1976-04-30

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 regarding CBC farm broadcasting, which recently has become the subject matter in many parts of the country of some controversy, complaint and uncertainty. In anticipation that all hon. members are anxious that this important form of communication with farm producers and consumers alike be of the highest reasonable calibre, I move, and I am honoured to have my motion seconded by my colleague opposite, the vice-chairman of the standing committee on broadcasting, the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Douglas):
That this matter of CBC farm broadcasting be referred for study to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 such a motion can be put only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion which is moved by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis) and seconded by the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Douglas). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. It concerns the construction of the Trident nuclear base in Bangor, Washington, immediately south of the city of Vancouver. In view of the tremendous size of the Trident installation, its close proximity to Canadian territory and the danger to Canadian lives and property posed by the existence of this base in the event of a nuclear fallout
following a nuclear attack and in view of the long standing friendship, close relationship and atmosphere of goodwill between Canada and the United States, which Canada is presently demonstrating by her commitment to spend $1 billion of Canadian tax dollars to prop up the financially-troubled American Lockheed Corporation by its failure to either consult in respect of or protest such construction of the Trident base where Lockheed happens to be the prime contractor, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House go on record as condemning the construction of the Trident nuclear base and request the Canadian government to protest to the United States that construction in the strongest possible terms and, to request immediate consultation and discussion with the United States Government.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Trudeau:: Paproski said no.


Mr. Paproski:: Trudeau said no.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the pricing policies of the federal public sector have been removed from the direct jurisdiction of the AntiInflation Board, yet the board reports that almost 10 per cent of their complaints involve government matters, can the minister tell the House whether persons affected by federal price increases have any practical opportunity on a day to day basis to appeal the price policies of federal emanations and, if so, to what body?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's premise is incorrect. The federal government, and indeed provincial government bodies which recover most of the costs of the services provided by way of user charges, are subject to the Anti-Inflation

April 30, 1976
Oral Questions
Board. As the House has been told many times, other federal tribunals such as the National Energy Board and other boards which govern the provision of services to the public are applying anti-inflation guidelines. In the situation where much of the cost is covered by a subsidy from the federal Treasury and only part is recovered by the user charges, the department or the Treasury Board applies the price and income guidelines in determining the extent to which there should be an increase in the user charge.
The hon. member has said very often that there should be a reduction of the federal government expenditure in this country. We have acknowledged that in the sense of saying that the absolute subsidy provided, for example, to the airlines through the air transport charges, should not be increased and where costs go up the user should be expected to pay rather than have the cost borne by the general taxpayer.


SUGGESTION BOARD BE REQUESTED TO REVIEW PRICING POLICIES OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND MONETARY POLICY OF GOVERNMENT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My question is directed again to the Minister of Finance. In order to prevent any possible doubt concerning this question of undue price increase at federal levels and considering that section 12(1)(e) of the Anti-Inflation Act gives the board the authority to comment on any inflationary activities at the federal government levels, will the minister encourage the Anti-Inflation Board to review all pricing decisions of federal emanations and to condemn publicly any price increase which the board finds unjustified?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The
membership of the board is of such quality and so concerned about the effectiveness of the program that they do not require encouragement from me. I notice that they have been fairly active in this regard without my intervention.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My supplementary question is again to the Minister of Finance. Noting that the C.D. Howe Research Institute has released a study claiming that the federal monetary policy has been inflationary in recent years and that a major villain of the piece has been the ravenous cash requirements of the federal government, will the minister ask the Anti-Inflation Board as part of its effort to promote public understanding of the inflationary process, as is contemplated under the act, to review developments in monetary policy and government expenditure and to report to the Canadian people as to whether these developments are consistent with the goals of the anti-inflation program?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it does dot seem to me to make a lot of sense to have the Anti-Inflation Board go back to 1972, 1973 and 1974 when the primary concern of the government at least, if not of the hon. member, was the high rate of unemployment in Canada and to review the policies being followed by the Bank of Canada at that time. The Bank of Canada has made it clear that under current circumstances it will run quite a tight monetary policy, and I think this is recognized as much by

the Anti-Inflation Board as by anyone else, certainly by the vice-chairman.


ADDITIONAL STAFF NECESSARY TO COPE WITH BACKLOG OF WAGE SETTLEMENTS
Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the fact that the staff of the Anti-Inflation Board has increased three-fold over the minister's original estimate, and in view of the fact that as of April 9 there was a backlog of 3,900 wage settlements before the board, will the minister say, first, when the backlog will be eliminated and, secondly, how much additional staff he expects will be necessary to cope with the situation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am advised by the board that much of the backlog arises from the reports which have been required from the corporate sector, including the reports with respect to the wage settlements of their particular employees. The vast majority of those, as has often been stated in public, should be cleared in the relatively near future. Of course, there will remain a backlog of some of the more difficult cases, particularly where the question of historical relationship is involved.


ALLEGED STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR THAT CONTROL PROGRAM SHOULD BE DISMANTLED-GOVERNMENT POSITION
James Balfour: Does the minister agree with the statement of the administrator of the Anti-Inflation Board that the wage and price control program should be dismantled as soon as possible?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is the position I have taken in this House right from the start, but the hon. gentleman seems to support the view that even if we have 6 per cent inflation next year, at that point we should accept it and live with it. This government has not taken that position.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We think the program should run until inflation in Canada is drastically reduced.


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO REDUCE DEFICIT
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Finance. Given the report this morning that a body of United States politicians wants to continue with an unchanged Canada-U.S. automotive agreement-not unusual considering that they had a $2 billion trade surplus in their favour for last year-I should like to ask the minister if he would confirm for the House that in the automotive parts trade for the first quarter of this year we are running a deficit of $600 million in automotive parts alone. I believe that to be the case. Would the minister tell the House what plans the
April 30, 1976

government now has to turn around this unacceptable situation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think I should like to confirm the accuracy of the figure, from a purely statistical standpoint. The position taken by my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, has my support, namely, that his department has been carrying out an analysis on the current situation, both with regard to automobiles and parts, for the purpose of preparing a position for discussion with the United States on the subject of the auto pact.
Incidentally, the United States administration has been engaged in a similar analysis on their side. I think one would have to recognize that political events in the United States during the balance of this calendar year may make it difficult to complete negotiations for any changes in the auto pact.


John Edward Broadbent: For at least three years now the government has been saying that it has been undertaking studies as to what changes, if any, ought to be made in the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement. Would the minister finally give us some deadline for when the studies will be finished? Specifically, can he tell us what the government intends to do to ensure that Canadians get their share of investment which is at least proportionate to our consumption in that industry. Secondly, when does the government finally intend to make the automotive companies in Canada bring down their prices for Canadian consumers to at least the level at which they sell the same cars produced in this country to Americans?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As the hon. gentleman knows, during the history of the auto pact over the past decade there has been a variation of experience. Indeed, up until 1971 the performance of the pact for Canada had been very much ahead and was the subject matter of some complaint by the then secretary of the United States treasury.
As to whether we will give up our careful study of the program, of course we will not. I think it will be important to monitor the effects of the existing arrangements from time to time to make certain that the program is meeting the interests of the two countries. I agree, however, that it is appropriate that the two administrations should be in position to discuss this, to do a perspective on the auto pact and to see the manner in which it should be changed in the interests of both countries.


John Edward Broadbent: The minister cites 1971 as a favourable year.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Up to.


John Edward Broadbent: He says "up to". I remind the minister that in eight of the eleven years the pact has been in existence Canada has had a massive deficit. I should like to ask whether the government intends, during 1976, for example, to come forward with specific proposals in terms of investment requirements for the automotive companies on this side of the border and in terms of pricing decisions to ensure that at least fairness is built into the pact for Canadians.
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I point out to the hon. gentleman again that there has been an ebb and a flow in this matter, and that at the time cited Canada was quite substantially ahead on the auto pact. As I indicated, we are putting ourselves in a position to commence discussions with the United States on the subject of the auto pact. I pointed to what may be some difficulty, from the standpoint of the United States, with extensive negotiations this year but we are putting ourselves in readiness for those kinds of discussions as soon as they can reasonably be held.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD SUGGESTION OFFICIALS TRAVEL ECONOMY CLASS AND EXPENSE ACCOUNTS BE PUBLISHED
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to put a question to the Minister of the Environment but, in his absence, I believe the President of the Treasury Board, or even the President of the Privy Council could answer it.
As the government intends to reduce MP's expenses, is the minister aware that the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board still travels first class by air, according to the newspapers? First, would he have the chairman practice what he preaches since hon. members will have to travel third class? Second, would he be willing to publish the expense accounts of all the members of the AIB to ensure that they are really setting the example?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, one incident was reported to the effect that Mr. Pepin had travelled first class; he explained that he had an economy class ticket but he had been invited to travel first class. I am not aware of other similar incidents.
As for the other question, if the hon. member wants that information, I believe he could have a question put on the order paper to which the responsible minister would give a reply. As for the hon. member's travelling third class, I wonder if he will be travelling by canoe.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to ask the minister-but first I want to tell him that I go by canoe in the woods only-if he is going to ask all officials to reduce their expenses and stop travelling in millionaire style.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We put out instructions last December forbidding civil servants to travel first class, unless circumstances are extraordinary; that is the principle we have adopted to prove to the people that restrictions are also applied to members of parliament, ministers and officials of the government.
April 30, 1976

Oral Questions


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the marriage breakup which took place last week-end in Toronto between the federal and provincial wings of the Liberal party, I wonder if the Prime Minister is planning to make any helicopter tours of Ontario this spring, as he did a year ago, when he will be dropping in on provincial Liberal picnics and other such festivities?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that such an experienced member has not learned to make the distinction between marriage breakup and women's liberation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the substance of the question, Mr. Speaker, the only plans I have for using helicopters in the near future is to reach those heights of Olympus on which the hon. member sits.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question. I should like to remind the Prime Minister that the view is infinitely better from this new and exalted position that I now occupy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Sharp:: The view of the back of your leader's head is better?


George Harris Hees: I can assure the Prime Minister that the atmosphere is far fresher and purer up here than it is down on that mundane level on which he sits. Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he would seriously consider taking one of those helicopter trips, and if he would promise to call in at Prince Edward-Hastings, because I always appreciate the extra thousand majority he adds to my vote at election time whenever he pays my riding a call!


Steve Eugene Paproski: And try Edmonton Centre at the same time.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as for the view, I agree with the hon. member. It is much better to see his leader from the back. I concede the telling point about the increase of votes. I believe they were brought about because when I visited the riding the hon. member made sure he was in every picture taken of me.


George Harris Hees: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. My only objection, after the Prime Minister's last visit to my riding, is this: for about a week after his visit I kept being asked, "Say, George, who was the little guy traipsing around behind you at the fair?"


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Touche, George.


George Harris Hees: You set them up and I'll knock them down.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the Prime Minister's statement regarding the establishment of a pattern of inconsistencies with respect to tendering procedures, is it the intention of the minister to ask the Auditor General to look into the question of financial control procedures at all international airports in view of events recently brought to light with respect to the administration of leases and concessions and the fact that instances of inadequate controls were brought to the attention of the government by the Auditor General some time ago. Specifically, the 1971 Auditor General's report stated in part:
In audits of the international airports at Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, a number of irregularities were observed in the administration of leases and concessions. These irregularities indicate the need for a strengthening by the Department of Transport of the administration of its leases and concessions:-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary to ask the Auditor General to do his job. He is very well known for his excellent work and I am sure that if he sees any irregularities in the procedures he will inform me without any delay. However, I thank the hon. member for raising this matter. As far as I am concerned, I inquired of the department's officials and found nothing in particular to comment on. For the information of the hon. member, I could send him immediately the list of procedures to be followed by the departments before asking for public tenders.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed either to the Acting Minister of Transport or to the President of the Treasury Board. Can either hon. gentlemen indicate whether the consortium of consultants retained for Mirabel International Airport, namely Consultant en Aeroports Internationaux de Montreal Ltee have discretionary powers with regard to authorizing changes in tenders or procedures which would permit those who have submitted successful bids to receive "change orders" or additional payments up to several hundred thousand dollars without public tender. In other words, what are the terms of reference binding CAIM, the consultant firm, for allocating work and tenders?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to give a full answer to this question. However, I take good note of it and I shall report to the hon. member later.
April 30, 1976


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I ask him to consider, when he is looking into the matter, if the ceiling of $500,000 is relevant? Also, will he check to see if contracts exceeding the discretionary amount, if such there is, were severed or split into smaller amounts in order to bring them within the discretionary limit?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not have this information at hand, but I shall try to obtain it.


MIRABEL-REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF MR. STONER'S BEHAVIOUR IN CONNECTION WITH FOOD CONCESSION TENDER
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister? On Wednesday last my colleague, the hon. member for Vegreville, asked the House to approve a motion requesting that Mr. Gerry Stoner explain in writing his behaviour vis-a-vis the Mirabel restaurant matter. The motion having been defeated, I ask the Prime Minister to direct the Minister of Transport forthwith to ask for and table a written explanation of Mr. Stoner's behaviour, which includes various statements to indicate whether or not his minister of the day simply authorized the act of intervention or, indeed, ordered it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the motion, which I did not hear last week, was brought to my attention. It reinforces my view of the offer I made in the absence of the Leader of the Opposition. This whole matter should be brought before a parliamentary committee or committee of the whole so that these questions can be asked of the minister. He will be assisted by officials and is anxious to answer all these questions. I regret the nature of the motion and, indeed, of the question, because, by innuendo, they cast aspersions on one of our most distinguished civil servants. The man is beyond reproach and has served the government well for many years. I am sorry that not only ministers but civil servants now are being tarred with this kind of smear.


Mr. Clark:: Apparently there is a limitless supply of red herrings available to the right hon. gentleman.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister completely misleads the House with respect to that matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The question related to an apparent conflict of statements made by the former Minister of Transport, now the Minister of the Environment, and the present Minister of Transport. I again ask if the Prime Minister is prepared to have the present Minister of Transport file an explanation with regard to the influence or intervention by the Minister of Transport of that day into this matter vis-a-vis Mr. Gerry Stoner who is indeed a respected civil servant.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, my answer to that would be a flat no. I would not want the minister to file any such statement. I hope the opposition will have the courage to challenge the minister and his officials in front of a committee or of the committee of the whole House, if necessary, because this kind of question that has been asked repeatedly is not meant to get to the truth of the matter. It is meant, as the hon. member for Central Nova indicated, to be mischievous and frivolous. He is not seeking the truth. He is seeking to distribute a lot of hot air. It is of no service to the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, I will direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. Has the minister initiated a policy in which his department is telling companies owning United States magazines and reporting on Canadian public affairs to employ only Canadians for posts in Canada, in that organizations seeking to transfer non-Canadian correspondents to Canada have encountered difficulty in obtaining or extending work visas?


Mr. Arthur Portelance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take note of the hon. member's question and he will have an answer sometime next week.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In order to maintain freedom of the press, will the minister assure this House that non-Canadian correspondents working for foreign news services, newspapers or magazines will not be barred from working in Canada through the withholding of work visas, an action that borders on control of the press?


Arthur Portelance: As I have said, I take note of the question, Mr. Speaker. The minister will reply to the hon. member next week.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. The total outlay for unemployment insurance totalled over $3 billion in 1975 and caused the government's share of UI expenditure to increase by 90 per cent over that experienced in 1974. In view of the fact that Statistics Canada now reports that both net and gross benefit payouts for UIC have increased an additional 15 per cent in the first two months of 1976 over the first two months of 1975, does the minister
13032

April 30, 1976
Oral Questions
now believe that total expenditure for 1976 will exceed those astronomical figures we had to live with in 1975 and can he give us any indication as to what this total outlay will be in 1976?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


ALLEGED FAILURE OF BILL C-69 TO EFFECT REDUCTION IN EXPENDITURES-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In June of last year the former Minister of Finance announced a five point strategy to achieve restraint in unemployment insurance expenditures. This was followed by Bill C-69 which revealed in glowing terms how it would tighten up the Unemployment Insurance Act. In view of the fact that Bill C-69 has been in effect since January 1 and in that same period of time expenditures have continued to increase, is the Prime Minister now prepared to concede that Bill C-69 will not bring about the desired effects it was initially believed to accomplish and therefore call for immediate additional amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, preferably early in the next session?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is an intention to bring in amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Commission Act. We are now looking at this matter. I hope the hon. member will make his views known on this before the bill is put before the House.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In light of the fact that the Unemployment Insurance payout has considerably increased since the introduction of Bill C-69, is the Prime Minister now prepared to indicate that Bill C-69 has not had the desired effect?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question sounds slightly argumentative, Mr. Speaker, but I will take note of it.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Since Canada maintains the equidistant principle in the seaward extension of the boundary dividing the land mass between Canada and the United States while the United States claims the Fundian channel divides the fishing banks on the Atlantic coast, has the Prime Minister or any of his officials held recent talks with the Americans on this topic? If so, can he inform the House on the progress being made in view of the valuable groundfish and scallop fishery, as well as possible oil, gas and minerals in this area?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will take note of the question on behalf of the minister.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Since the ownership of this valuable offshore bank is obviously in question and is claimed today by Canada and the United States, can the Prime Minister inform the House if there is any informal agreement between our two countries on this bank and, if not, on what basis have exploration permits been issued to oil companies interested in probing the resources of this area?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will take note of that too, Mr. Speaker.



ALLEGED OBJECTION OF UNITED STATES TO CANADIAN SUBSIDIARY OF PRATT-WHITNEY ENTERING INTO CONTRACT WITH ROLLS-ROYCE-GOVERNMENT ACTION

Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. I presume the Prime Minister is aware of the decision by the United States justice department which prevents Pratt-Whitney Canada Limited of Montreal from entering into a contract with Rolls-Royce for the development of a new engine, thereby purporting to use extra territorial jurisdiction over a Canadian company, although it is an American subsidiary. What action is the government taking to protest the move by the United States justice department to prevent this contract from being entered into, a contract which would provide a thousand Canadian jobs over the life of the development contract for the Rolls-Royce Pratt-Whitney engine?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member flatters me when he assumes that I know the terms of this contract. I will take note of the question.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I was not suggesting the Prime Minister would know the terms of the contract. I thought he might know that the United States justice department was interfering in Canadian affairs. That is something he might like to take note of if he did not know before now. In view of the information the Prime Minister now has, will he take action to protest the extra territorial use of American law dealing with Canadian subsidiaries and drying up Canadian jobs? Further, will the Prime Minister advise if it is government policy to continue going to the United States to buy Lockheed aircraft without research and development because this new contract that is drying up has research and development for Canadians? What action will the Prime Minister now take?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the justice department of the United States is indeed addressing Canada in that way, I will discuss with the Minister of National Defence what response will be necessary.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
April 30, 1976



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Solicitor General a question. A few days ago I asked the Prime Minister to make certain that the RCMP do not become embroiled in a jurisdictional dispute. The Prime Minister said he would look into the facts and try to solve the problem. Would the Solicitor General now advise the House whether this question has been solved, so as to ensure that any wrongdoing will be subject to the judgment of the courts and not sabotaged by jurisdictional technicalities or political skullduggery?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: As I mentioned in the House the other day, this matter will be discussed between myself and the solicitor general of Quebec very shortly.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am sure the Solicitor General has read the morning papers and noted that the solicitor general in Quebec has said: Hands off. What is the attitude of the Solicitor General, the minister responsible for the RCMP, when the force is, really, embroiled in a jurisdictional dispute?


William Warren Allmand: I do not think we can rely on the press for a true representation of what is going on between Quebec and the federal government. All I can say is that discussions have been going on between officials of the police involving Ontario, Quebec and the federal government, and that very shortly I shall be meeting with the solicitor general and the deputy minister from Quebec. I am sure we can resolve these difficulties.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the minister's statement earlier this week to the effect that it is questionable whether the proposed pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley will be proceeded with, can the hon. gentleman advise whether or not this statement indicates that the government now favours the proposal of Polar Gas and Panarctic Oil to build a pipeline from the high Arctic and/or a Y-line concept?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion did not point in that direction. It merely indicated that as long as the extractable reserves in the north, in the Delta area, are only in the order of three trillion cubic feet there was some question that the pipeline might not be in Canada's interest.
Oral Questions



DATE OF ISSUANCE OF REGULATIONS GOVERNING DRILLING FOR OIL AND GAS IN THE NORTH

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Can the minister advise us when he expects to have the long-overdue oil and gas regulations ready for promulgation?


J. Judd Buchanan: It is the hope of my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and myself that we shall be able to issue a statement containing the substance of the oil and gas regulations by the middle of May, that is, in the next two weeks.



GOVERNMENT POSITION ON PROPOSED PIPELINE FROM PRINCE RUPERT TO EDMONTON

Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is intended for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In the light of serious studies presently being conducted in connection with a proposal to build a pipeline from Prince Rupert tying into the Trans Mountain Pipe Line, can the parliamentary secretary to the minister or the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources tell the House whether the government is making any input into these studies and whether the proposal is being considered by the department as an alternative to the Mackenzie Valley route?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps I might reply to that question as acting minister. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has been contacted by participants in the study, essentially in the private sector, who have indicated their interest in this proposal. The purpose of the project is to carry petroleum rather than natural gas, moving oil which has come down through the Alyeska pipeline into the Interprovincial system by way of Edmonton so as to make up for reduced exports of oil to a number of northern tier American states. It is an entirely private initiative. The department has been in touch with those who are interested but the federal government has taken no decision with regard to it.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and it arises from a CBC report of last evening. Can the right hon. gentleman tell us whether in the course of the current negotiations between Canada and India to resume shipment of nuclear technology and fuel to that country agreement has been reached with regard to IAEA inspection of all nuclear facilities in India, not just those supplied by Canada, and, if not, will the government refuse to proceed with any resumption of nuclear supplies to that country as
2 1804-6314

April 30, 1976
Oral Questions
has been strongly advocated by members on this side of the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. The matter is to be before cabinet very soon; there have been recent discussions with the government of India.



RELATIONSHIP OF REFUSAL TO ALLOW ITALIAN COMPANY TO SELL NUCLEAR REACTORS UNDER LICENCE TO POLITICAL SITUATION IN ITALY-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Flora Isabel MacDonald: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary involving a question which the Secretary of State considered too complex to answer yesterday. With regard to the licensing agreement allowing an Italian company to build CANDU reactors, if the report of April 24 was correct in stating that that company would not be permitted the resale of nuclear technology to other countries, was that decision in any way related to the unsettled political position in Italy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. lady is talking about a report and a company. I do not know what she is referring to in either case. But I will refer her question to the minister.



FISHERIES


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Fisheries I will direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the fact that the minister has made concessions to maritime lobster fishermen while excluding the Newfoundland lobster fishermen who find themselves in the same difficulties, and in the light of representations which have been made to the minister respecting which an early decision was promised, can the parliamentary secretary now advise the House what decision or what action has been taken?


Mr. George Baker (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of State for Fisheries is presently in New York attending the Law of the Sea Conference. I know he was due to make a policy statement on the weekend so I might as well make it for him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Baker: The decision does not involve a major policy change as was the case in other maritime provinces. It involves, rather, adjustments to enable two things to be done. First, the fishermen helpers who worked with moonlighters in past years, and who are not permitted under the present regulations to obtain operators' licences, will now be permitted to obtain them; second, fishermen who had contemplated going out lobster catching and were refused a licence and who had made a

commitment prior to December 30, 1975, will now be able to apply for a licence. I am sure the hon. gentleman will agree with these basic changes, two of which were suggested in a letter he wrote to me approximately a month ago.


Jack Marshall: I may say to the parliamentary secretary that I certainly agree with the changes because they are two which I recommended to the minister. Can the hon. gentleman now tell us what steps the department has taken to advise the fishermen of these adjustments, in view of the fact that the lobster season is now with us in Newfoundland and the information needs to go out as quickly as possible?


George Baker: I can assure the hon. member that I will communicate this policy immediately to the media in Newfoundland. As the hon. member knows, most of the fishermen who were, in effect, discriminated against had already appealed to the Appeal Board and the Appeal Board will be notified immediately with regard to this policy change. Obviously, some of the applications which were formerly rejected will now be accepted.



REQUEST FOR LIST OF THOSE REFUSED LOBSTER FISHING LICENCE

Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: I wish to congratulate the parliamentary secretary. Would he tell the minister when he comes back that members from the maritime provinces are glad to see he has finally got some sense into this policy regarding lobster fishing licences. Will he also ask the minister to allow the members who represent the maritime provinces to get the names of those to whom lobster fishing licences were originally refused? I have been trying for weeks to get the names of those concerned in my constituency.


George Baker: The hon. member's question, as I understand it, is to ask the minister to do this. The answer is, yes.



FINANCE


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who, I understand, will shortly be tabling the Economic Review, and who has indicated he will at least give some consideration to having the report referred to the Standing Committee on Finance. IVill he be prepared to make such a motion of reference to the standing committee when he tables the report in the House?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I do
not have a motion before me but I would be quite prepared to discuss the matter with the House leader with the hon. gentleman's objective in mind.
April 30, 1976



AGRICULTURE


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. I am sure the minister realizes the disdain with which we regard the dairy policy. Notwithstanding this, since the policy is causing serious problems among dairy farmers, would he consider allowing dairy farmers to refrain in the next 12 months from paying back some of their farm credit loans until they can get the industry straightened out? I ask this because the situation is pushing some of them very close to bankruptcy.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we had the Chairman of the Farm Credit Corporation at a meeting late last night and he said they would look at this with their usual charitable attitude. Farm Credit history has shown that they have never taken advantage of a situation that was not the farmers fault.




Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Last week, during the yearly convention of the Quebec Federation of Milk Producers, a resolution was passed severely censuring the Canadian Dairy Commission for the way it allotted quotas which, in its view, is most unfair towards the province of Quebec in particular. Therefore, would the minister prevail upon the Canadian Dairy Commission to review and even amend the method it used regarding quota apportioning in view of reducing production since, according to the resolution, it was very unjust particularly to Quebec?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the industrial milk producers annual meeting in Quebec certainly has the right to pass any resolution it so desires. I am not saying what resolution should or should not be passed. The problem is that it is the province of Quebec itself that allocates the quotas for the producers in their own province. I did have a representative at that meeting. In fact, I had more than one representative there. The fact is that they are not happy at the present time with the way they are sharing the industrial or global quota or the quota of the whole nation. We have very little to do with how this is distributed between the provinces. The milk sharing quota committee, made up of provincial producers' organizations along with the Dairy Commission, decides how this is to be distributed. I do not make that decision.
Oral Questions



SUGGESTION MILK PRODUCTION SHOULD BE CONTROLLED FEDERALLY

William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Has he recently received representations from milk producer groups suggesting that milk production should be controlled federally, presumably under the Farm Products Marketing Council and, if so, what has his response been to those representations?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I do not remember receiving these representations in a formal manner. I have received them in conversation, but I have no recollection of seeing any written document of any kind making that suggestion. I think the only way we will be able to solve the problem is if there is more federal control, and I mean by that farmer control on a national basis. Every province runs its own quota system, and each one of them in Canada does it in a different fashion at the present time. However, if they are thinking along these lines I would be receptive to that kind of suggestion.



MEDICAL AUTHORITY FOR DECISION NOT TO VACCINATE CHILDREN AGAINST SWINE FLU

Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the government planning to provide vaccine for immunization of Canadian children against the swine influenza virus and, if not, upon what medical authority was the decision made?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, at the present time the answer is no and the authority is that of the best immunologists in the country who constitute the national advisory committee on immunization agents. They advised the government on this matter and their report has been tabled in the House.
In addition, I might point out to the hon. member that there seems to be very serious second thoughts taking place in the United States as to the mass immunization program as far as children are concerned. Some opinion I have read in the papers is to the effect that they should not immunize children under five years of age. I have seen other information to the effect that they are now carrying on tests of children between age three and 11 in order to determine whether they should or should not give the vaccine to them. So this is an issue even in the United States that is far from being resolved or settled, although at first the United States announced it was going to carry out universal immunization. We are obviously following this particular situation very closely. If there is any scientific information justifying a change in policy we will be acting on the best scientific advice we can obtain and I would not hesitate to modify the announced policy.

April 30, 1976
13036___________________________
Oral Questions



REASON FOR REDUCTION IN BUDGET OF MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, in view of the need for very active ongoing programs in medical research to keep abreast of the production of vaccines and for other medical services, will the minister explain the rationale for cutting the medical research budget of the Medical Research Council to the point that it had to reduce the number of ongoing programs by 40 per cent, and could accept only 13 per cent of the new applications for the year ahead?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that the production of vaccine in this particular instance has nothing to do with medical research as such. It is really a problem of industrial production which has to be met in a very short time. As to the broader question raised by the hon. member in which he suggests that I and the government are not concerned about medical research, I have already said to him and other members in the House that I was reviewing the situation and trying to find the funds somewhere along the line to put into medical research in this country.



SOURCE OF VACCINE FOR SWINE FLU

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicate whether he is now in a position to inform the House and the country what the source of the vaccine supply is to be? There have been varying reports about this, but we still do not know whether anyone will be able to produce a sufficient quantity?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am confident that we will have an ample supply of vaccine in ample time for distribution in the fall. We are having discussions with foreign countries, including the United States, but I am in no position to make a formal announcement at this time. As I have said before, as long as these negotiations are going on I think it would be very inappropriate for me to make a formal statement.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the new Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I would ask whether he is aware of the announced plans of his colleague, the Postmaster General, to increase postal rates in Canada despite his assertion less than a year ago that postal rates would not rise until post office efficiency had improved, and will he tell the House whether the Postmaster General's comments constituted false and misleading advertising by the head of this giant monopoly?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the last time I tried to discuss this matter with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in my capacity as Postmaster General he was not speaking to me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: I don't blame him.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: As Postmaster General, I wrote him a letter and the answer came back-


An hon. Member:: Has he got it yet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: How did he get the letter?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I delivered the letter.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The increase we are suggesting in the way of first-class mail is very nominal and well within the guidelines, particularly in light of the deficit which exists in the post office. The Consumer and Corporate Affairs Department congratulated the Postmaster General on the high quality and integrity of his advertising.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question also deals with the matter of postal efficiency, and it arises from the planned lottery by the post office which would include the grand prize winner being sent by the post office to any place in Canada served by the Post Office.


An hon. Member:: By mail.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I would like to ask the Postmaster General what assurance he can give the House that the winning entrant will arrive at his destination without being lost or mutilated en route?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and I am sure all members of the House are sorry to see him limping and walking with a cane. We did not expect such a violent reaction from his colleagues regarding his statement that we should not proceed with the Mackenzie Valley pipeline because there is not enough gas. I should like to ask the minister about the report that the signing of the Syncrude agreement has been postponed due to his intervention, an action for which I commend him.
The report is that the Government of Canada is insisting on some guarantees that the native people will be given
April 30, 1976

employment, not only on the construction but in entre-preneural services. I wish to ask the minister, or the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, whether the government has received such assurance, and if so in what form and whether or not he has been able to convince both the Government of Alberta and the Government of Ontario, which have objected to this course of action, that such guarantees should be given. If they are not given, can he assure the House that the agreement will not be signed until some provision, either by way of a clause in the agreement or a letter of intent, has been received by the Government of Canada.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I last discussed this matter a couple of hours ago with my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who is in Edmonton. We had been working on a draft of a letter which would be acceptable and which we felt would protect the interests of the native people. It was acceptable to the government of the province of Alberta and I believe my colleague has worked out the arrangements with the other interested parties as well. I have not heard from him in the last couple of hours.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, has the Syncrude consortium also agreed to a guarantee to employ native people.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, this letter is in the form of a direction from the participants to the Syncrude Corporation to negotiate and enter into such an agreement.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies, in both official languages, of the Economic Review, April, 1976.
Mr. Speaker, in light of the question raised by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) I have a motion to the effect that the Economic Review, April, 1976, be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. I wonder whether the House would be prepared to give unanimous consent to such a motion?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion, of course, can be put only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent that the motion be put?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That the Economic Review, April, 1976, be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Order Paper Questions CONSTITUENCY RECORDS ACT
MEASURE REQUIRING MPs TO PASS ON TO SUCCESSORS FILES RELATING TO CONSTITUENCY PROBLEMS
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-436, respecting the preservation and surrender of constituency records.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to require members of parliament to pass on to their successors any files they possess dealing with matters relating to constituency problems. The bill, in effect, provides that a member of parliament is holding any records, documents or correspondence in trust for the constituent to whom they pertain. The bill also provides for the arbitration of disputes arising out of the operation of the act and imposes appropriate fines for non-compliance.
The intent is do away with the existing practice where frequently a member vacates his office and disposes of constituents' files in the garbage can.


[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.)
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 4,109, 5,012, 5,034, 5,037 and 5,199.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Has or will the government rent space in La Cite project in Montreal and, if so (a) how many floors, (b) how many square feet, (c) what government departments will occupy the space and what functions will be performed by the offices in question, (d) what is the estimated cost of furnishing the offices, (e) what is the (i) annual rental on all space, (ii) length of the lease, (iii) lease renewal conditions, (f) how many square feet of carpet have been or will be ordered for the entire area and, what is the (i) cost per square foot, (ii) total cost?
2.	(a) What are the reasons justifying rental of the additional space, (b) will it replace other areas previously rented and, if so, what is the square footage and location of the space elsewhere that it will replace?


Mitchell William Sharp: am informed by the Departments of Public Works and Secretary of State as follows: 1. Yes. (a) Five floors; (b) 73,756 square feet; (c) Secretary of State, translation function; (d) Estimated cost of furniture as of March 31, 1975: $17,001.50; (e) (i) $626,926.00. (ii) Five years, (iii) Two one-year options, same terms and conditions, (f) (i) 73,798 square feet at $1.05 per square foot, (ii) $77,443.00.
2. (a) (i) The Secretary of State is to translate all working documents in government with special emphasis in the Province of Quebec thereby requiring a rapid increase in accommodation, (ii) The Secretary of State is to accelerate its efforts to establish in conjunction with the

April 30, 1976
Order Paper Questions
University of Montreal a national terminology bank, (iii) Secretary of State has outgrown its existing accommodation. (b) Yes; replacing 26,350 square feet at 1260 Ste-Catherine St. East, Montreal, Quebec.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	What steps were taken in 1974 and 1975 to test humane animal traps, and (a) at what cost, (b) with what results?
2.	What provision is in the 1976 budget for testing more humane animal traps?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of the Environment):: 1. In 1975-76 the Canadian Wildlife Service of the Department of the Environment entered into contracts with the Canadian Standards Association and the Ontario Veterinary College to develop testing procedures and protocols using the Conibear trap as a base on which to develop standards. Three traps chosen by the Federal-Provincial Committee on Humane Trapping are now being tested for biological and mechanical effectiveness based on those procedures. The contract with the Canadian Standards Association was for $12,500 and the contract with the Ontario Veterinary College was for $24,000.
2. In 1976-77 contracts will be negotiated to test four purported humane traps already on the market for mechanical and biological effectiveness. The Federal-Provincial Committee on Humane Trapping will be selecting three more traps for testing in the autumn of 1976. That committee will also be field testing those traps deemed to be biologically and mechanically effective.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	What was the cost of the preparation and distribution of the 1974-75 Annual Report and Review of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion?
2.	How many copies were printed?
3.	What is the government's policy concerning the unsolicited distribution of the document during a time of austerity?
4.	How many copies (a) were sent to persons or organizations who had not requested it, (b) have yet to be distributed?


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. The cost of preparation of the 1974-75 Annual Report and Review was $49,000; $33,000 for printing; $14,000 for concept and design, and $2,000 for typesetting. In addition, distribution costs were approximately $6,000.
2.	A total of 35,000 copies was printed.
3.	In so far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned, a widespread distribution of its 1974-75 report and review was undertaken as a method of better acquainting the recipients with DREE's aims and activities, thus improving the department's capacity for effective working relationships with other federal departments, other levels of government and the private sector, at this, the five-year point in its history.
4.	(a) The majority, according to a prepared distribution plan, (b) Approximately 1,500 copies remain in Ottawa for on demand distribution.


Mr. Matte: Did the government grant subsidies to Motorola, Inc. of Montreal and, if so (a) on what date (b) in what amount?


Mitchell William Sharp: am informed by several departments as follows: None.


Mr. Scott: 1.	How many Canadian immigration offices were maintained in (a) Great Britain, (b) France in (i) 1972, (ii) 1973, (iii) 1974, (iv) 1975 and, in each case, in what city?
2.	How many persons were employed in each office in (a) Great Britain, (b) France?
3.	How many persons were approved to emigrate from (a) Great Britain to Canada, (b) France to Canada in (i) 1972, (ii) 1973, (iii) 1974, (iv) 1975?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Number of
Year		Offices	Cities
Great Britain			
U)	1972	5	London, Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, Belfast(ii)	1973	5	London, Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, Belfast(iii)	1974	5	London, Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, Belfast(iv)	1975	5	London, Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, BelfastFrance	(i)	1972	3	Paris, Bordeaux, Marseilles(ii)	1973	3	Paris, Bordeaux, Marseilles(iii)	1974	3	Paris, Bordeaux, Marseilles(iv)	1975	4	Paris, Bordeaux, Marseilles, Strasbourg

April 30, 1976

Following are the number of Canada based Immigration Officers assigned to posts in Great Britain and France during the years 1972 to 1975.
2. (a) Great Britain	1972	1973	1974	1975London	13	13	16	17Birmingham	3	3	3	5Manchester	3	4	5	6Glasgow	4	4	4	5Belfast	2	2	2	2(b) France	Paris	6	7	7	8Bordeaux	1	1	1	1Marseilles	2	2	2	2Strasbourg	-	-	-	13. Persons approved to emigrate (	visas issued) to Canada	from:	(a) Great Britain	1972 18,382	1973 29,004	1974 44,683	1975 34,475(b) France	2,185	3,304	4,286	4,690


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 5,211?


Miss Monique Begin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, given the length of the answer to question No. 5,211, I ask that this answer be put on record in Hansard as if it had been read in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

(Editor's Note: The aforesaid answer is as follows:)


Mr. Fairweather: 1.	Did the Secretary-General of the United Nations invite member states to participate in a disarmament conference and, if so, in what manner did Canada respond?
2.	Did Canada suggest items to be included on the agenda of a disarmament conference and, if so, what were they?


Monique Bégin: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is as follows: It is assumed that the questions refer to proposals tc .onvene a world disarmament conference. The possibility of convening such a conference has been the subject of several resolutions in the United Nations General Assembly in recent years. The 28th General Assembly in 1973 estab-
Medical Care Act
lished an ad hoc committee to examine all views and suggestions expressed by governments on the convening of a world disarmament conference and related problems.
The 29th and 30th General Assemblies in 1974 and 1975 received reports from the ad hoc committee and requested the committee to continue its work. Canada supported these resolutions and has been a member of the ad hoc committee since its inception. The deliberations and reports of the ad hoc committee have revealed a wide divergence of view among member states about the need for a world disarmament conference, the conditions essential to its realization, its main objectives, its agenda and other relevant considerations.
The Secretary General of the United Nations has not invited member states to participate in a world disarmament conference but has sought their views and suggestions on the convening of such a conference. In reply to a note from the Secretary General in 1975 and on other occasions the government of Canada has expressed its support in principle for the idea of convening a well-prepared world disarmament conference at an appropriate time but has also expressed its belief that it would not be fruitful to begin preparations or set a date for such a conference until there is reasonable assurance that it would in fact lead to concrete progress towards disarmament.
The government of Canada has stated that there can be little assurance that a world disarmament conference would lead to such progress unless all nuclear weapon states are prepared to participate and to assist actively in its preparation. As these conditions are not yet present the government considers it premature to suggest items that might be included in the agenda of a world disarmament conference. All states, however, continue to have the opportunity to express their views in the United Nations General Assembly itself which devotes several weeks each year to the consideration of arms control and disarmament questions and priorities.


Mr. Speaker:: Are the other questions allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, April 29, consideration of Bill C-68, to amend the Medical Care Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to the Order made yesterday, recorded divisions at the report stage of this bill will be taken as the first order of business upon the calling of government orders on Wednesday, May 5, 1976. Yesterday the Chair indicated that it would re-examine the order in which these deferred divisions would be taken. The Chair, at this moment, subject to any discussion which might take place between now and the time of the taking
13040

April 30, 1976
Medical Care Act
of the division, would suggest that motion No. 2 be the first one taken, followed by motions Nos. 1, 3 and 4, if necessary.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by making a comment concerning the order of voting to which Your Honour made reference. As I see it, the four motions before us are to some extent predicated upon the previous one failing to pass. If we look at it from that point of view, I think the motion put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) perhaps should be the first to be considered, because essentially it calls for the complete elimination of the bill. If that motion should not pass, which I do not suppose it will, the next motion would be the one standing in my name, which calls for the bill to expire following a two-year period. That is a compromise which gives the government a little more leeway than the motion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
If motion No. 1, in my name, should fail to pass, which I expect will be the case by virtue of the government's majority, then motion No. 2, in the name of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco), could be considered. This is a further compromise which suggests that if motion No. 1 fails to pass, then motion No. 2 would enable the bill to continue to live its terrorizing life, but that orders in council put forward by the government in so far as percentages of increase are concerned in the third and subsequent years would be debated in the House of Commons and indeed voted on and passed before they are made. As I see it, that is the third compromise.
Finally, there is the motion of the minister, which is even less acceptable but which to some extent would improve the bill because it does call for a debate on the order in council and a vote on it, even though it would be a retroactive vote because the order in council would have been passed in any case. At the moment, my feeling is that that kind of motion would improve an otherwise completely unacceptable bill. It is still unacceptable to us, however, because the amendment does not change the essential intent of the bill. But at least it would enable parliament to express some views on the subject and perhaps have a vote, with the possibility of reversing the order in council if it should prove to be unsatisfactory to the House.
One of our main concerns in dealing with this bill is the view of many people that this is but the first step in the desire of the government to back out of its commitment to cost-sharing with respect to medical care premiums, as it is doing in the case of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. We have a situation where this government demonstrated extreme arrogance in the first place by introducing this bill in a unilateral way at a time when negotiations between the two levels of government were going on and, second, by its use of closure to cut off the debate on second reading.
Even though the government has a majority in the House at present, by this kind of technique they are abusing that advantage. I do not think the people of Canada felt, when the rule changes were introduced in 1969, that they would result in an abuse of government power. I think the use of closure when it is unnecessary, when members of the House, who represent the people of

Canada, want to express their views on a subject which will in the long run affect every Canadian, should not be employed to close off debate and thereby take away the right of members of the House to speak on behalf of Canadians, whether Canadians as a whole or Canadians in certain parts of the country.
The minister, in spite of the fact that after the debate on motion No.l, which calls for expiry of the bill after two years, the bill may well be unnecessary after a two-year period, still wants it in place because he wants some power. That this bill will give the minister some power is probably the understatement of the year, because that power amounts to a spiked club which can be used to clobber the provinces over the head during the negotiations for the readjustment of cost-sharing arrangements.
Another matter which has concerned me very much, and which has already been referred to on a number of occasions, is that of research. In his statement on the bill before us, the minister expressed concern about the rising costs of health care, but he did not make the slightest suggestion as to how these costs might reasonably be reduced. He simply said that he will just not pay them if they go beyond a certain point, and he leaves it entirely up to the provinces to decide how the service might be streamlined and how the costs might be reduced without the destruction or degradation of the standard of service which is now being provided.
I think the minister's refusal to deal fairly with medical research in this country indicates, perhaps more than anything else, his lack of comprehension of the need for research and of the fact that there is no better way in the world to reduce health care costs than through research of various kinds, even research into how to reduce the cost of research in various disease processes which is now costing a great deal of money. If research produces better answers with regard to the causes and treatment of illnesses, we know that in the long run these costs will be substantially reduced. I could use, as an example, the advent of various drugs used in the treatment of mental illnesses and the result this has had in virtually emptying overcrowded mental hospitals across the country for so many years which were simply providing what was considered as custodial care for people who were not well. Through research, certain tranquillizers have been developed, and the majority of patients who had been in institutions for 20, 30 years, or all their lives, are now functioning in society.
It appears to me that the thinking of the minister, and perhaps even more so of his parliamentary secretary, has been shortsighted in the extreme with regard to health care costs and how they could be reduced through increased assistance to research. We believe, from having observed the minister and his parliamentary secretary, as well as this government as a whole, that they seem to be spending too much time thinking about how to get power and keep it, and they do not spend sufficient time thinking about how to exercise power to benefit all Canadians.
If there is any message I want to leave while I am on my feet on this occasion, it is that this government should not be totally absorbed with the question of taking power and holding it in perpetuity. It should devote at least half its energy and effort in deciding how to exercise this power in
April 30, 1976

such a way that Canadians benefit. When a government decides that a good way to save money in the area of health care costs is by destroying the research capability of this country, if it is not an abuse of power then certainly it is an improper use of power.
Another matter which has arisen as a result of this debate-medical research is certainly tied closely to this whole question-is that there has been no real dialogue between this government and the research community. I think that is a shameful situation, because we know that the research community is in a position to make suggestions to the government, not political suggestions but certainly suggestions on matters which may be very useful in terms of long-term planning when it comes to the relationship of man to his environment, and perhaps long-term planning related to various serious problems facing us today.
We know that the president of France, for example, has breakfast with representatives of the research community on a regular basis, perhaps twice a month. We know that members of the British government have a method of keeping in close touch with the research community of that country. We know that U.S. senators have their own "tamed" scientists, for lack of a better word, who keep them informed on various aspects of research in the country and how scientific information can be used for the benefit of Americans through proper application of funds by whatever government happens to be in power.
Therefore, I would like to emphasize the point that this government is failing the trust which has been placed in it by the people of Canada by neglecting, not only to speak adequately with the research community but, indeed, by destroying that community's position and research programs by putting a freeze on its budgets. I think that is totally unacceptable.
We know that in the scientific community the general policy which scientists follow, no matter in what part of the world they live, is to make their information freely available to scientists in all other parts of the world. It appears, therefore, that the policy of the Canadian government is that we do not really have to do research; we can let somebody else do it, and it is available to us. We can obtain it simply by reading scientific journals. That is the policy of this government. If I had anything to do with it, I would certainly not pursue that kind of policy. If Canadians were aware of the fact that this seems to be the official policy of this government, I think they would be ashamed.
The minister has put forward a couple of amendments. The additional amendment he put forward would result in the situation that after this bill comes into effect, and onward, there will no longer be an 8 per cent ceiling but it will be set by order in council. He put that amendment forward under the guise of improving the bill, but I am not satisfied that it will really improve the situation. As a matter of fact, that kind of amendment leaves the door open for the minister to set the percentage much lower than 8 per cent, and perhaps freezing it, as the government did with regard to the medical research budget. That is of significant concern to me because it will worsen the crisis
Medical Care Act
the provinces may face if the government proceeds with the course upon which it has embarked.
The minister has indicated that motion No. 4 is based on motion No. 2, which was put forward by the hon. member for Kootenay West. That, again, indicates to us in the official opposition the fact that closure is an awful tool; it is destructive, to some extent, of the democratic process. It also indicates to us the usefulness of prolonging a debate ad infinitum if we feel strongly enough about a certain subject or a certain change which may be necessary. I am sure that had we agreed to let this bill pass last fall, the minister would not have accepted any suggestions to change it, least of all one which would allow for parliamentary debate on the order in council setting out the percentage which the minister may want to fix for the third year or after. It shows us that in spite of the fact that hon. members on the other side of the House do not listen very carefully, that their skulls, as I mentioned previously, seem to be very thick and that the noise has to be very loud and long before it gets through, if it is long enough, loud enough and repetitive enough, perhaps it does sink in.
The position we took has been justified. It has been shown that we spoke long enough and loudly enough to try to improve the bill, even though the improvement is very minimal and still does not make the bill any more acceptable in terms of its principle. However, it does introduce an element of democracy and for that reason I am not too unhappy about the amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The Chair would like to thank the hon. member. The Chair will certainly take notice of his suggestion and take it under consideration before decision on the final order of the vote is made.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: April 30, 1976
Medical Care Act
The present Medical Care Act calls for the federal government to pay 50 per cent of the costs of medical care which the provinces have to meet. Once this bill is in, there will be two choices. One of those choices hangs on the use of the phrase "the lesser of", so that in the end there is only one choice. The government will pay the lesser of two amounts, either 50 per cent of the total costs of the provinces or only so many more dollars than the provinces got last year. Even when the minister can stand up and talk about hundreds of millions of dollars more, the fact is that that sum of money will be less than would have been the case if this bill had not been brought in. We contend that this is a betrayal of the provinces and of the people of Canada. It is a going back on the principles which were established in the Medical Care Act after all the years it took us to get that legislation.
I join again with the hon. member for Athabasca in registering our protest against this legislation having been put through at the second reading stage by closure, and I join once again in saying that part of the trouble about this whole exercise is that it is a case of how not to conduct federal-provincial relations. The health ministers of the provinces have been most unhappy with the way they have been treated, especially since the announcement by Mr. Turner in the budget he brought down last June. We think the whole story is a sorry mess.
However, we have just about reached the end of the report stage of this bill, leaving the third reading stage to come later, possibly next Wednesday, although I understand that it may be shifted to Thursday, and in this final part of the debate on the report stage I think not only should I direct myself to the amendment proposed by the minister, but that I might once again summarize the choices which are before us right now. We have a government bill which proposes certain fixed percentages so far as the increases which can take place this year and next year are concerned. Then in that bill there is a provision that after that the government has the right, by order in council, to fix the ceilings. They can be anything. There could be consultation, but in the end the government makes the decision. That is the picture. This is a bill that in the first and second years has a precise limit, but in years three, four, five, six, seven and on is subject only to the dictatorial, unilateral decision of the government, which puts it into effect by order in council. That is the bill. I tried, by way of amendment, to kill the bill completely and leave the Medical Care Act as it stands. The voice vote was against my motion, and I suppose that may be the result when the recorded vote is taken.
The next position was that proposed by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk), that reluctantly we accept years one and two with ceilings, but that the rest of the bill be cancelled; that there be no Bill C-68 after two years have gone by. That is not as desirable as my position,

namely, that the ceilings should be cancelled altogether, but it is a compromise that we can accept if we must. Again, the voice vote was against the motion and the government has shown no willingness to go the other way.
We come to two more propositions. One was the proposal in the motion of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Friesen) that a government order in council fixing the ceilings in years three, four, five, six, seven, and so on, not come into effect until parliament has voted on it. Yesterday the majority said no to that as well. We now have the proposal of the minister that the government shall have the right to bring in its orders in council in years three, four, five, six, seven, and so on, and put those into effect right away, subject only to the right of 50 members of the House of Commons to sign a motion which would result in a debate. If that debate were to go against the order in council, then it would have to be cancelled. I make the point, Mr. Speaker, that there is a tremendous difference between having the right to vote on the validity of those orders in council before they are put into effect and simply being given the right to do that after the horse has been stolen, as I said last night.
I think the least acceptable of the propositions is the one before us in the name of the minister. If his proposition carries, we will have a bill that fixes contribution ceilings for years one and two and leaves the government free to fix the ceilings by order in council for all the years after. All that is left for parliament is the possibility of a debate if 50 members sign a motion requesting such debate. So long as the government that brought in the order in council has a majority in the House, it of course can expect to get its order in council approved. Mr. Speaker, I think we are being treated shabbily with respect to this whole matter.
I also want to say, as we have said on occasions similar to this one, that we think it is shabby treatment to say this matter can be debated only after 50 members sign the necessary motion. There are two parties in this House which have fewer than 50 members; we have 16 and the Social Credit party has 11. The "Moncton" party has only one, but he is not here just now. If this kind of motion is going to be made at all, I think instead of it being necessary for 50 members to sign such a motion it should be a number that would make it possible for any one of the recognized parties in this House to bring on a debate by itself. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we think the minister's motion should read "10" members instead of "50".
I have already said that I do not think the motion as a whole, as brought in by the minister, is worth very much. It gives the right to discuss the matter by trying to lock the barn door after the horse has been stolen. If it is going to be put on the books at all, it ought to respect the rights of all parties in this House. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that we are opposed to the entire bill. We would like to cut it off at some point, but if it is going to go through with this provision in it, the right-as I have just said-should apply to our party and the fourth party in this House. In order to bring this about, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That motion No. 4 be amended in subclause (2) of the proposed new clause 10 by deleting the words "fifty members thereof" and by substituting therefor the words "ten members thereof".
April 30, 1976


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The question is on the amendment to motion No. 4, by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Pursuant to Standing Order 72(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few remarks in the debate on the resolution put forward by the minister. Before I do so, however, I should like to speak to the order in which the resolutions are to be voted on next Wednesday afternoon. As I understand it, the matter was taken under advisement by the Chair, and the Chair accepted responsibility by indicating the order.
I also listened to the point of view taken by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk). I can indicate that for our part we have no objection to the resolutions being voted on in the order which the hon. member recommended, or in any order which might appeal to the Chair. I want to be reasonable on that matter, as the government has been reasonable on every aspect of this bill which has been put before the House to deal with medicare. There is no doubt that when bills to pay for the programs of the government are put forward, it is the government of the day that takes the responsibility for the way in which the money taken from taxpayers is spent.
Over and over again I have heard hon. members opposite express regret that the provinces will now have to adjust their spending in accordance with the position which may be taken by the federal government, if they expect the federal contribution. No sympathy has been indicated by them for the taxpayers of Canada as a whole and the burden placed upon them by the present arrangements. As the minister has often indicated, these arrangements require the signing of a blank cheque by the federal government year after year for its share of the medicare program.
Blank cheques are fine during the maturing of a new program when medical services were rapidly becoming available for the first time to all Canadians. Surely the time comes, however, when it has to be recognized as a mature program. If it continues to grow at an ever-accelerating rate, it becomes obvious that in the interests of the taxpayers, measures have to be taken to restrain the
Medical Care Act
rate of growth. This fact is recognized not only by this government but by all provincial governments. The Premier of Ontario, for example, has said repeatedly that what is required now are measures to restrain the rate of growth. It is conceded there will be growth next year, the year after, and indefinitely into the future. But how much is not a matter for decision.
I contradict what I think is the most outrageous allegation hon. members opposite have made, an allegation which we have answered repeatedly. I hope this is the last time it will be necessary to repeat that medicare and hospital care programs introduced by this government are programs of which we are proud and for which we intend to take continuing responsibility. But if these programs are to survive it is absolutely necessary for there to be control over how they develop. The hon. member for Athabasca criticized the minister for saying last night that the federal government wants some measure of control over these programs. What is wrong with the people of Canada exercising control over these programs? It is unreasonable to expect the people of Canada, through their elected government, not to exercise control over a mature program.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) objected to the third arrangement as being impractical because no specific figure is assigned. But he also objected to the arrangements for the first two years where specific figures are assigned. You cannot have it both ways. If proper responsibility is to be assumed, you must concede that the federal government must have some say about how much the people of Canada are to be committed to spend on medicare and hospital care. The opposition was irresponsible in alleging that the federal government has no proposals for low cost medicare.


Paul Yewchuk: Let's hear them.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It was irresponsible to allege that we are prepared to put ceilings on, without developing lower cost alternatives. If the hon. member for Athabasca had followed the events of last week-


Paul Yewchuk: I did.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -he would know that a federal-provincial conference, chaired by the minister, was held in Ottawa last Tuesday and Wednesday and that a package deal adding $300 million or $400 million to the federal commitment in medical spending was put forward to encourage provincial governments to adopt six specific, low cost alternatives some of which could be covered within the present medicare and hospital care framework. Those alternatives were not pulled out of a hat. They have been developed since 1970 after detailed consultation with all provincial governments which themselves have been turning to these low cost alternatives. Many provincial governments are already deeply involved in low cost alternatives. On Wednesday the minister offered to share provincial expenditures in those areas. In return for that offer he is asking for targets and a measure of restraint in the growth of medicare and hospital care programs. The hon. member said, "Let's hear it." Well, there it is.

April 30, 1976
Medical Care Act
The government is not only concerned about health care delivery alternatives. It has put forward a whole new perspective on health a new perspective on ways in which the lifestyle of Canadians can be changed to reduce health costs. It favours reduction in smoking, reduction in the use of alcohol-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -seat-belt legislation which will reduce injuries in motor vehicle accidents, reduced speed limits, and so on. This government has taken a tremendous number of initiatives to restrain the unacceptable growth of health costs in Canada and many provincial governments have adopted these initiatives with our encouragement and support. Surely we agree that that is a goal worth reaching. The proof that the government's approach as shown in Bill C-68 is good is the fact that it has already begun to work, even before the bill is law. We are already seeing tough decisions taken by provincial governments, decisions which I submit would never have been taken if the government had not brought forward the anti-inflation program and Bill C-68.
Finally, I deal with the charge that debate on the bill was ended with closure. I reject the use of that term to describe our procedure. Time was allocated in the second reading debate to allow the bill to go to committee where witnesses could be heard and the minister could be examined in detail on the provisions of the bill. The minister appeared, as did witnesses. There was full examination, I believe to the satisfaction of hon. members opposite and all those who attended the interesting committee meetings. Now the bill has been reported back. As a principle, closure is defensible. I think this is the only parliament in the world without some regular procedure for terminating debates. Indeed, parties opposite have in the past joined with the government in imposing closure and time allocation when certain measures were before the House. The opposition cannot now argue that it opposes closure absolutely, in principle. There is a time for ending debate. I invite hon. members to review Hansard and the quality of debate on this bill.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The time comes when the government decides.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I concede that I have made no new arguments in the few minutes I have spoken in this debate. I have added no new facts.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is right.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: But neither did the opposition. It repeated the tired statements made previously and raised questions which were answered satisfactorily in the House and in committee.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You do not have to confess.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Surely, there is nothing more to be said about Bill C-68. I resume my seat, hoping hon. members will agree and that we may proceed to consider other matters on the agenda of parliament.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not see how you can put the question on the motion until my amendment has been decided. I suspect the debate may be over, but you cannot put the question on motion No. 4 until we take the vote on my amendment next Wednesday.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I understand all the votes are to be deferred until next Wednesday.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That has been changed to Thursday afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I think with the agreement of all hon. members.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I understand that we agreed that motions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, would be voted on next week and debated today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I understand there was a House order for the votes to be taken next Wednesday. If hon. members want to change it to next Thursday, we shall need another House order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to agree to next Thursday. We can agree unanimously that debate on the report stage is now over. My point is that we can hardly vote on motion No. 4 until we have voted on the amendment to motion No. 4. We cannot do that until next week. I am prepared to agree that debate at the report stage is now over.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is so ordered.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, it was agreed by the House leaders that the votes are to be taken on Thursday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It has been agreed to by three House leaders.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it agreed?


Mr. MacFarlane:: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check that out.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That's the way it is, Gus. Sit down.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I will not accept it just like that. I will look into it. I am sure the hon. member spoke in good faith, but I would be less than responsible if I did not check. The hon. member mentioned three House leaders. They might be opposition House leaders.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind the point being checked. I took part in a conversation this morning with the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) and the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), and the three of us agreed.
April 30, 1976


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it agreed that the vote shall be taken next Thursday?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is agreed and so ordered.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As we have completed debate on Bill C-68 expeditiously, may I call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise on a point of order. Is it possible that private members' hour will be called earlier than usual? I ask this question so that hon. members may be ready to proceed. Is there that possibility?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member will find out. The universe will unfold.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: That is exactly what I mean. Fine.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 12.53 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, April 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Buchanan (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill S-32, to implement conventions for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax between Canada and France, Canada and Belgium and Canada and Israel, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, we have no more speakers in this debate. There may be some on the government side who wish to carry on the discussion for the rest of the day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, trade and Economic Affairs.
Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it agreed to call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Income Tax


Walter David Baker: It is unusual that we should find ourselves with half a legislative day before us and no legislation to discuss, but I have sympathy for the position of the government House leader, and if that is the request I suppose we have no choice but to agree.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not deal with Bill C-72?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I had hoped the government House leader would acknowledge our co-operation as far as the finance bill was concerned. We felt we were expediting the business of the House by not prolonging debate this afternoon. I find it most remarkable, that we should find ourselves in this position, on a Friday afternoon, with the government having no legislation to bring forward. I would remind hon. members that on April 2 we sat in the House for 20 minutes waiting for the two ministers to turn up just to move that bill.


Mitchell William Sharp: On the same point of order, as the House is aware, we are trying to move this session to a close. I am very reluctant to bring in legislation I had not forecast would be considered during this term. Because some bills are in committee and others are awaiting certain discussions among the parties, I think it would be a very good use of our time if we adjourned and looked after other public business today. There will be a lot of business to be done before June 30, but it could not be proceeded with expeditiously today. I am very reluctant to call items that I have not forecast should be dealt with before June 30. If we start on this bill we will certainly not be able to conclude this session, which I know the opposition would like to do by June 30.
O)


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think it would only be propitious for me to say that as a result of remarks at ten minutes to one when I asked hon. members opposite whether they saw any possibility of this happening, I understood that they were not certain what they intended to do. As a result, I do not really think what has happened should come as a surprise.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, on this point of order I should like to bring to your attention the fact that the hon. member is suggesting that we on this side should know what government business is coming up. It is the deputy whip over there who should be well aware of what is going on in this House, and he was not here to tell us what was going on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, was simply that during discussions with gentlemen over there about the possibility of this happening, they told me not to be concerned because they thought they would not want to go on and there was no point in discussing further government business. I think sometimes it is an advantage to be a junior member of the House-I do not mean junior in age or intelligence, but in experience. I am used to a great deal of honesty. I have lived that way all my life and I intend to live that way in the future. I wanted Your Honour to know that is the way I feel about it.

April 30, 1976
Income Tax


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Mac-Parlane) asked his question before-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member just called me a liar. I would like him to withdraw that statement.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: I didn't.


An hon. Member:: He called himself an honest man.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has the floor.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He should withdraw that statement, Mr. Speaker.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: I did not make the statement.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You aren't kidding. You haven't made one all day today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to point out that when the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain asked his question just before one o'clock, he made, as part of that question, the statement: Should we be ready earlier than four o'clock for private members' hour? If the government does not have business to proceed with today why can we not call it four o'clock? The hon. member whose motion was to be debated today is in the House. Why not call it four o'clock now and proceed to private members' business?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I think that is an excellent suggestion and I would hope the government House leader would agree to it. We might call it four o'clock now and proceed to private members' business. I think this is reasonable because, as the deputy whip of the government knows, the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization is meeting now with the subcommittee, doing its best to improve the lot of the private member to advance views on behalf of his constituents and, indeed, on behalf of the country.
In this way, what I would only call a lapse on the part of the government in respect of business-and I say that with all the charity I can muster-would not in any way take away from the right of the private member to debate his motion today. This particular member has been looking forward to advancing his motion. The member comes from western Canada and is a long way from home. His motion very much affects the position of young farmers in Canada who are now having great difficulty because of the recent actions of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). As a result of his announcement in respect of new dairy policy and the legislation he is asking this House to consider as a result of his resolution, the motion of the hon. member is of great importance. I would hope, for the reasons I have advanced, that the government House leader will see fit to permit this matter to go ahead today by allowing us to call it four o'clock. I want to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for his suggestion, which I think is very worth while.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member, I would say it is fine if he wishes to adjourn until four o'clock. We can arrange for that. I asked the question because of committee meetings which involve people who are just as interested in the farming situation and are not interested in just putting up speaker after speaker for the sake of speaking. They are people who are as interested in this subject as the hon. member. That was the only reason I asked the question, in order that these interested persons would be in a position to speak at two o'clock or three thirty. The answer to the question was that hon. members probably would not require that.
The other point I had in mind was that if the hon. member sponsoring the bill speaks again, it will be the second time and he will close the debate, and we are not prepared for that.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: We are not prepared to have that happen, so I will not give unanimous consent to his speaking a second time. Hon. members are all aware of these things and I think sometimes it is of advantage to have them out in the open.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain who says he will not give his unanimous consent, let me say that I do not give unanimous consent to the House adjourning at this time.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: That's fine.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it agreed that we call it four o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It being four o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Motion No. 2, the
hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). Shall the motion stand?


An hon. Member:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Stand at the request of the government. Notice of motion No. 15, the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan). Shall the motion stand? Stand at the request of the government.
Notice of motion No. 19, the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson). Shall the motion stand? Stand at the request of the government.
Notice of motion No. 20, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). Shall the motion stand? Stand at the request of the government.
Notice of motion No. 4. Shall the motion stand? Stand at the request of the government.
Notice of motion No. 45, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). Shall the motion stand? Stand at the request of the government.
April 30, 1976


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think we can expedite the business this afternoon by just getting on to No. 12.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Motion No. 12.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it agreed that we move to motion No. 12?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


FARM CREDIT ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, January 27, 1975, consideration of the motion of Mr. Schellenberger:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Farm Credit Act to provide incentives to young farmers to enter or to continue in the farm industry and, to this end, should consider providing such incentives as partial nonrepayment of loans where young farmers meet performance standards, a maximum 5 per cent interest rate, deferred interest payments during an initial period, and open-end loans that will allow additional borrowing without refinancing charges.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I should like to remind hon. members that if the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) speaks now, he will close the debate. Is there unanimous consent that he may speak now?


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Douglas).


Mr. C. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, the motion put forward by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) is of great importance, particularly at this time, as a result of the actions of the committee on agriculture which is hearing evidence from the Farm Credit Corporation. Representatives of that corporation appeared before the committee at last night's meeting and will appear again next week. Many of the points raised in the motion by the hon. member across the way were brought out at the meeting last night. Some of them were answered and some of them, I am sure, will be answered at meetings of the committee next week, the first being on Tuesday.
I should like to address myself to a number of the points put forward by the hon. member in his motion, particularly as they apply to young farmers wishing to get into the agricultural field in Canada, whether it be in western or in eastern Canada. It is of the utmost importance that we as a government, in conjunction with provincial governments across this land of ours, give to these young men and women every opportunity to get into the business of farming. We must do so, realizing that this must be a viable entity in which we are asking these young people to take part. We talk about incentives, and this is brought up in the bill. I quote from the motion:
Farm, Credit Act
... to this end, should consider providing such incentives as partial non-repayment of loans where young farmers meet performance standards,.. .
I think we must be very cautious about this question of incentives, particularly as it applies to young farmers, because of the problems there have been with regard to the dairy industry in Canada.
I think in some instances we must look at the incentives that were put forward, both by the federal government and by many of the provincial governments, which have resulted in young farmers, particularly in the dairy industry, becoming involved in a situation from which they will have difficulty extricating themselves. I speak primarily of the young farmers in Ontario who took advantage of the IMPIP loans provided in good faith at that time by the provincial government. This was an incentive program of which many young men and women in my area took advantage. Possibly this was also the case in other provinces which had similar schemes. These young people entered the dairy business because they saw a great future in it. However, by the middle of last year we were confronted with an over-supply of dairy products, particularly powdered milk. Now these people having received the IMPIP or farm credit loan find themselves in a situation where the quotas given to them by the provincial milk marketing boards and provincial governments simply are not sufficient to cover their outstanding payments.
Last night one hon. member brought before the committee a situation involving' a young man who had applied for a Farm Credit loan. His situation was reviewed by the officials of the Farm Credit Corporation who agreed that the loan had been made and that the quota allowed the young farmer would be sufficient to allow him to meet the obligation he would be subjected to under the terms of the loan. Now that the provincial milk marketing board has reduced the quota by 15 per cent, this young man with his sizeable obligation is faced with the payment of a loan in the amount of $900 a month, together with an input loan that would increase the payment by about $300 a month, which would require that he come up with $1,200 each month while being faced with the reduction of the quota in the next coming year. This is the situation which presently exists.
Of course there is mention in the motion that an incentive should be allowed that would entice young people to enter the business of agriculture. While it is all well and good to entice anyone to enter the business of agriculture or to increase his commitment in the field of agriculture, we must also take into consideration the possibility of cut-backs and over-supply because in such a situation we would be enticing people into an occupation in which they would find themselves hard pressed to keep up with it in the future. I think we must give very sincere consideration to this when considering the motion before the House.
The motion suggests that the governement should consider the advisability of amending the Farm Credit Act. Some amendments have been submitted before the agricultural committee and before the House with regard to the Farm Credit Act up to this point, and others certainly will be presented by the government in the future in its

April 30, 1976
Farm Credit Act
attempt to encourage agriculture in the province of Ontario and throughout the Dominion of Canada.
Last night at the meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture the question arose about the possibility of farm credit loans approved by the Farm Credit Corporation being extended, or that there be a period of grace for a period of a year or two years in respect of young farmers who have found themselves in the situation I earlier described. I think this is something which could be done without a change in the Farm Credit Act because it is now stated that a farmer, whether he be a young or older farmer, if he finds himself in difficulty can defer payments for a period of one year or perhaps two years. I think that is presently in place in the act and can be considered on an individual basis.
I do not think we should make this a blanket coverage to allow people to defer payments, or that we should make an exception to the over-all rule. I believe it must be considered on an individual basis, and on the understanding that officials of the Farm Credit Corporation will go to the farm involved, take a look at the operation and if possible decide what changes should or could be made under the present confines of the act to allow the producer to meet his commitment.
It also must be pointed out that under the Farm Credit Act the number of defaulters to this point has been very minimal. In fact the number is so low that I believe a great deal of pride should be taken in the fact that the Farm Credit Act has such a very small percentage of its loans that have reached the default stage. It was pointed out on a number of occasions at the meeting last night that several farmers, particularly in western Ontario in the area with which I am sure the hon. member is very familiar, are now bringing to a close mortgages that have been held by the Farm Credit Corporation. Some of these mortgages are at 5 per cent, 6 per cent and 7 per cent. These members of the agricultural community are bringing these mortgages to repayment long before the required time to do so. It is possible that in some instances they would be well advised to invest that money in the banks at a much higher rate of interest so that they would receive a better return.
I am talking about the farmers of Canada. They are people who historically do not like to have a debt of any kind outstanding against them or against their property. I think this is a subject which should be considered in any discussion here in the House of Commons in respect of the agricultural community.
Also at the meeting last night the question of partial payment or advance payment was brought up. The hon. member who introduced this motion most certainly was in attendance and will recall that a statement was made to the committee meeting that pre-payment or advance payment on any of these loans certainly is allowed. The question was raised whether people could, without penalty, make an advance payment on capital on the loans they acquired from the Farm Credit Corporation. We were assured at that time that such a payment certainly could be made without penalty. I think this is something we might take a look at in respect of other areas of the community in relation to mortgages on houses, mortgages on apartments, business mortgages, and business loans because the people in the farming community have some-

what of an advantage in being able to take out a loan and pre-pay it without penalty.
Perhaps we could make a suggestion to people in the housing field that it might not be such a bad idea if the same thing were carried over into housing in Canada so as to allow young men and women, some of whom have taken a very substantial mortgage on the houses which they occupy, an opportunity, if they have had a good year-and we can hope for good years in the future-to advance their payments on those obligations, thereby allowing them to cut down the number of years in which they will be faced with a rather heavy burden in so far as mortgage payments are concerned, but without a penalty involved in that clause. As most hon. members know, at present people who carry a mortgage on a house do so for at least five years with an option at the end of five years either to have the interest on that loan brought up to present standards or, if those standards should decline, lower than present mortgage rates, as we hope they will, to renegotiate the mortgage.
It was pointed out at the meeting last night that under the Farm Credit Corporation Act these mortgages are not renegotiable, in other words the interest rate that is granted on a mortgage under the Farm Credit loan runs for the life of the mortgage. The question was raised by the hon. member-and a very good question too-as to whether we should not look into the future to arrange Farm Credit Corporation mortgages on a five year renewable concept. I have some difficulty in accepting the idea simply because of the most recent experience.
If, in the last ten or 15 years, you had a CMHC mortgage, you would realize that the mortgage rate has always been going up. In the past five or ten years we have never witnessed such a mortgage rate on the decrease. It is hoped that, in the future, high mortgage or high interest rates charged on industrial or housing mortgages will be on the downgrade, but we must also realize that mortgages granted under the Farm Credit Corporation Act, which are now at about 9.5 per cent or 9.75 per cent, are much below the rates that are currently charged on loans for housing. I cannot foresee a decrease in those rates on Farm Credit mortgages, so it might be an advantage to the farmer to have a renewable mortgage after five years. But in general we must accept the fact that in recent history mortgage rates have been rising, so that the farmer who accepts a mortgage at 9.5 per cent or 9.75 per cent under the Farm Credit Corporation Act has a considerable advantage over those who go into the open market and get a mortgage from a bank, a lending institute or a credit union.
The subject of credit unions was also discussed last night and the minister and officials of the Farm Credit Corporation left themselves open to any suggestion that would be put forward by any member of the agricultural committee regarding possibilities of making mortgages available to young farmers at a lesser rate. The rate proposed in the motion is 5 per cent, and I think we will have to give careful consideration before granting a 5 per cent mortgage to farmers when mortgages to anyone else in our society are certainly well above 10 per cent, perhaps even 12 per cent.
April 30, 1976

I am fully in agreement with giving every opportunity and every concession possible to the young farmer, or to the farmer who wants to expand his operation into a more viable business concept, but we also have to take into account in all our deliberations the aspirations of the rest of the Canadian population, of those who are not farmers, of those who are in the cities who are trying to mortgage a house and who have to pay the rate of 12 per cent, and maybe even 13 per cent or 14 per cent, and if they need a second mortgage they have to pay a rate even higher than that. It must be pointed out also that under the amendments to the Farm Credit Corporation Act second mortgages in some aspects of the farming field will be allowed. This also should be considered when comparing the advantages of the agricultural community with some of the disadvantages of other people in this country.
At times we tend to segregate our population into those who are on the farm and those who are off the farm. While there are certain things about agricultural life that we must realize are advantageous, we must also realize that farmers must compete with the rest of society. The general public must also realize that, while the farmer is special in many respects, he is also very different from people in the rest of our community. So we must be very careful about that rate of 5 per cent. I think that in some ways it is too low to be realistic because the interest rates that are asked and received throughout the rest of our society are much higher than the rate suggested in the motion put forward by the hon. member.
With regard to the open-ended loans which will allow additional borrowing without financing charges, I believe the Farm Credit Corporation Act now allows a person to come in with a second mortgage. If he has borrowed, say, $20,000 in the past, and then brings in another application for a loan because he wants to expand his property to make it more viable, the $20,000 is brought into consideration and he is allowed to borrow up to $150,000 if he is under 35 years of age, and still be covered by the Farm Credit Corporation Act. I am not too sure if that is exactly what the hon. member had in mind in presenting his motion, but I believe that this possibility is open to the young farmer or to the not so young farmer, because I think it is important that we take these people into consideration as well.
Another matter that was brought up at the agricultural meeting last evening, and which I want to bring to the attention of the House, is that we must all realize that every segment of our population must take part in the restraint program. It has been said that the restraint program bears down much more heavily on the farm credit aspect of agriculture than on any other segment of our population, and I agree, but it is a fact that the agricultural segment in Canada has always taken a bigger part in Canadian affairs than the rest of our community would like to recognize.
It was pointed out at that meeting that in future young people who wish to apply for loans under the Farm Credit Corporation Act will fall into two groups. Let us say there is a farmer who has a reasonably viable operation, and he has a son who wants to take advantage of the benefits of the Farm Credit Corporation Act. The only way he can take part is to have the loan granted, and the payment is made. Another farmer perhaps has a viable farm business
Farm Credit Act
or farm occupation. He has a couple of sons. I think at the present time what we have suggested is that the Farm Credit Corporation should take a look at that situation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. However, he may continue with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter David Baker: No.


Crawford Douglas: In conclusion, it was definitely pointed out that the order of need will have to be taken into account.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) said no to allowing an extension of time.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I point out that if the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) speaks, he closes the debate, but he must have unanimous consent to do this.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, when the bill was introduced for the first time in January 1975, there was then perhaps some pertinency. On the other hand, since its original submission in January 1975, the House passed Bill C-34 to amend the Farm Credit Act as attested by the comments of the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Corriveau) who then maintained that the suggested amendments in Bill C-34 would do much towards prompting young people to get involved in farming.
Indeed, Bill C-34 having been passed on May 8, 1975, the Farm Credit Corporation has now almost a year of experience to determine its value. I feel that this motion is out-of-date as a result of the amendments. If you allow me, with my colleagues I would like to examine the amendments to the Farm Credit Act. Now, as we know, the ceiling for loans has been raised from $100,000 to $150,000. If we consider the number of borrowers aged 35 or less, they represented 27 per cent in 1971 and that figure has now reached 43.1 per cent of all applicants taking advantage of the Farm Credit Act. A young farmer under 35 can now borrow an amount over 90 per cent of the productive value of his land, livestock and equipment.
Finally, the New Part IV of the act empowers the corporation to make loans to individuals under 35 whose principal occupation is not necessarily farming, providing that they undertake to set up a farming operation within 5 years. It is a measure that has certainly helped to increase the number of young people to take up farming. Fourthly, the corporation is now empowered to guarantee these loans by way of a mortgage other than a first mortgage.

April 30, 1976
Farm Credit Act
As a result of these amendments, farm loans approved by the Farm Credit Corporation during 1975-76 have reached a record number, while in the previous year they had increased by at least 60.7 per cent, reaching approximately $641 million. Such an increase is mostly due to the amendments. The corporation has made nearly 10,000 loans under the Farm Credit Act. Now, 66 per cent or two thirds of those loans were made to farmers under 35, compared to 53 per cent the previous year and only 36 per cent five years earlier, that is in 1971-72. Under Part III of the act, the corporation lent $318.6 million in farm credit during the fiscal year 1975-76, an increase, Mr. Speaker, of 310 per cent over the previous fiscal year.
The whole amount was loaned to people under 45, since these loans were made under Part II and Part IV of the act. However, in practice, the major part of those funds were borrowed by people, and as I said, under 35. The average amount of the loans made in 1975-76 was almost $65,000, while in the previous fiscal year the total amount was around $50,000. There has already been an increase of $15,000.
In fact, the recent amendments to the Farm Credit Act were intended almost exclusively for young farmers, and they proved so popular that the Farm Credit Corporation had to introduce restrictive credit measures during the current fiscal year in order to retain funds for farmers in greater need. Actually, the motion before us contains four specific measures designed to urge young people to go into farming, such measures supplementing those I have just mentioned.
Under the first measure, the borrower would have part of his loan forgiven provided he met certain predetermined standards of performance. I feel in that respect, Mr. Speaker, that we must take into consideration the rate of repayment by Farm Credit Corporation borrowers in recent years. And on March 31, 1975, as the hon. member who spoke before me indicated, 93.4 per cent of all accounts were up to date, while on March 31, 1976, that percentage had slightly dropped to about 93.2 per cent. It is an insignificant drop if one considers that the beef industry is going through a difficult period and the prospects of the dairy industry are far from being as encouraging as one would like them to be.
Nobody is to blame for this, Mr. Speaker, except the weather which was much more favourable to the dairy production. The corporation has therefore suffered insignificant losses through the years. Given those facts, I think it is useless to dispense the borrowers from repaying part of their loan. Had it been possible to actually prove that the borrowers were having trouble meeting their obligations, the proposed measure might have been advisable.
I feel, like the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), that we have to keep on upgrading the income stabilization programs so that the farmers might meet their actual costs, including the repayment of their loans. In practice, a partial repayment would prove discriminatory. Indeed, the output criterion used to determine this repayment, whatever it is, will always be subject to variables such as the weather, prices and market conditions over which the individual has no control whatsoever and which usually affect the farmers in different ways.

The second measure would establish a 5 per cent ceiling on interest rates. The Farm Credit Corporation rate is 9Vt per cent, and in spite of this, the major challenge the corporation will have to face during this new financial year will be to find enough funds to meet the requirements of the farmers who really need long-term credit.
In my opinion, the ceiling of 5 per cent for the interest rate would only inflate land prices, so that in the end the amounts to borrow and to reimburse would not be lower. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the higher land prices and the attendant increase in loans would largely obliterate the amount saved in interest. In addition, a 5 per cent interest rate would bring farmers to ignore commercial sources of credit and prompt commercial loan companies to withdraw from that market, so that finally less funds would be available to farmers.
The third measure is devised to defer payment of interest during the initial phase of the loan. Now, as the previous speaker has mentioned, it is already possible to defer the reimbursement of principal and interest under the Farm Credit Act and regulations. The reimbursement of principal can be deferred for a maximum of five years, but only for two years as regards principal and interest together. In addition, in practice the corporation can defer payments when it is in the greater interest of the borrower to do so and it takes advantage of that opportunity. It should also be noted that the borrower can make prepayments at any time without being penalized and the interest is later on calculated on the outstanding principal.
Finally, the fourth and last proposal made in the motion would grant open-end loans, that is to say the borrower could borrow again without having to pay refinancing. Thus, mortgages for an undetermined amount would be granted so that farmers could borrow additional funds without having to pay new notary fees and so on. That proposal seems interesting, at first glance. However, after having been studied closely and repeatedly by officials of the department, it was considered not to be practical. Mortgages, as we know, are governed by provincial laws, and no mortgage act mentions mortgages for an undetermined amount.
As we know, a practical solution was found to the problem when the Farm Credit Act was last revised authorizing the corporation to loan money on mortgages other than first. Consequently, when borrowers want to obtain additional funds, they do not have to pay the charges which are normally associated with the title search and to cover the refinancing of the initial loan. They have to pay only the charges associated with the registration of a second mortgage. These charges are not very high in comparison with the average amount of the loan since they only equal less than 1 per cent of the amount of the loan in most provinces. This amendment turned out to be popular and very useful since its adoption last May.
Mr. Speaker, I find that the amendments the House brought to the Farm Credit Act in May 1975 really encourage young people to settle or stay in agriculture, and the figures I produced demonstrate this. Consequently, I think that the proposals in the motion before the House would not really improve the rural economy.
April 30, 1976


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. Again I want to warn hon. members of the House that if the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) speaks, his contribution will close the debate. The Chair recognises the hon. member for Chambly (Mr. Loiselle).


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the motion on which I agree in principle. However, in view of the present economic conditions. I think it is impossible for the Farm Credit Corporation to increase its funds at the same pace as it thought it would. Actually, the corporation will not have enough funds to approve the same amount of credit as for 1975-76. In addition, since it had to carry certain amounts involved last year over its budget for this year, it is evident that the number of new loans should be reduced likewise.
I think that we should also urge farmers to take part in the anti-inflation program, much as we ask all groups in our society and all our industrial sectors to do. However I think that with all the new guidelines concerning farm credit it will be possible for us, while beating inflation, to reach certain goals.
Those aims have, I believe, been clearly defined in the criteria outlined by the Department of Agriculture. I am quoting only a few instances of the consolidation of applicants' debts. Formerly, it was possible for a farmer to gather all his debts and apply for a single loan which would take care of all the total indebtedness. Now we shall urge instead other loan companies to lend the money so that the corporation may pursue its activities and its aim of improving the agricultural production in this country. This is why we must earmark funds for those farmers who do not derive an adequate income from their operation and who wish to buy more land.
We shall not lend money so readily to those farmers who have enough land, assets and an adequate income.
Those who do not have enough land to farm are unable to derive an adequate income from farming will be particularly encouraged.
Moreover, we will give assistance to the younger people-and I often hear this comment in my constituency- because a young farmer today does not have enough money to buy land which costs more and more. Thus, we will grant loans particularly to one, two or three members of the same family who want to buy the family farm.
Mr. Speaker, I think that even though fewer will be available for farm credit, it will still be possible to help the farmers who either wish to improve their lot or simply to take up farming. In my opinion, this is one aspect of the problem facing the young farmers and those who are developing their operation.
We should not be concerned only with financing problems facing farmers but I believe that with provincial and perhaps even municipal authorities we should hold a joint meeting of the three levels of government with a view to constituting agricultural land banks.
In an area such as mine, even if farm credit is available to the farmers, it has become unthinkable to buy land
Farm Credit Act
because most if not all of it has passed into the hands of speculators. Even if he has already settled, a farmer cannot think of increasing his land, let alone a young man who intends to enter this industry. Therefore I believe the major problem does not exist at the credit level only but also extends to the possiblity of acquiring land.
Mr. Speaker, if we do not stop this shameful speculation which is now raging in the Montreal area, we will lose all the best agricultural land in Quebec.
I do not think we should dwell merely on the financial problem. We should rather consider the possibility now given to present and future farmers to buy new lands. And I would urge the committee on agriculture to look into this matter so as to be in a position to make recommendations to the provincial agriculture ministers and also to the municipal affairs ministers who are the only ones qualified and empowered to act in zoning matters.
Mr. Speaker, I think that if we could do as some American states have done and urge the provincial legislatures to intervene as some American states and zone certain agricultural areas, land speculation would no longer be possible in those regions.
So long as we do not come to grips with the financial problem, to earmark additional funds for the Farm Credit Corporation will only amount to overbidding.
I also think that we, as a government, should urge the lending institutions such as banks and trust companies to make more and more loans to the farmers who have always found it difficult to borrow money, and that is why they have always relied on the government. If we believe in our farming industry, I wonder why financial institutions such as banks are not more interested in this field, which proves most profitable. Unfortunately, one only has to consider the farming production surpluses last year.
Mr. Speaker, even if it is hard to tell the farmers that we cannot make more funds available to them, increase their borrowing power next year, I think they must agree to join us and the other sectors of the Canadian economy in our fight against inflation, a fight which has made a very good start with the results we already know, which gives us some hope of a decreasing rate of inflation this year.
However, Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the motion of my colleague, but with the present inflationary crisis, I have to say that however valuable this project may be, we will have to postpone it before adopting it.


Mr. Claude Tessier (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that, in principle, the reasons given by the hon. member are acceptable, no doubt, but I think we must put the problem in its true perspective. On one hand, every day the government is urged to reduce its expenditures, to cut its budget, while, on the other hand we hear new demands being constantly pressed upon the government to meet certain needs.
All agree that like many other laws the Farm Credit Act could be amended, as the hon. member has said, and bettered so that we encourage our young producers. On the other hand, in view of the present situation of the dairy policy in 1976-77 for example, not only do we try to find

April 30, 1976
Farm Credit Act
incentives for the producers to produce more and improve their facilities, but at the same time, because of the current world situation, we have to ask the farmers to reduce their production.
So in a context like this, I think that at a given moment the government has had to decide that expenditures for farm credit would be curtailed. I do not think this is an attempt to hold back Canadian agriculture as a whole, but on the contrary, to rationalize its production. Even in our rural areas, where the economy is in a particularly difficult predicament due to the inflation, we still must ensure proper balance between costs and returns in agricultural production.
Almost daily we hear protests about our social legislation as the government has become the main employer in this country with such schemes as health benefits, social welfare and unemployment insurance. But I think that after having pondered on the present economic situation, we are rather led to bring back the workers to work, to try to find them new job opportunities and to stop creating and encouraging ventures which would represent far too many risks in the present conditions of our economy.
This means that the policy of the government with regard to assistance to farmers is to make sure first and foremost of the profitability of existing farm operations. On the other hand, we must really be certain now when offering farm credit that those who are eligible to it really have the ability to do the job so as to minimize lending risks for the government and to ensure maximum yield of the money that the government makes available to producers.
Therefore, it is now almost unthinkable that in its agricultural policy, the govermnent should add some so-called incentives when the priority as concerns agriculture really seems to be to stabilize and ensure profitability. I therefore consider that, in theory, the suggestion of the hon. member is acceptable. However, at this time, in view of present conditions, this subject should be referred to the committee on agriculture where it can be studied in depth while taking into account in particular rural areas which are now more likely than others to be affected by the current problems caused by inflation.
Of course, I am among those who are quite concerned by the econcomy of rural areas. Obviously an attempt must be made to save the economy of our rural areas. We can probably hope to succeed in the not too distant future, and even in the near future in reviving our rural economy, which must necessarily provide farmers with sufficient economic means.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we on this side cannot help rural economy without speaking of agricultural zoning. I know that, in this regard, the provinces have already undertaken projects which, I hope, can be realized and it is really in this sense that any amendment to the farm credit act will be truly effective and acceptable, and I would even say necessary for rural areas.
Therefore, we must definitely assess the needs of young producers. To deal with the need of young producers is also to deal with their training, because agriculture was once a venture we must now realize that the Canadian farm producer has become a true expert in his field. I think that

government members cannot take the risk of plowing huge amounts of money without making sure that prospective farm producers are equal to the task and this means having an adequate and complete training in order to ensure the survival of the farming community.
Therefore, in my view, raising the problem of farm credit amounts to actually considering on the one hand saving the economy of Canadian rural areas and on the other hand encouraging producers to make use of their personal skills and enabling them to earn an honest living. By the same token, it also amounts, for instance, to requiring from producers enough preparation and seriousness so that government loans may really be considered profitable and that risk may also be considered as really calculated.
Then, looking at the hon. member's proposal, I suggest that the committee which is now discussing the estimates has already raised the problem of a readjustment of our farm credit policy, and I think this is indeed the most appropriate and acceptable way to discuss the new farm credit policy.
Turning back especially to the developments we have been, and will be, witnessing as regards our dairy policy, it is nevertheless necessary to ask producers as well as producers' associations to make an effort at this stage so that our partners in Canadian agriculture, namely the producers themselves, may strive to rationalize their own operations and we may really believe that agriculture must be supported by the government. However, it must not become a novel form of welfare; rather it must consist of elements necessary and essential to a rural economy based on efficiency and profitability.
Now, this is also an appeal to producers themselves as well as to producers' associations to ensure that they are as serious as this government can be, and only in these conditions will the government be eventually able to grant loans which will really assist agriculture and will not simply be another form of welfare.
Then, Mr. Speaker, I think that somewhat explains the concerns we are sharing with the hon. member. On the other hand, in the present context, there is always this dilemma which we are facing: as each day come to pass we are asking more from this government while on the other hand, we are requesting at the same time that it should practise restraint. But one must realize that the government, like any other organization, must do some accounting, calculate its risks and make its decisions. And I suggest that the decision that was made recently in the area of farm credit has been at the advantage of the Canadian economy. And until further notice, we must support the government's present position unless we can demonstrate the merits of another policy.


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, motion No. 12 proposed by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) and dated January 27, 1975 recommends that the government amend the Farm Credit Act to encourage young people to stay on the farm or expand their farm operations or in some cases to allow young people who left the farm because of a lack of financial means to come back.
April 30, 1976

The last amendments made by the government are giving encouragement in that direction. Mr. Speaker, as we are now aware, a person under 35 can, without leaving his job in the industrial sector, buy a farm and benefit from the Farm Credit Act.
Motion No. 12 has some good aspects. It particularly recommends an interest rate of only 5 per cent. A member of the government side mentioned that we should also take into account the case of young couples who want to buy a property. Those people will have to pay a rate higher than 5 per cent. In some cases, they can benefit from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation grants and pay a rate of 8 per cent. The suggestion has some good aspects and in certain cases that rate can apply to young farmers and not only the young but every farmer in the province of Quebec.
Another suggestion that could be considered by this government is that for a certain period the Farm Credit Corporation could, through an agreement, increase the loan of those young people without professional fees. It is another suggestion that could be considered by the government. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) responsible to Parliament for the Farm Credit Corporation announced in a press release this week that the funds available for 1976-77 would not be as high as for 1975-76; one of the reasons alleged by the minister is the following: For 1975-76, the Farm Credit Corporation loaned upwards of $600 million, or made loan commitments that will be considered in 1976-77 and in such cases we have, as it is called mortgaged the available appropriations for 1976 and 1977.
In various instances in the past, the government took measures to help young farmers expand their operations. This provided increased loan opportunities where two or three people get into a partnership to continue the family operation. Hon. members are aware that the average age figure among the farmers is relatively high. I understand the most recent statistics show the age to be above 50, and the Farm Credit Act amendment has allowed the senior farmer to indirectly carry on farming, while allowing one or two sons to take over the operation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is with regret that I have to interrupt the hon. member, but the hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, with deference and respect, I do not know whether in the circumstances you can say the private members' hour has expired. Standing Order 4 states that the House adjourns at five o'clock on Fridays. I look at the clock and it is only 3:20. If the opponents to the point of view which I am putting forward say that there was unanimous consent, I have to say there was unanimous consent only to part of the matter that would allow us to continue to the actual time of 3.20 o'clock.
The unanimous consent that was given when Your Honour was not in the Chair was to call if four o'clock at that time so that private members' business could continue. However, there was no attempt at that time, nor was it asked that there be unanimous consent that the House
Time of Adjournment
adjourn at the end of an hour. Therefore we are now stuck with the Standing Orders of the House.
In view of all the circumstances I do not believe Your Honour could properly rule, and I gather you have not ruled, that private members' hour has adjourned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the Standing Orders do not say that private members' business shall be for 60 minutes-for one hour. The Standing Orders say that private members' business shall be from four o'clock to five o'clock. It so happens that at 2.20 this afternoon, eastern daylight time, we decided by unanimous consent that it was four o'clock. So private members' business lasts from that point until five o'clock. It is not yet five o'clock, not even in Newfoundland where things are always half an hour later. There is nothing in the book which says it is an hour. The book says it shall be from four o'clock to five o'clock. Joshua made the sun stand still a long time ago. We have not done the same thing. We pushed the sun back a bit. But there has been no unanimous consent to call it five o'clock at 3.20. If the government wishes to make a motion to adjourn, that is a different story, but I do not think we can now decide it is five o'clock unless there is unanimous consent.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised by the remarks of the hon. member who spoke before me, considering what was said in this House during the past few years. At 2.20 it was unanimously agreed to call it 4 o'clock. The hon. member says he cannot stop the sun, but everyone can very well stop his watch or move it forward. I suggest this is exactly what this House did at 2:20, when we unanimously agreed to call it 4 o'clock. It does not matter much where the sun lies for that matter. We call it 4 o'clock, we move on to 4 o'clock. There has to be some consistency in this House. If we unanimously call it 4 o'clock, one hour later it has to be 5 o'clock.


Mitchell William Sharp: When the Deputy Chairman of Committees was in the chair there was some discussion about business for this afternoon and I recall saying that in order to bring about the adjournment of the House on June 30 it was undesirable to open discussion on measures which do not appear on the order paper. Following this the Chair, as I recall the words, asked "Do we hafe unanimous consent to call it four o'clock?" It was my understanding that what we had agreed to was to advance the clock and I suggest it would be ridiculous on our part to turn it back now. The implication was that we had come to the end of the day and were beginning the private members' hour by advancing the clock to four o'clock. If we were to take any other point of view, then at four o'clock we would have to call it four o'clock twice, and that would be ridiculous.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do understand the preoccupation of the hon. member. Recalling what was said when by unanimous consent the House decided at 2.19 to call it four o'clock, I have to consider the situation in the perspective of the decision made at that time. The Chair has to judge

April 30, 1976
Time of Adjournment
not the intent of hon. members now, but the intention which was in their minds when they agreed to call it four o'clock.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said, and I agree with him, that nowhere does the Standing Order say that the private members' hour shall last 60 minutes. Such words do not appear. But we can see from Standing Order 15(4) that the time allotted for private members' business every day is either from five o'clock to six o'clock or from four o'clock to five o'clock on Friday, which is the equivalent of 60 minutes. Hon. members want the Chair to decide that this hour should, today, last two hours and 41 minutes. I do not think the Chair can do this. They have heard me say that the hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has expired. That is the form which has been in use here ever since I have been in the House, either in the chair or as a private member. To me, that hour is 60 minutes in principle.
Hon. members should also consider the fact that they do on occasion recognize that the length of time allotted to private members' business is 60 minutes even though it
might only last for 15 minutes. Moreover, if it is the wish of the House, private members' business can be extended. What is being suggested now could be done only by unanimous consent. Hon. members are asking the Chair, in the absence of unanimous consent, to say that the hour allotted to private members' business should extend to two hours and 41 minutes. This cannot be done by the Chair alone; it could be done only with the consent of all hon. members.
The hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) said it has always been recognized, in recent times at least, that when hon. members decide to advance the private members' hour, it is understood that the time allotted for that portion of our business will be 60 minutes. So my interpretation of the situation, in the light of the precedents and taking into account the unanimous agreement which was reached at 2.19 to call it four o'clock, and reading in that decision the intention to proceed with the private members' hour for the time normally allotted, that is, for one hour, is that I have to call it five o'clock. And I do call it five o'clock.
Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m. under the terms of Standing Order 2(1).
At 3.31 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, May 3, 1976