage or failure. Most farmers use this program every year. The
[Mr. Whelan.)
Agricultural Product Co-operative Marketing Act is designed to encourage and protect co-operative marketing of Canadian agricultural commodities.
All these measures are meant to help farmers cope with the many risks and uncertainties of agricultural production. However, consumers as well benefit from these various programs because the market will be supplied in a much more orderly fashion.
In Bill C-2, by providing Canadian producers of storable crops with a way to ease their cash flow problems, the government is stabilizing crop production levels. This in turn will ensure year-round availability of Canadian food products at reasonable costs to Canadian consumers.
Instead of having to depend on imported food products, we will assist Canadian producers by providing controlled atmospheric temperature storage where it will be possible to store fresh vegetables as long as eight months. This will enable us to supply many of the commodities it is now necessary to import.
A good example of this is cabbage. According to research conducted in my department over a period of years, cabbage that has been stored for several months is in as good a condition or better when removed from storage. This is also true of potatoes, several million dollars worth of which have been stored in.the last two years. The province of British Columbia has used the largest share of money available for this; however, other provinces are now participating in this program.
Up to this time it has been necessary to borrow the money required to finance this operation until the commodities have been sold. When this bill becomes law, producers of storable crops will have the same type of program that has been available to western farmers under the Canadian Wheat Board Act. This is a step forward, something I have been promising for some time. It will be beneficial to many farmers in all parts of Canada, as well as Canadian consumers who will be able to purchase these Canadian products. Therefore I strongly urge my colleagues in the House to support Bill C-2, and I trust that it will receive approval and speedy passage in the House.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, in responding to, or perhaps more accurately participating in, the debate on Bill C-2, I feel obligated once again to mention the fact that the bill, which provides for advance payment for crops, is the only piece of agricultural legislation referred to in the Speech from the Throne. It is another indication that the government cares less about the building or maintaining of a strong agricultural industry in this country. The title of this bill should more accurately read, "advance payments with limitations to only some farm stored crops".
Bill C-2 is the latest example of the government's action to provide more piecemeal legislation to another sector of agriculture. It is an open admission that the government is totally lacking an over-all agricultural policy. On reviewing the bill it is obvious that it is poorly drafted. There are no explanatory notes, and no one seems to know much about it, particularly its
October 27, 1976

and 3 of question No. 22, would the hon. member please see the answer given on October 26 last to question No. 21.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


MOTION FOR PAPERS
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 22 is acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and the authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Subject to the conditions described, shall notice of motion for the production of papers No. 22 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


COPIES OF ALL CORRESPONDENCE AND REPORTS RELATING TO ADMISSION FEE TO LOWER FORT GARRY, MANITOBA
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 22-Mr. Whiteway:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the minutes of all meetings, correspondence, telegrams, and task force reports considered by the government in the establishment of a fee structure for admission to Lower Fort Garry in Manitoba.
Motion agreed to.
Ralph Goodale: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the other notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Eugene Whelan: that Bill C-2, to facilitate the making of advance payments for crops, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have promised for some time to bring in a program that would help relieve financial pressure on producers of storable crops in Canada. Bill C-2 was written with that purpose in mind.
Advance Payments for Crops
Since 1958 producers of wheat, oats and barley in the Canadian Wheat Board designated area have been able to receive advance payments under the provisions of the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. The program has worked very well and western grain farmers have benefited greatly. The act has improved the cash flow to grain farmers particularly after the critical harvest period and when low Canadian Wheat Board quotas restricted deliveries. Western grain farmers face delivery restrictions after harvest, but they have the benefit of the PGAP program under which they can receive interest-free advance payments on undelivered grain.
Wheat, oats and barley sold to the Canadian Wheat Board in its designated area are the only three crops in Canada for which this privilege is extended. Yet all other grain producers and producers of storable crops face the same market glut and storage problems that hit western grain farmers during the post-harvest period. Most storable crops produced in Canada are not subject to the marketing quota controls and price pooling schemes available for wheat, oats and barley. As a result, markets for these crops are often depressed, particularly during the months immediately following harvest.
Producers have incurred most of their total production costs by harvest time and they must then find money to pay off their debts. Often they will rush to sell just enough of their crop to cover their production costs. Accordingly, market congestion or depressed prices result, and a lot of people count on it. This can needlessly depress returns to farmers during this period. In addition it can result in loss of efficiency in marketing and loss of profitability. This is why producers of storable crops, including producers of wheat, oats and barley in regions other than the Canadian Wheat Board designated area have requested a similar opportunity of receiving interest-free advances.
The objective of the Advance Payments for Crops Act, known as Bill C-2, is designed to extend the existing program for wheat, oats and barley in the Canadian Wheat Board designated area, to all other storable crops such as Ontario wheat, white beans, tree fruits, cole and root crops, tobacco, soybeans, horticultural crops, et cetera, in the rest of Canada including those in the wheat board designated area.
The act will provide the legislative authority for the federal government to guarantee the repayment of advance payments on storable crops. In addition it will guarantee the interest on such advance payments when they are made in accordance with the provisions of the act.
The government proposes in Bill C-2 that, where a producer organization intends to make an advance payment to a producer out of money borrowed from a bank for that purpose, the government will guarantee repayment of the advances, including the interest being charged. In case of producer defaults, we would not be liable for more than one half the price of applicable crops.
The grain and special crops division in my department will administer the act. In order to receive a guarantee from the government, my department must be satisfied that the pro-
516

October 27, 1976
Order Paper Questions


DISPOSAL OF GOVERNMENT PRINTED MATERIAL
Mr. Cossitt: Since January 1, 1974, did the Department of Supply and Services authorize the destruction or disposal of government printed material and, if so, in each case (a) what was its nature (b) for what reason was it destroyed or disposed of (c) what was the quantity destroyed or disposed of (d) what was the cost to the taxpayer (e) what was the total value of such material?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Prior to March 2, 1976, the publishing functions for the Federal Government were the responsibility of Information Canada. Since March 2, these functions have been integrated into the Department of Supply and Services, (a) and (b) Publications which have become outdated, redundant or spoiled and which were initially produced on behalf of customer departments. No record is kept of the quantity or value of destroyed printed materials as a result of normal operating procedures, (c) No quantity figures are kept on destroyed printed material. It should be noted, however, that all destruction and disposal of printed material on the part of the Publishing Centre was, and will continue to be effected in accordance with Treasury Board authority 667239, April 6, 1976, Section I, Article 68 and Section II, Article 34; the Auditor General's representative is notified in advance of all impending actions to destroy, (d) $52,402; (e) $52,402.
Note: Records indicate that Information Canada destroyed $160,708 of printed material from January 1, 1974 to March 1, 1976.


PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE-CONTRACTS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the fiscal year 1975-1976, what contracts for professional services were let (a) for studies, surveys and analyses into present or future policies, programs or information analysis, and their efficiency and effectiveness (b) into the examination of the administration or internal operation of the Privy Council Office?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?
3.	What were the comparable figures for the fiscal year 1973-1974?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: None.


PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE-CONTRACTS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the Fiscal year 1975-1976, what contracts for professional services were let (a) for studies, surveys and analyses into present or future policies, programs or information analysis, and their efficiency and effectiveness (b) into the examination of the administration or internal operation of the Prime Minister's Office?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?
3.	What were the comparable figures for the fiscal year 1973-1974?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: None.


CANADIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE SECRETARIAT-CONTRACTS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the fiscal year 1975-1976, what contracts for professional services were let (a) for studies, surveys and analyses into present or future policies, programs or information analysis, and their efficiency and effectiveness (b) into the examination of the administration or internal operation of the Canadian Governmental Conference Secretariat?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?
3.	What were the comparable figures for the fiscal year 1973-1974?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1.	None.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


MACHINE TO MAKE REPLICAS OF PRIME MINISTER'S SIGNATURE
Mr. Beatty: Does the Prime Minister's Office have a machine that is used to make replicas of his signature and, if so, how many times was it used in 1975 to sign (a) letters (b) other documents?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes. (a) and (b) Statistics not available.


STARRED QUESTION
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 22?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


PRIVATE RAILWAY CARS
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 4,777 of the First Session of the 30th Parliament, which stated in part that the Minister of Transport travelled at public expense by private railway car from Ottawa to Saskatoon from August 20 to 24, 1974 and from Ottawa to Regina from August 27 to September 1, 1975 and that the purpose of the trips are unknown since the Minister made the trips in question, what are the reasons justifying the answer, on his behalf, stating the purpose as unknown?
2.	Will the Minister make public (a) the purpose of each trip (b) the names of all others on board at any time (c) the number of miles travelled and the cost involved at the stated price of $1.95 per mile (d) any stops made by the Minister en route and the purpose in each case (e) the number of personnel on duty to operate the services in the cars?
3.	Will the Minister make public this information and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, for the answer to paragraphs 1, 2

October 27, 1976

So, in closing, I wish him every possible success and feel sure that we may see him again on the parliamentary scene.


Hon.   Allan. J. MacEachen@President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, this has been quite a week for the House of Commons, and quite a week for Quebec.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And quite a week for the Liberal party too.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Again I have to confess to mixed emotions in bidding farewell to a friend and colleague who has been in this House for almost 15 years. During that time we have fought together in many political wars. I can only admire his grit and tenacity in marching off to yet another battle.
The hon. member has forged for himself a special place in this Chamber, and, indeed, in the minds of individual Canadians across this country. He is a politician of tremendous heart and eloquence, as befits his Irish ancestry. In the finest sense of the word, he is a populist politician whose primary dedication has always been for the welfare of those who, for one reason or another, may be less able than others to enjoy the full benefits of life in this country.
The hon. member has also been in the vanguard of another cause which he has articulated in this House and outside consistently throughout the years, that of unity and understanding in our country. It is a cause he has fought for with the emotion of a true believer, and it is this belief which is now taking him from Ottawa back to his native province.
All of us in the House will miss him. We will miss his participation in debates, and the House itself will be much poorer for the loss of this fighting Irishman from Verdun. We, on this side of the House, wish him great success in the forthcoming campaign, and I want to wish him an early return back to the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this point of order not as a member of a party but as the only Independent member in the House of Commons. Being independent I can speak frankly, because I do not belong to any party which is represented in the place where the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) is going to do battle.
I have learned to respect this man greatly, and have had excellent rapport with the hon. member for Verdun. I bring him the best wishes of the people of Moncton, one of his former home towns, or at least a former home town of the Mackaseys, his parents. I recall the occasion when he answered my first question in the House of Commons, about two years ago. It so happened that I did not hear him, and read his answer in Hansard, where the interpretation put on what he said was "soon." May God bless him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I may be allowed to add a personal word of tribute on the retirement of this very
Order Paper Questions
senior and distinguished member of the House of Commons who has served his country faithfully for some 15 years.
It is difficult to add anything to the eloquent tributes paid so glowingly to the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey). If any one thing may be said to characterize his performance in public life, it is this: despite his ascendancy to a position of great power he never forgot the common man with whom he had worked while he was rising to heights of power. He never forgot the kind of people who had elected him to the House of Commons. His touch in that respect carried him to great performances, particularly in two of the four important portfolios he held with such distinction.
As minister of labour, when there was great labour strife, he displayed his remarkable touch with the rank and file and organizations involved; he repeated that performance when he was postmaster general, when similar kinds of difficulties arose. As long as his touch with the common man permeates his work, all of us will continue to benefit from his distinguished service. I am sure we all wish him well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-16, to provide for the protection of borrowers and depositors, to regulate interest on judgment debts, to repeal the Interest Act, the Pawnbrokers Act and the Small Loans Act and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 39, 136, 286, 291 and 639.

October 27, 1976
Resignation of Mr. Mackasey
all concerned to see one Canada, united from one end of the country to the other.


An hon. Member:: With the exception of '68, Bryce.


Mr. Mackasey:: There are exceptions to what I am saying. There is bound to be the odd separatist in this House, and I am sorry. I want to say that I do believe we can have a country where each other's language is respected, regardless of what it is. I intend to fight for the minorities in Quebec, and I hope that all members of the House will fight equally as hard for the minorities in New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba and elsewhere.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to this point of order I must note a certain irony: it took the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) almost as long to make his announcement as it did for him to take his decision. My colleagues on this side of the House wonder what we are getting into when every second day we have to stand up and bid farewell to another former minister of the government.
I should say, Mr. Speaker, that while there have often been disagreements with the hon. member for Verdun, particularly when he served in ministerial capacity and while he engaged in a lively form of debate in this House of Commons, we all very much enjoyed his presence and his contributions to the debates of this House and to the government of the country. I think it is fair to say that on this side of the House we had a particular regard for the fact that the hon. member for Verdun always stood out from his colleagues as a minister who had a particular interest in the ordinary citizens of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I am sure that that quality will continue to stand him in good stead. We naturally will not intrude in the decision to be made in the province of Quebec in the impending election. I think I can speak for my party and the House, however, and say that we will watch the progress of the hon. member for Verdun with interest and we will miss his presence here in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party I am happy to join in these words of farewell to our good friend, the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey). I have noticed during the years that the appellation we like to use for persons for whom we have a great deal of respect is "a House of Commons man". We can say that of the hon. member for Verdun, and I am happy to do so. His debating style has been most interesting. Many of us have had the experience of hearing him speak in strong support of something that we stood for, and we have had the experience a few days later of hearing him tear us apart.


Ralph Goodale: He was right both times.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Goodale) kept quiet yesterday. I think he should-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ralph Goodale: My answer to that is no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member should be careful not to say no when we are saying kind things about the hon. member for Verdun.
Perhaps I could note that the hon. member came here first in an election that was held on my birthday in 1962. There must have been something in the stars. During these years he has been a very active private member; he has been a parliamentary secretary, and he has been a cabinet minister holding four different portfolios. Now that he is leaving and we cannot do him any harm in his party I do not mind saying that we in this party felt there were times when in him we had a little bit of a voice in the Liberal cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: One must not feel he has to explain what he says but I did not mean we told him what to say. He had a labour or a peoples point of view, of which there is far too little in that cabinet of millionaires.
So, Mr. Speaker, we shall long remember the hon. member for Verdun and his contribution to the work of this House. We look forward to his participation in the campaign he is entering, and certainly welcome the balanced emphasis he is trying to make. On behalf of my colleagues I wish him the very best.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Social Credit Party of Canada and its members, I echo the words just spoken by the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey). 1 heard him last night on television and once again I noticed his straightforward speech, which I always enjoy. To my mind, he has left his stamp on the House of Commons just as he probably will tomorrow in Quebec.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the province of Quebec has need of such men as he, who can speak frankly, without dodging the issues. I feel the province of Quebec has need of men of experience who, as 1 said a moment ago, will speak frankly and, with Irish blood in their veins, for Irish blood never cools down. I have several Irishmen in my riding and in order to respect the truth they often choose to give up their place to others.
We of the Social Credit Party at the federal level-the same does not go for the Ralliement des creditistes at the provincial level-wish considerable success to the hon. member for Verdun. We noticed that our discussions with him were open, honest: when we needed him when he held portfolios in the House of Commons, his replies were always prompt, energetic and above all pleasing to my constituents.
October 27, 1976


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not want to delay this any longer.


Some hon. Members:: Then don't; sit down.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: However, I did want to raise a novel point as a result of the remarks made by the government House leader and by the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Holt). I think the position stated by the government House leader and by the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway is that the opposition somehow caused its own difficulties in losing the question period yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, you know that it has been the practice in this House for you-and today was a good example when you recognized no less than, I think, three backbenchers of the government party, if not more, and one for a motion under Standing Order 43-to recognize that each backbencher, on whatever side of the House, should be entitled to ask questions. In view of the admission made by the government House leader that the opposition has rights with respect to the question period-and I am sure that is unanimous-and in view of the refusal on the part of backbenchers on the government side to allow us to proceed with the question period yesterday, I would think that Your Honour would want to consider, among other things, in future refusing to allow government backbenchers to ask questions during the question period. They obviously do not want to support the question period.


Mr. MacGuigan:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your position on this question, and I want to be brief and refer only to the procedural aspect of the question.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has treated us to an interesting excursus on what might be called the legislative history of the rule if we were dealing with a statute. 1 suppose we can refer to it merely as the history of the rule. The fact is that in our tradition of interpretation such history is not relevant when we are confronted with a rule which covers a situation. How the rule came to be there is not a point which is relevant. It is only a question of what the rule means, and even if we admit that the legislative history is relevant, none of the quotations which were given to us by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton indicate that the committee had in mind this particular problem. It is clearly an unusual problem, one which was not in the mind of the committee when it deliberated on its rules, and nothing the hon. member read or said covered the situation at all.
In other words, there is a complete gap, and again we are in a situation where we have a rule which was adopted and which covers the situation exactly. The interpretation may not be palatable to members of the opposition, but the fact is that the rule covers the situation, and I submit that in such a case Your Honour has no choice but to follow the clear meaning of the rule.
Resignation of Mr. Mackasey


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe that we have heard enough on this subject. Could there not be unanimous consent that this matter be referred to the appropriate committee now and that this stupid debate be halted?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Whether in the form of a reference by unanimous consent or a request, I certainly have asked that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, and I am sure that that standing committee will reflect on the question.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, in rising on a point of order I am conscious that I am infringing on the time of the House and I appreciate its indulgence. I am rather flattered that the House has taken an hour and a half to delay my resignation from the House of Commons. I am not sure of the reason, of course.


Mr. Prud'homme:: We like you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: This House is a House of debate and the debate just concluded was so spirited that I have almost changed my mind and might possibly reconsider my decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I just want to say very briefly, Mr. Speaker, that I wish to thank you for the courtesy that has been extended to me for 15 years by the Chair. Sometimes it required a great deal of patience on your part. I want to apologize to any enemies I may have made because of my particular type of debating, and I want to say that I am conscious I am leaving the highest court in Canada. As I listened to the excellent debaters from all parties I have been aware that there have been some very great debaters in the 15 years I have been in this House, not the least of whom have been the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker), the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) who was the former leader of the New Democratic Party, the present House leaders and, of course, the great Mr. Pearson, and the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
I am not going very far, Mr. Speaker, but to another arena to continue showing something that has been important to me in my 15 years here, and that is, concern for national unity in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I know that I speak for all members of the House of Commons without exception when I say that we are

October 27, 1976
So far as Standing Order 43 is concerned, it has become completely emasculated as a result of governmental action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Diefenbaker:: No matter what the motion has been, with one or two exceptions there has always been that chorus of noes. Now today, the government finding itself embarrassed by what happened yesterday-


Mrs. Holt:: It is you who are embarrassed.


John George Diefenbaker: -instead of admitting its mistake, instead of being clad in sackcloth and ashes, politically speaking, decided to put the blame on the opposition. Imagine members of this government condemning the opposition for its failure to live up to true parliamentary procedure when the government itself has been the prime reason for the degradation of this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: It could never have been anticipated that a situation such as this would arise, and it is as the result of experience that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton has raised this question. If the rule is allowed to stay in its present form, whenever a motion is put to the House under Standing Order 43 and a vote takes place, the government can keep its members out and thus deny us the opportunity to have a question period.
As a result of the experience of yesterday I think a very decided improvement can be made to make Standing Order 43 uphold parliament rather than undermine it. I do not think what happened yesterday will ever happen again because apparently in the intervening 24 hours the Liberal members got together, and they all with one accord today said no. They are taking no chances any more, and I do not think this question will ever arise again.
However, I do point out the tremendous danger there is to this institution if the correctness of the ruling you made yesterday, Mr. Speaker, is upheld as it should be on the basis of the rules as they are, for it will mean that any time the government decides it wants to do away with our hour, or whatever period it is for the question period, it will simply allow a vote to take place; the Liberal members will not come in, the hour will be gone, and we will be denied almost the only surviving right members of the opposition have in parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to ask the co-operation of hon. members. There has been a rather full discussion on what is essentially a very straightforward question of procedure. I will not fail to recognize hon. members who want to participate in the discussion, but it is, after all, a procedural matter. To this point it has been given a rather exhaustive treatment. Unless hon. members have a new and different point to raise which

might bear on the deliberations of the committee on this question, I ask them to refrain from further discussion in order that we can get on to other matters.


Simma Holt: Mr. Speaker, I gather you are anxious to cut this debate short, but I feel that there has been a reflection on many of us with regard to the voting yesterday. It has been said that we are contributing to the degradation of the House, and that requires an answer. The events of yesterday are relevant to the principle of this debate. Hon. members opposite were the authors of their own misfortune, and today they are paying for it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simma Holt: But what upsets me-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simma Holt: I have the right to speak in this House; I was elected to this House, as were all of you.
I am very concerned. Yesterday hon. members opposite yelled at some of us asking, "What about widows and orphans?" That is the type of fakery which went on in this House yesterday, and I object to that. I am a responsible member who cares about all widows and orphans, but not exclusively-


Some hon. Members:: How did you vote?


Simma Holt: -not exclusively the widows and orphans of public servants, not to make them into a special class with 100 per cent pension. They are now highly paid. 1 care about the widows of teachers, laborers, clerks, and hon. members opposite were trying to indicate that I do not care, that we do not care.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are a number of difficulties with regard to casting reflections on what took place yesterday. One of the most serious dangers is that of raising the subject in debate. The motion was before the House yesterday for decision. It could have been debated at that time. One of the things I am not going to do is permit a re-opening of the debate on that motion. That could have taken place yesterday. If there is a further contribution to be made with regard to the procedural decision, I will welcome it; otherwise, I ask hon. members to let us get on to another subject.


Simma Holt: I just maintain that it is relevant to the debate, and because of what they created themselves hon. members opposite want to change the rules of this House. They were the authors of their own destiny, and now they weep. If they have a complaint, they should look into a mirror and see who caused the situation whereby the question period was lost.
Hon. members on this side of the House are not the ones who are degrading the affairs of the House. We care about Canada. The degradation is their own doing. Hon. members opposite seem to think that we should play games here, and I resent that. I do not have enough time in my life to waste on that sort of activity.
October 27, 1976

should be stated clearly that his contention that it was the fault of the opposition that a vote was taken yesterday is completely false.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the yeas and nays were called, it was clear that the yeas had it and it was so ruled from the Chair. There was a recorded vote only because the Liberal members stood and asked for it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: As for the challenge that I received from the President of the Privy Council on whether there was urgency to the motion that I moved yesterday, I suggest that the position of widows on 50 per cent pensions is always urgent, but it was made particularly urgent by a speech made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) the day before in which he proclaimed that the government was doing all sorts of things to establish equality between men and women. I felt that if that position was going to be taken, it was time to carry it all the way and to provide for equal treatment for widows on pensions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I appreciate and welcome the response that you made to the case that was presented by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. I think we are agreed that the question period should start at 2.15 p.m. and end at 3 p.m., and therefore that if a motion under Standing Order 43 is going to be debated or voted upon, it should be put over until some later time. I was a little concerned when Your Honour said that if the matter were under debate, that debate would have to end at 2.15. But later you chose different words and suggested that it should be interrupted at that point. It seems to me that under the rules a motion that is allowed is one that can be debated according to the rules of the House, and to say that an interruption at 2.15 means an indefinite postponement of that debate would, I think, be a mistake.
I believe there was sheer logic in the indication of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton that when a motion is proposed under Standing Order 43 and it is proposed prior to 2.15, if it is under debate or under a vote at 2.15 it should simply be postponed until the question period and the routine proceedings are out of the way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I agree with the stand Your Honour took yesterday that by the time 2.15 was reached the bells were ringing and you could not interrupt the ringing of those bells. But it does seem to me that for the future, even if we have to consider this matter in the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, there should be some understanding that the clear right of members to move motions under Standing Order 43 should not wipe out the
clear right of this House of Commons to have a question period.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I invite the President of the Privy Council to get back to the mood that he used to have and to his feel for parliament and, once he has it, he will take a much different stand from the one he took today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want to restrict the discussion unduly but there has been a tendency among the first three contributors to this very interesting discussion to make extensive reflections on the events of yesterday. That may have been a necessary part of their presentations, but in any case it had to be permitted in order to hear out the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), and therefore I permitted it with the other two members involved in the discussion. We should be clear that what we are discussing is not the events of yesterday-that issue was decided yesterday, the decision finalized, and is not to be the subject of further comment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: There is a clear conflict and some indecision which I am sure all hon. members had failed to anticipate, once a matter goes to a vote, and indeed should a matter in theory be under discussion at 2.15, as to what should take place at 2.15. I do not share the same indecision about it in respect of a vote, but certainly if it is under discussion, it poses some questions that are unanswered.
Surely the best way to resolve this now that the situation has arisen, and may again, I suppose, however remote that chance may be, is to invite the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization to examine the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton at the earliest opportunity to see whether the committee has any recommendations for a change in rules which might clarify the matter. Otherwise we might await discussion and deliberation by the committee. If the committee has no report or recommendation to make, then perhaps the point could be rediscussed in the House, but the matter should go to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization by way of the suggestion of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton to see whether or not there is disposition in the committee to come up with a clarifying amendment to the rule.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the only reason I rise is the observations that were made by the Acting Prime Minister and House leader (Mr. MacEachen) in which he endeavoured to explain away the hibernation of the government yesterday in failing to utter the regular "no" which has become so orchestrated that no exception can be made to it. I sat here yesterday and I watched the government, as I do with an interest which is completely objective. It was very interesting. Everybody looked at everybody else over there. The one who was to say "no" did not say anything. There they sat, that strong and silent group. And then no one raised the negative voice.
80001-33'A

5.0.	43


Charles Joseph Clark: He has forgotten that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The solution is well within the control of the members of the opposition because if they wish, as a matter of repeated practice, every day to propose motions under Standing Order 43 then they must accept the full implications of taking that step so frequently. In my view it is a clear abuse of the intentions of Standing Order 43. Standing Order 43 states:
A motion may, in case of urgent and pressing necessity previously explained by the mover, be made by unanimous consent of the House without notice having been given under Standing Order 42.
If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) felt that the question he proposed yesterday was of urgent and pressing necessity, so urgent and pressing that it ought to be brought in with the possible putting aside of all the other business of the House to deal with this matter of urgent and pressing necessity, then that is his responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Every hon. member who moves these motions must take that responsibility and must take the chance that he will see his actions terminate in the procedure that followed yesterday.
I may say, as hon. members know, that the use of Standing Order 43 in this way is a relatively recent development in the House of Commons. It came about as a result of changes to the Standing Orders which removed the debate, presumably a procedural debate, normally held on a question of urgency with regard to proceedings under another Standing Order. There was written into that particular Standing Order that the Speaker would make a ruling on the question of urgency, without hearing from any hon. member of the House. Then, of course, an escape was sought from that change in the Standing Orders and members began using Standing Order 43.
Now hon. members rise every day in the House in order to draw attention to public issues by using Standing Order 43, and they expect that members on this side of the House will place themselves in an unenviable position by refusing unanimous consent. In other words they wish to protect themselves from the results of their own actions and decisions. Yesterday the House gave unanimous consent to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to put his motion, and the motion was put. Hon. members on this side of the House-


Charles Joseph Clark: You were absolutely asleep.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -for reasons quite obvious decided to vote against that motion. We had the vote in the normal way and the motion was defeated. After hon. members found that they had lost the question period they came to us crying for special concessions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I say we are quite prepared to follow scrupulously the Standing Orders as they now stand, and if

hon. members use Standing Order 43 they have to take their chances.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the position stated a few moments ago by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: But before I get to the specific point raised by the House leader of the official opposition I should like to comment on some of the things just said by my hon. friend, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). I felt a certain sense of pleasure when he came back to this position because I have long had the notion that he is one member on the government side who has a bit of a feel for parliament. I did have that notion, but I think I am losing it. It is not like the President of the Privy Council to stand up today and say that members of the opposition in exercising their rights under a rule clearly provided in the book are abusing their rights.


Charles Joseph Clark: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The interruptions from the other side are only holding up the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey), but there is lots of time. There was a time, Mr. Speaker, when there was not a specific provision in the rules concerning when motions under Standing Order 43 would be put, and I think there was some abuse of that rule at that time. It was to correct that abuse that the Committee on Procedure and Organization made the changes which provide for a specific time when members can use that rule. I suggest it is not like the President of the Privy Council for him to say that those who avail themselves of a rule that has been worked out in recent months are showing a disregard for parliament.


Simma Holt: Who is showing disregard?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: All that my friends opposite are doing is to delay the time when the hon. member for Verdun will be able to get to his feet.


An hon. Member:: Sit down then.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The procedural questions involved are unduly interesting this afternoon for some special reason which I find hard to understand. But, be that as it may, they are still straightforward procedural questions and I know there are some hon. members who want to make contributions to the discussion. So I invite all hon. members to make their contributions procedural and brief.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, although responses from hon. members in their seats answered another point that the minister sought to make, I think it
October 27, 1976

ing Order 15(2) than was given yesterday, but which does not involve a contradiction to yesterday's ruling.
My first point is this: while Standing Order 15(2) states that the House shall proceed to the "ordinary daily routine of proceedings" at 3 p.m., or noon as the case may be, it states with equal force that "not later than 2.15 p.m., or 11.15 a.m., as the case may be, oral questions shall be taken up." The time 3 p.m. was inserted for the protection of the government, and 2.15 p.m. for the protection of the opposition parties, under the operation of the rule. It is surely anomalous that the one figure should be given full and blind applicability in all circumstances while the other should be inconsequential in circumstances which may frequently arise.
My second point is that in a case of doubt it is possible for us to go beyond the wording of the rule provided appropriate recognized guidance exists. In the case to which I refer we have the words of the preamble to the second report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization presented March 14, 1975, the report which introduced these rules. The preamble reads:
(5) It is the view of your committee that the first hour of each sitting should normally be devoted to oral questions. It is recognized that some members believe that there is a constructive purpose in retaining proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 43 at the beginning of a sitting. There is a consensus, however, that most routine proceedings ought to be taken up at a set time, but after oral questions. There is a consensus that statements by ministers and responses thereto ought to be limited. Your committee is of the view that questions of privilege and points of order raised during the oral question period, unless Mr. Speaker considers it to be a most grave matter, ought to be taken up after the oral question period.
I draw attention particularly to the words "but after oral questions". That paragraph really sets the framework for subsequent interpretation, indicating that our whole procedure has been framed around the question period as the central feature of the parliamentary day, and it is important we should consider the matter in that light. It is obvious from the records of the committee and in the context of the paragraph I have read that the word "normally" was inserted to show that the committee intended the question period to last approximately an hour, as was fast becoming the practice at the time, but that it recognized that proposed motions under Standing Order 43 would sometimes take a few minutes. It was clearly not the intention that anything should arise which would have the effect of totally cancelling the question period.
The reason for inserting a preamble was made clear by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) who drafted the rules for the consideration of the committee. He said in the committee on March 4, 1975:
I think we understand what it is we want to do, but it may well be that other members and Mr. Speaker may not understand the intent. So we would want to draft a sort of preamble to the actual rules to make it quite clear what the intent is and the spirit in which the rules are to be interpreted.
There followed a brief exchange on March 10, 1975, which makes the spirit and intent clear:


Mr. Blaker:: My understanding is that it is a time factor. It is 3.15 p.m., come what may.
To this, the chairman, now the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp), replied, "Yes".
The whole intent and spirit of the rules was that there would be a question period from 2.15 at the latest, until 3.00 p.m., come what may. The preamble was part of the report which was concurred in unanimously and without debate by the House, and is therefore a guide, as was intended, to the interpretation of the draft Standing Orders presented at the same time. That committee, of which I was a member at the time, and am now, operated in good faith, and I hope this continues to be the case.
Therefore I suggest that the starting time of 2.15 or 11.15 is as inviolable as the 3.00 p.m or 12 noon finishing time. It seems to me that if we are to give both boundaries their proper place, then if a motion under Standing Order 43 is put to the House, any debate, or any division, must be deferred until after question period and routine proceedings.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you find this a reasonable and acceptable interpretation of the rule which the procedure committee recommended to the House, and I hope if there is any discussion other members of that committee will confirm the spirit of our deliberations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is, of course, a matter of serious concern. Before we hear from the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) on the subject, I want to say at the outset that it was not proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 43 which displaced the question period, it was a vote.
It is certainly clear in my mind in any case that, had the matter been discussed rather than voted upon at once, the debate would have had to conclude at 2.15 because no proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 43 could pre-empt the 2.15 starting time. But against that interpretation is the fact that once the division bells ring, whether they ring at five to six or at five to ten at the hour of adjournment, they continue until the whips advance from the end of the Chamber. Nothing can pre-empt that either. This practice has been established many times. Therefore in the singular situation in which a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 was not only put but was to be decided upon by a recorded division and the members were called in, then the 2.15 time limit could not have been adhered to, but had the matter been under debate at 2.15 it is clear that the debate would have stopped. The difficulty about getting it started again is one of some procedural interest, but there is no doubt in my mind that it would have stopped at 2.15.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have had no notice of the point of order raised by the hon. member who has just taken his place. It is a serious point of order, one on which you made a ruling yesterday, Mr. Speaker. I certainly believe the ruling was sound and is within the understanding of the Standing Orders. The hon. member talked about the difficulty in which the House finds itself. I think the difficulty is one created by members opposite themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: You forced the vote, Allan.
508

Oral Questions
view of the fact that Canadian National Railways has announced a decision to reduce staff across Newfoundland, which will not only reduce its ability to provide rail transportation, but is happening in spite of continual denials that this action would take place, would the minister cause an inquiry to be made into the reasons for this decision, which will be effective January 24, 1977, so that we can be informed as to the necessity for the action?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, 1 will look into the question of statements that have been made and then contradicted by action. The question of Canadian National operations is, of course, largely for its management in a broad way, but I would be interested in having discussions with the province of Newfoundland and with other interested people on the whole question of transportation in Newfoundland both by rail and road. This is a vital issue in the province, one with which I am very much concerned.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that last week a motion under Standing Order 43 received the unanimous consent of this House in encouraging and supporting the Olympiad for the Disabled in their fund raising activities for the purpose of defraying the deficit encountered as a result of the government's withdrawal of promised funds because of South Africa's participation, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he would clarify to the House his government's policy in respect of South Africa in view of these contradictory positions, including the fact that personnel of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce continue to operate out of that country?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that the hon. member and others will realize that it would be inappropriate to try to get the minister to outline the general policy of the government during the question period. The question would have to be more specific.


Otto John Jelinek: Then, in order to make it simpler for the minister, Mr. Speaker, since contradictory positions have been taken by the government would the minister indicate to the House whether or not the government recognizes South Africa as a state in all cases, or whether it recognizes South Africa as a state in respect of industry, trade and commerce and does not recognize South Africa in respect of the Olympiad for the Disabled?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the question of sporting contacts between Canada and South Africa is an extremely important one. It bears very

directly upon the forthcoming Commonwealth games that we hope to host in Canada in 1978.


Mr. Paproski:: In Edmonton.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In Edmonton, Canada, in 1978.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Edmonton, Alberta.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Briefly stated, the government of Canada does not encourage but does not prohibit the exchange of athletes between Canada and South Africa. We do, however, attempt to discourage such contacts by withholding financial support for athletic contests either in Canada or in South Africa in which South African athletes participate. The purpose, of course, is to underline our opposition in this way to the policy of apartheid which is followed in these sporting contacts, which was raised in the case of the Olympiad for the Physically Disabled for purely cosmetic reasons.


OLYMPIAD FOR THE DISABLED
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my final supplementary question to the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport). In view of the fact that this House now supports and encourages the fund raising program by the Olympiad for the Physically Disabled as a result of the Standing Order 43 motion which it passed, can the minister advise what specific and positive steps she intends to take on behalf of this worth-while cause?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that the hon. member and all hon. members of the House will be pleased to know that some $450,000 has been allocated to the disabled in this country for the development of sporting activities for them. So we are dealing with this in a very positive way.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise on a point of order with respect to the proceedings which took place in the House yesterday afternoon surrounding the motion under Standing Order 43 which was moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
It has become clear that a number of members were taken by surprise in a number of ways and we have been left with a situation which potentially nullifies the assumption which is in the minds of all members of the House that the question period is a vital and indispensable part of our proceedings, and one with which no group in the House ought to be able to interfere. I assure Your Honour that I am not raising any question as to your ruling. Indeed, to do so would be improper. But I do suggest there is a way out of our difficulty though it requires a slightly different emphasis on the wording of Stand-


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that the final responsibility rests with the province and the municipality, and they have a committee at work on the question. We are prepared to co-operate with them in every way, particularly through the presence, not so much of governmental officials but representatives of Canadian National, assisting in the actual plans being developed. At the same time we have other work proceeding on the question of urban transit and commuter traffic particularly involving airports in the Montreal region, where we have a direct interest in our jurisdiction to see that airports are conveniently served. This work is ongoing and will lead to results from time to time.


HARBOURS
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Grain shipments through the port of Churchill have set an all time record with the movement of 28.4 million bushels of wheat and barley this past year. I must say little of the credit for that goes to the minister as he tried to scuttle the complete operation. I now ask the minister what action is being taken to ensure that a full time resident port manager will be named for the port of Churchill so as to guarantee that the maximum percentage capacity of this port is used in the handling of as much as 40 million bushels of grain within its 88 day shipping season?


Otto Emil Lang: Well, Mr. Speaker, the search is on for the appropriate manager. I thank the hon. member for referring to the fact that a record was set, as I had predicted when earlier in the year he suggested that my efforts to help the port would be inadequate.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The record was set in spite of you, not because of you.


Cecil Morris Smith: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Following the advertisement for a port manager there were 17 applicants. Three were interviewed; none was successful. When will the minister be appointing a port manager now?


Otto Emil Lang: When we are assured, Mr. Speaker, that we have a good port manager. On the last occasion when the hon. member expressed his silly concern about the port we found a manager who within a very short time got the situation in hand, and we appointed a chairman to the port commission who also did a good job. In that way we have taken those steps that ensured this good year for Churchill, and we will continue to do so.
Oral Questions


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State which is supplementary to that asked earlier by the hon. member for Bonaventure. I was not clear from the answer of the Secretary of State whether the Secretary of State was conveying to the House of Commons the position of the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or whether he was expressing the view of the government as to the action that should be taken in this matter. Is it the position of the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the position stated by the Secretary of State should be followed?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for putting the question in those clear terms. I was reporting to the House information that I have received from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the proposed sale of 19,000 square miles of Ontario timber to Reed Paper, what steps is the minister taking to protect the way of life of the indigenous population by using federal legislation such as the Clean Water Act and other environmental national acts to prevent abuses by the Reed Paper Company similar to those of the past? What are the implications of the Bernier-Reid memorandum for the development of, "Mercury Polluted Park" in the English-Wabigoon river watershed, as proposed by the former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development? Is it still being considered?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to examine the statutes referred to by the hon. member to see whether they will give us any leverage or enable us to take action to prevent some of the things that might take place. Respecting the proposed national park, that is still in the works and is being examined closely.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In

Oral Questions


Mr. Forrestall:: Then, in God's name do not wait until next January when people on fixed incomes have to go through the cold winter months. Will the minister at least not agree there is no reason, as pointed out by the distinguished member for Halifax, why this decision cannot be taken on the request from the province of Nova Scotia prior to the end of this year? Can it not be taken within the next two to three weeks?


Mr. Gillespie:: Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. member to reconsider some aspects of the situation. 1 ask him to reconsider the assistance that has been given already to the citizens of this province, as well as the equalization grants in particular which were made necessary as a result of the situation. I also ask him to urge the government of Nova Scotia to introduce measures of conservation.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to welcome the Prime Minister back from his trip across the Pacific. In his absence, 1 will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Has he yet received a report from the so-called task force that went across the Atlantic Ocean to study procedures implemented by some European governments designed to block the outflow of domestic currency by imposing controls on foreign exchange?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No,
Mr. Speaker, I have not received any such report.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Albert  Bichard@Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Last Friday, I asked him a question hoping to find out what the CBC would do with regard to Mrs. Lise Payette after the Quebec election of November 15. According to the reply of the minister on that day, it seems clear he did not understand my question. In light of the details given since especially the very words of the statement made by Mrs. Payette last Friday, and I quote her from memory: "As of this morning, l consider myself a Quebecer separated from Canada", could the minister tell the House whether the CBC will renew its contract with Mrs. Lise Payette, that anti-Canadian, after next November 15?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member asked his question last week, I understood he was asking me to conduct an investigation which I was not prepared to do. Of course, as he knows from listening to the reply made by my parliamentary secretary in the House last night, I am informed that because of the provisions in the Broadcasting Act, which places a mandate on Radio Canada and the CBC to strengthen national unity within this country, it is extremely unlikely that the CBC would envisage the re-employment of Mrs. Lise Payette in the circumstance that she is defeated in the election and wished to return to Radio Canada.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
As the CN has decided to increase the rates on its commuter trains by 25 per cent in the Montreal region as of January 1 next, and as we have received numerous complaints from our constitutents in this regard, my question is as follows: Does the minister intend to meet the officials of the CN to discuss this matter in the hope that they might accept to postpone or at least reduce the planned increase until such time as the situation has been reviewed one more?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I gather that the hon. member will have missed the announcement a couple of days ago by my parliamentary secretary and my colleague, the Solicitor General, at a public meeting in the province of Quebec to the effect that I had written to the president of Canadian National Railways asking him, pursuant to a request by Mr. Mailloux of the government of Quebec, to postpone the envisaged rate increase at least until July 1, 1977 so that the province will have time to have its committee work go forward and put in place a plan for commuter service in the Montreal region, which as the hon. member knows we see as being primarily a provincial and municipal responsibility.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary. What is important, naturally, is not so much the letters as the acts. I therefore ask the minister whether he intends to meet the municipal authorities of Metropolitan Montreal in the near future to discuss with them what means should be taken to improve the public transport system without penalizing the consumers too much for such improvements?
October 27, 1976


TRANSPORT
Miss Coline Campbell (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister able to tell the House whether he is aware that as of November 1, 1976 a very serious and grave situation will exist in that the Lyon Ferry Company will no longer carry heavy trucks between Yarmouth and Portland, Maine? If so, is he in a position to tell the House whether alternative arrangements will be made to ensure the continuation of this vital economic link to the southern end of the province?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have been very much aware of the proposed discontinuance of this service. We have been holding discussions with the province of Nova Scotia and with the Canadian National Railway concerning the possibility of an alternative service being put in place. There have been certain complications in relation to the rights and position of the existing operator. Those have delayed the positive announcement of alternative service, but I am optimistic this will be possible very shortly.


POSSIBILITY OF SUBSIDIZING FERRY SERVICE BETWEEN YARMOUTH, N.S. AND PORTLAND, MAINE
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the minister a supplementary question. Has the government offered to subsidize a portion of the cost of operating the Lyon service between Portland and Yarmouth?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is largely our view that this is not necessary and that the service can in fact be operated on a self-sustaining basis.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: A good part of our discussion with the province has been with regard to the question of the nature of service that could be self-sustaining. We have found in the past that where we put in large subsidies, a great deal of misuse of service occurred.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the House leader a serious question in light of the fact that he was the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As the government, through the appropriate ministers, is responsible for justice for all citizens not only in Canada but elsewhere, will the minister make suggestions to the present Secretary of State for External Affairs to provide a list of
Oral Questions
Canadian prisoners held in Mexican jails and what charges, if any, are pending; what they are subjected to while awaiting trial or release? Will he recommend on a high level an investigation and supply this information to the House for the protection of Canadian citizens, a number of whom create a large tourist trade for the nation of Mexico?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think it will be possible through the Canadian embassy in Mexico to provide the hon. member with the names of persons who may presently be detained in Mexico and the state of their detention or forthcoming trial. I believe that information is usually gathered by the embassy and can be made available.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I thank the minister. I would also ask the minister to suggest that the present Secretary of State for External Affairs through the appropriate ambassador or official, and in the strongest terms if necessary, object to the conditions which Canadians, whether charged with proper charges or phony charges, are being subjected to while incarcerated in Mexican jails, which I have seen personally.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. member's concern in this regard. Last week, in replying to a question from him, I expressed similar concern and our difficulty as Canadians in understanding why these long delays take place. In so far as I am aware, Canadian citizens are treated in this respect in exactly the same way as citizens of Mexico. In other words, it is a uniform law and practice that is applied in Mexico. Travellers from Canada to that country, particularly young travellers, are warned against the possible effects if they are found with drugs, which is a very serious offence under Mexican law. Notwithstanding the fact that it is the application of Mexican practice and Mexican law that results in these situations, I still think it is appropriate for us to express concern at these long delays in rendering decisions.


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON SUBSIDIZING ELECTRICAL COSTS IN NOVA SCOTIA
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I will have a supplementary as well. Does the minister agree with the comments made by the President of the Privy Council in his capacity of Acting Prime Minister that in fact the door is still open to a favourable decision with regard to the request for an interim power subsidy and assistance for the province of Nova Scotia?
Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been following my comments over the past several weeks, in particular answers to questions put in this House, he would not have to ask me that question. I made it very clear that in fact that is the situation.

October 27, 1976
Oral Questions
ly does not seem to be in the best interests of the Canadian taxpayer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Imagine that government doing anything which might assist the United States! It is so contrary to their basic principles as to be shocking! I wonder whether the minister, representing a western constituency-


An hon. Member:: Not any more!


John George Diefenbaker: -indeed, he belonging to a party which is rapidly following the buffaloes to extinction, would he once and for all think about Canadians and realize that the effect of any such increase would fall heavily across the country, and particularly upon the western farmer? Can he not stand up for the Canadian farmer and for westerners as a whole rather than some other nation.


Otto Emil Lang: I am surprised to find that right hon. gentleman apparently confirming the view, which was apparent in his earlier question, that it is right to subsidize the passage of American goods through the seaway. I think that is quite wrong. I have no problem as a Canadian, and as a westerner, about saying that such a course does not make a great deal of sense. He has repeated his comments about the political problems one might encounter in the west. His record in predicting my demise over the past years is so bad that it must be compared with his comments about my being able to speak for the west. I can, and do speak for the west.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: I am quite prepared to speak to the west about the fact that a transfer of the deficit to the taxpayers is not a very good way of going about operating a number of things in this country. A lower tax burden is important to all of us, as is the spending of tax dollars on a transportation system in the most effective way. I say to the right hon. gentleman that the patchwork of subsidies which in weakness his government used to maintain and support is nothing but a producer of ineffective transportation and has proved a costly waste of billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: There are none so blind as those who cannot see. I say to the minister


Some hon. Members:: Question!


John George Diefenbaker: Having regard to the fact that his views are contrary to those of the Canadian Council of Agriculture and of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, I ask the minister whether I am not justified in the prophecy that after the next election he will not be back?


Otto Emil Lang: That prophecy has been made by the right hon. gentleman several times before concerning past elections and it will go the same way as the previous ones did, bearing in mind

the support which he knows 1 have and which made him so fearful a few years ago when he thought our constituencies were to be joined. However, I do understand the position taken by users of the service. They always prefer, with regard to the particular use of a particular service, that it should continue to be supported by the taxpayer. The point is, though, that Canadians taken together can understand that, by and large, it is better to have a system under which the taxpayer does not bear that burden with a resultant excessive expenditure on transportation above what is in the interest of this country. We have to organize transportation, it being so important to the west, in a way which makes best use of the dollars spent upon it, and that is our intention.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: In view of the record of the Reed Paper Company in poisoning the waters of the English-Wabigoon River system with mercury and destroying the livelihood of native people in the area, and in view of the memorandum of understanding between this same company and the Ontario government giving Reed Paper timber rights to some 19,000 square miles encompassing at least seven major Indian reserves, will the minister state unequivocably that the federal government will do all in its power to nullify the proposed agreement if, in the opinion of the native people concerned, their treaty rights, health and native economy will be jeopardized by the granting of further timber rights to this company?


William Warren Allmand: If there is any infringement of the rights or treaties of the native people we shall be glad to help them and, if necessary, to provide them with legal assistance.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Has the minister made representations to the government of Ontario expressing the concern felt by the native people of the area? Will he tell us the amount of financial support which those people can expect in presenting their case?


William Warren Allmand: I have not made representations myself to the government of Ontario but my predecessor did. He met with one of the Ontario ministers during the summer just prior to my appointment. I cannot tell the hon. member what amount of money we would be prepared to give these Indians to put forward their case but we do have a policy of providing funds and assistance in circumstances such as these.

Oral Questions HEALTH
give assurance that the unfair discount of six cents will not be exceeded?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, since the agreement concerning the six cents was renegotiated with Australia and New Zealand, no evidence has been presented to me to show that meat from those countries has been sold in Canada outside of that agreement. Previous to that agreement it had been sold in Canada for as much as 31 cents per pound less than it was selling in the United States. I believe the facts will show that. No evidence has been presented to me to show that Australia and New Zealand have broken the agreement from the standpoint of price. New negotiations will take place; I hope the result will be that meat shipped to Canada will be sold at a price no different from that of meat shipped to the United States under the quota system which has been imposed or, I should say, under the supply-management system imposed by the President of the United States.


REASON FOR MINISTER MEETING PROVINCIAL MINISTERS- SUGGESTION DEPARTMENT FAVOUR TRAINING OF GYMNASTS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport.
To a question I had asked of the minister last week, she answered that she would tour the country to meet her provincial counterparts. Would she be prepared to reveal today in the House what is the actual objective for this tour and those meetings with her provincial colleagues?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, I anticipate the meetings commencing in December, at which time I will be happy to provide the hon. member with an agenda.


Roch La Salle: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
In light of the pronounced interest shown a few months ago by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) in Canadian football, and in light of the problems the gymnasts anxious to master this form of sport are facing now, does the minister intend to make a proposition to the provinces to meet this need properly?


Iona Campagnolo: I shall be very interested in the needs of athletes all across the country, but at this time I do not have a complete list of the specific areas I shall be dealing with. I would welcome input from the hon. member on this subject.


SWINE INFLUENZA-REPORT OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE-REASON FOR DELAY OF MASS IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM
Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare, or the acting minister, whether a report has been received from the national advisory committee on immunization with regard to swine influenza, and, in particular, any advice concerning changes in the mass immunization program for Canada and the reason for any further delay in mass immunization?


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the minister is away due to the death of his mother. He has not received a report as yet but we expect a report later this week. We are very disturbed by the CBC report which was entirely false. The advisory committee on immunizing agents has put out a press release making it clear that this information was premature and false and indicating that its suggestions will be very much in line with those made at the two previous committee meetings.


TRANSPORT
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It has to do with the threat made about a year ago by the minister and also by the President of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority that the government of Canada could determine unilaterally whether to increase the tolls on passage through the Welland Canal. Having found out now that this cannot be done unilaterally, according to the legal opinion given by the law officers of the Crown, could the minister now assure the House and the country that there will be no increase in tolls, such an increase having been condemned by the Canadian Council of Agriculture and also by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.


Otto Emil Lang: It is clear that any action would first require consultation with the United States, something we would have wished in any case and which we always intended. Some time would therefore elapse before any action followed. It is a fact, however, that receipts from tolls no longer cover operating and maintenance costs. It does seem important to the government as a matter of policy that a higher proportion of the charges involved, and the real cost of operating the seaway, be borne by those moving goods through the seaway rather than by the taxpayer. The fact is that a higher proportion of benefit falls upon Americans using the seaway and, this being so, the Canadian taxpayer is in effect being asked by the right hon. gentleman to continue subsidizing American goods moving through the seaway. This certain-

October 27, 1976
Oral Questions
porridge. I indicated to him that the neighbourhood improvement program and the RAP program were in fact now being instituted, and the hon. member seemed to be unfamiliar with them. When asked questions about the NIP program and the RAP program all he could say in response was that we should spend more money in that area. He did not indicate to what extent tax deductions should be made; he did not indicate to what extent the government should carry the deficit and he did not indicate to what extent the government would be forced to go into the market to borrow money. This, of course, would push up interest rates and if I can believe the hon. member and his party they would like interest rates to come down. Increasing government borrowing is going to push up interest rates. I thought it was the height of irresponsibility, not knowing the figures or the amount of money he was talking about, to suggest the government should lower taxes and in that way increase the amount of the deficit and increase the borrowing that the government would have to do.


Mr. Broadbent:: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would it be correct to infer from that modestly stated answer of the minister that the government has no intention in the next few months of increasing the supply of housing to provide homes and jobs or of reducing taxes for average and low income people as two sensible proposals or two methods of reducing the level of unemployment?


Mr. Cullen:: I can see the headlines now, Mr. Speaker. That is the way the hon. member will probably interpret my answer. In point of fact, when I listen to my colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, I know we have met every goal and every standard set for us by the Economic Council of Canada. We set record rates in the building of homes. This is, after all, important and until this government took power no other government had introduced low-cost housing for senior citizens.


AGRICULTURE
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
The most recent information bulletin released by the department to announce the adjustments in the 1976-77 dairy program states in part:
No transfer of the new quotas will be allowed between producers before April 1978.
Is the minister aware that the Federation of Dairy Producers is sending out forms urging previously penalized farmers to buy new quotas of 37 cents a pound of fat?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, if the forms are the same ones about which I have been

informed, the local marketing boards are sending them out. I do not believe the Canadian Dairy Commission is.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Should the minister discover that these allegations are true, will he make sure that penalized producers obtain their new quotas without having to pay an overcharge?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Dairy Commission does not put a value on quotas. Local, provincial marketing boards puts a value on quotas, although some of them do not. The province of Manitoba, for instance, puts no value on quotas; the province of Ontario puts a limited value on quotas. Personally, I think no value should be put on quotas.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE BEEF QUOTAS APPLICABLE ONLY TO MEAT IN TRANSIT TO CANADA ON OCTOBER 17
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a further question to the Minister of Agriculture relating to last week's news release announcing the Canadian beef counterquota on all imports, of 17.5 million pounds, for the balance of this year. In that release the following statement appears: products bona fide in transit as of midnight, October 17, 1976, will be permitted entry up to the limit of individual country allotments. Does the term "bona fide in transit" mean ships in the process of loading, as was the case after the "six cent under" rule was announced last June? In other words, can the minister give assurance that only loaded ships on the high seas, ships originally destined for Canada and not diverted ships, will be allowed to unload at Canadian ports?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, it means what it says. Bona fide orders would be accepted. No ships destined, say, for the United States could be diverted to Canada. They could not be; it takes time to make sure that orders are bona fide and were confirmed before the government's regulation was put in place. We want to make sure, if any meat is shipped to Canada, that only the allotted amount goes on the market. Any excess over that amount must be held in bonded warehouses. We also say in that same release that it must be released in an orderly fashion. These topics are still being discussed with both New Zealand and Australian officials.


BEEF-APPLICABILITY OF SIX CENTS UNDER AGREEMENT TO MEAT ENTERING ON QUOTA
Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question relating to the application of the "six cent under" agreement? Since imports from down under up to now have not been in accordance with this agreement, may I ask, with respect to imports entering Canada from Australia and New Zealand under this new quota, does the "six cent under" agreement still apply, and will the minister

ti, during the period from December, 1971 to September, 1976 when the project went into receivership, can the minister explain to the House how Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for two years during that period seemed to be placed in the position of a second mortgagee? Can the minister assure the House that mortgage funds for this project were not used for any other purpose other than those for which they were intended?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: This is the very case, as I understand it, for which the Hamilton Spectator has already apologized. Court action is taking place. If there are any irregularities, certainly I want to be the first to know about them, and I will check into this. However, I can give the hon. member no assurances at this time, particularly as the matter is before the courts.


Mr. McGrath:: My question is based on an article in today's Hamilton Spectator, which is not the subject of any court proceedings. In today's Hamilton Spectator there are very serious questions of impropriety raised. Would the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, who has the responsibility here, order a public inquiry?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I think my hon. friend knows I cannot go by the statement in this morning's newspaper. Certainly, I will look at the allegations made and make any necessary inquiries. As I am sure my hon. friend realizes, we certainly look for any discrepancies or anything which is out of order, and I would be the first one to want to find out.


LIMITED DIVIDEND PROJECTS-MEASURES TO ENSURE MORTGAGE MONEY USED FOR PURPOSE INTENDED
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister. In view of the fact that section 15 of the National Housing Act, dealing with limited dividend housing, lends itself to abuse, would the minister indicate what safeguards he has in force to ensure that federal mortgage money is directed toward the purposes for which it is intended?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, there are agreements under section 15, to which the hon. member is referring, and we go to great lengths to see that those agreements are in keeping with the spirit of the Act to begin with, and also to see that they are maintained within the letter of the law.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Dean Waldon Whiteway: Since CMHC inspectors are the eyes and ears of the minister's department, what precautions does the minister plan to take to ensure that inspectors are not placed in positions of conflict of interest?
Oral Questions


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, first of all they are very good eyes and ears, and I am not aware of any situations in which there are conflicts of interest. Those situations are checked at all times, and if there is even a suggestion of a conflict of interest, I wish the hon. member would speak to me privately, and I will look into it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In rejecting the proposal put forward yesterday that 3 per cent be regarded as constituting virtually full employment the minister sarcastically said that for the government no such 3 per cent would be permitted and that the government wants full employment, presumably down to zero per cent. Oddly enough, that comes from a government which has allowed 7 per cent unemployment for over 18 months.
I would like to ask the minister why he will not submit to the House specific measures to bring down unemployment even to the 3 per cent level, over perhaps the next four year period.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about the unemployed, we are talking about people, not chattels, and percentages are not particularly effective.


REASON FOR REJECTING CERTAIN PROPOSALS TO REDUCE LEVEL OF UNEMPLOYMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister continues to assume that sarcasm constitutes an adequate answer in the House. Would he also explain to the House why he summarily dismissed two practical proposals to increase the supply of low cost housing and a tax reduction for low and medium income people, two important steps to deal with unemployment, describing them as cold porridge when the government will not offer any porridge at all before 1977? Why does he reject these practical proposals out of hand?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Once again, Mr. Speaker, sometimes the questions asked by the hon. member warrant nothing more than sarcasm but this is a legitimate question that deserves a more serious answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I did not say that it was cold porridge. I said most of the things I read in the report presented by the hon. member on behalf of his party seemed to me like warmed over

October 27, 1976
Energy Costs
eventually eliminate rail service in that province but also reflects misleading answers given to questions asked of responsible officials in that they denied such action would take place.
1 therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the Ministry of Transport issue an order that a stay be placed on reduction of staff and that an investigation be made into CN's future activities in the province of Newfoundland.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
...


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM   PROPOSED PROTEST AGAINST BRITISH COLUMBIA'S RETROACTIVE LEGISLATION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Considering that the government of British Columbia on June 23, 1976, brought in enabling legislation to have teachers and other public employees brought under the federal Anti-Inflation Board guidelines, and considering that the enabling legislation was retroactive to October 14, 1975, a period of nine months, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Lee):
That this House express strong dissatisfaction with retroactive legislation as expressed in Bill 16, province of British Columbia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be presented to the House only with unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST FOR EARLY DECISIONS ON AID TO ATLANTIC PROVINCES TO REDUCE COST OF ELECTRICITY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, since I would like some understanding of what I am going to say I will wait until the noise subsides.
Pursuant to the usual Standing Order, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing importance, particularly to the people in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island but also of some national importance. Comments by the Acting Prime Minister-I believe he is still Acting Prime Minister-the President

of the Privy Council, quoted in the press last weekend would indicate a more positive attitude toward energy cost subventions for the two provinces of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. While indicating a more positive attitude on the part of the federal government, they suggest clearly that no decision will likely be taken until the end of this year. Because of the undue hardship which such a delay in the decision-taking will cause for those on low and fixed incomes, I move, seconded by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse):
That this House urge the government to arrive at its decision, at least in principle, prior to the middle of next month, November 15 of the current year.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43 the unanimous consent of the House is required for the presentation of such a motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Is the minister aware of an article which appears in today's edition of the Hamilton Spectator in which a former aide of the Minister of Labour admits intervening in a mortgage application under the limited dividend provisions of the act involving a former law partner of the Minister of Labour, and if so, what steps did the minister take to determine the impact of this conflict of interest on the awarding of the mortgage, since two other applications for the same area were turned down?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen this morning's Hamilton Spectator yet, but I understand that this is a matter which is before the courts. I understand the Hamilton Spectator printed an apology, but there is court action upon which I cannot comment.


HAMILTON-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE MORTGAGE MONEY FOR LIMITED DIVIDEND PROJECT NOT USED FOR OTHER PURPOSES
James Aloysius McGrath: I have sent the clipping over to the minister. I can assure him that this question is asked notwithstanding any court action with regard to any previous stories. I am talking about a story which appeared today.
In view of the fact that almost $6 million of federal mortgage funds were advanced to the developer, Dominic Morgan-

Wednesday, October 27, 1976