Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):

Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief this evening and need not take my full seven minutes. I have referred to this subject continually in the hope that in the end action will be taken. I raised this matter on May 1, again on May 24, and I am raising it once more tonight. On May 24 I directed the following question

July 4, 1972

to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), as reported in Hansard, page 2519:

Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. On May 1 I asked him a question on a matter of some urgency in light of recent oil finds in the Arctic, namely, when the regulations under the Northern Inland Waters Act would be completed and published. The hon. gentleman took the question as notice and undertook to look into the matter. I wonder whether he is now in a position to reply?

The minister replied as follows:

Mr. Speaker, the act has been proclaimed and I understand that the regulations are being considered by the two councils which have been established in order to implement them. I think that a meeting has been held last week and as soon as the report is submitted, we shall be able to proclaim these regulations. Meanwhile, officials of my department have advised the companies that they should abide by the regulations as if they were actually in force.

I think it is indicative of the government's commitment to the preservation of the Arctic ecology that the minister said, when I first asked my question on May 1, that he was not sure of the status of the regulations-regulations which he had promised would be in force by the end of 1971. He thought that they were in force. His answer on May 24 confirmed information which I had received, to the effect that the regulations had not been promulgated. Moreover, his answer gave no definite indication of just when they would be promulgated and when the regulations would come into force. I hope that information will be forthcoming this evening. I further hope that the actual date of the proclamation of these regulations will soon be here.

The present situation, in which companies are advised to act as if the draft regulations are already in effect, is obviously untenable on two grounds. First, it is dangerous for a government to require any of its citizens, corporate or individual, to follow a course of action which has not been prescribed by law. Second, and this is perhaps more important in the short run, the government would have no legal recourse in the event that a company operating in the north chose to ignore the draft regulations and, in ignoring them, caused ecological damage. The government would not have any legal recourse at all, as the required regulations have not been promulgated as the law requires.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the heightened rate of activity in the north demands that the government should act immediately and bring into effect the regulations which will make the Northern Inland Waters Act an effective piece of legislation. The balance within the ecology of the north is far too delicate to permit the possibility of error; indeed, so delicate is it that one wonders what can possibly be in the mind of a government which permits major efforts to exploit the wealth of the north to take place before laws and regulations to govern such activities have been devised.

I hope the parliamentary secretary will be able to present to the House tonight concrete information with respect to the expected date of the publication of the regulations which will flesh out the bones of the Northern Inland Waters Act, regulations which are urgently required to protect the northern environment.

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion

Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):

Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) I can give the House the assurance that the regulations should be promulgated this summer. The draft regulations are well advanced. They have been considered by both the new territorial water boards, and their recommendations are being incorporated. Shortly, a draft will be ready for review and comment by the interdepartmental committee on water. Legal drafting by the Department of Justice is expected to get under way by early summer.

The timing of these events still conforms to our original schedule which called for promulgation of the regulations this summer. It should be noted that the primary function of the Northern Inland Waters Act is to license water use in the north. In doing so, of course, precautions against the threat of pollution from the water use can be stipulated by the licensing authority, which is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) acting on a recommendation from the appropriate territorial water board.

The water boards were created with proclamation of the act on February 28, 1972, and are functioning within the authority of the act at the present time. A public hearing before the Yukon water board in connection with the proposed Aisihihik power development has recently been held. We are confident that this mechanism is adequate to deal with water management problems on a short-term basis pending promulgation of the regulations this summer.

Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):

Mr. Speaker, on June 26 I addressed a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). I asked whether he was aware that selfemployed Canadians were obliged to pay the entire amount of their Canada Pension Plan contributions as opposed to Canadians who were not self-employed and who are only required to pay half. I asked whether the minister had given any thought to giving tax relief to this particular group. I received no answer to this question, and since I thought it was a matter of some interest I am taking the liberty of making some further remarks on the subject tonight.

It seems to me, generally speaking, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) opened the lid of a veritable Pandora's box of complaints when he made his now famous statement that the extra revenue to help pay increased welfare costs in this country would have to come from the middle-income class. Middle-income Canadians, though their needs are admittedly less than those of many minority groups and disadvantaged, poverty-stricken Canadians, are being neglected by this administration. One segment of this group, the selfemployed, is being discriminated against in a fundamental way. Those who belong to it are in effect being penalized to the extent that they are obliged to contribute to their own retirement benefit through the Canada Pension Plan.

July 4, 1972

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion

While there may be some advantages left in being selfemployed, they are becoming increasingly few. In many instances they are illusory. Constantly badgered by bureaucrats for statistics, caught in arbitrary decisions as to taxation policy, victims of conflicts between federal and provincial administrations, the self-employed Canadian, as things now stand, cannot claim in respect of contributions toward the Canada Pension Plan and in this respect he would be far better off working for someone else. For example, according to the information supplied to me, the average self-employed Canadian makes $6,000 a year, less in many instances, than his key employees. Yet if he pays half of that employee's pension plan contributions of, say, $160, if that is the bracket in which the employee happens to be, he is able to deduct approximately $80 as a business expense. On the other hand, his own personal contribution, if it should also be $160, must be entirely paid by himself and he cannot deduct any part of it.

In my view, this is a type of discrimination which is totally unjustifiable. The government is exploiting a particular group of Canadians. "Exploiting" may be an unfair term, on reflection, but I suggest the government is not treating fairly the average, hardworking middle-income Canadian who is in many instances doing more than his share of keeping this country's economy going.

The Minister of National Health and Welfare, in a moment of candour said, as I mentioned earlier, that it is this group of Canadians who must shoulder an increasing amount of the load to pay for social benefits-in effect, that big business must be given no more responsibility in this regard because any such action would dull the incentive to expand under present budgetary policy.

Somewhere or other the minister and the government have got their priorities confused. As far as cost is concerned, I am not suggesting that it would be proper for the government to contribute directly, as does an employer, to self-employed Canadians' Canada Pension Plan contributions, except I suppose in cases where the government is the actual employer.

While on this subject, it is interesting to look at the revenue that is involved. Assuming that there are approximately 400,000 self-employed Canadians, and that for the sake of statistics their average contribution is $160 a year, if you take half of that sum as the revenue figure, theoretically the contributions would amount to about $32 million. This is about three times the budget of Information Canada, a singularly useless administrative monster, or whatever you want to call it, indeed perhaps the most useless creation of any government.

I am suggesting that the government give equity to self-employed Canadians by allowing them tax credits or deductions for part or all of their Canada Pension Plan contribution. I feel very strongly that every Canadian should have an equal opportunity to contribute toward his or her retirement. I think this is a bad area in which to discriminate.

I am aware that it is possible to take advantage of the retirement contribution plan and that people are sufficiently well informed about it. I am also well aware that,

[Mr. MacKay.)

despite my rather partisan remarks, the government is also not unaware of the problems facing middle-income Canadians. But this is an area in which the government should show some concern. When a self-employed person is trying to keep his business going and is facing the many demands that are made for statistics, and so on, by government, surely the very least that this administration can do is to explore ways and means of letting that person have the same opportunity to contribute to a national pension plan for his retirement as people who happen to be working for someone else.

Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister oi Indian Affairs and Northern Development):

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware of the many reforms made by the government during the last few years which have benefited all classes of Canadians. However, I should like to thank the hon. member for the comments that he has expressed tonight, and I assure him that I shall draw them to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and the department. I know the hon. member realizes that this is a matter of government policy and that these matters are customarily dealt with by the Minister of Finance during his budget address.

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):

Mr. Speaker, I asked the responsible minister on June 14 whether he would consider adjustments to the initial price of wheat and barley, and whether he would give some consideration to adjusting the prevailing price for rapeseed sown by western farmers, the minister replied, at least as I understood it, in the negative.

In the very brief time at my disposal may I outline how the price of these grains has declined. The minister can check these figures either from the Wheat Board report or from the current edition of the Western Producer. No. 2 northern wheat is selling at Thunder Bay this year for $1.65-1' whereas a year ago it was $1.81. If the minister checks the Wheat Board report he will see the general trend from 1949 and 1950 to the present day and the very small interim or final payment that has been made in recent years. In view of the cost of production today, I think it is quite unreasonable to expect farmers to conduct their operations on the basis of the initial prices that are now set.

I would seriously suggest to the minister that this initial price should be increased and so put a floor under the earning power of the farmer. In reference to barley, I would say that the situation is much more grave since the decline in price of barley has been greater. About a year ago the minister added 10 cents and since then took half back. Let me point out that the prairie provinces are trying to do something to maintain feed prices within the provinces. They are very much concerned about the purchasing power left to the farmer through the sale of feed grains. The minister could do nothing more effective to assist these provinces and bolster the internal level of prices than to increase the initial prices under the Canada Wheat Board.

Finally, in respect of rapeseed I should point out to the minister that currently in the Western Producer, Thunder

July 4, 1972

Bay prices are quoted one day slightly under $2 and now $2.02, whereas a year ago it was $2,501. When replying the other day, the minister said this was temporary. That is not really so. I would call the minister's attention to the fact that this decline has been constant since the beginning of the crop year. Some peaks have been hit but this price has gone down.

I do not see how the government can divest itself of the responsibility of maintaining the earning power of rape-seed. This is the same government that established a support price for soyabeans and sunflower seeds, yet lefuses to move at all on rapeseed. A week ago when I moved to ask that this grain be given the protection of the Canadian Wheat Board, the minister announced before the vote that he would not support this and, indeed, his party voted against giving the farmers that protection. I fail to see how the government can justify leaving the rapeseed grower without a floor price and without any protection in view of the protection given other producers of oilseed crops. The government has given this support to other crops but the price of rapeseed is chaotic.

I have done some research and obtained Vancouver and Thunder Bay prices. There is one price at the crushing plants and there is a premium at some local elevator points. But the total quota system of the Canada Wheat Board is being used to force the farmer to deliver grain at his own cost to those areas where it is wanted.

I have looked up the closing in-store cash prices at Vancouver. The minister may say he would prefer another point and I do not blame him for that. If he can sort out the maze, God bless him. We find that the prices were $2.26, $2.21 and $2.77 for the crop years 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1969-70. As I pointed out to the minister, we are now looking at a price of $2.02 basis Thunder Bay-and it could be higher in Vancouver. Undoubtedly it is higher, and I know that because I use that market when I can. I would point out to the minister that the average farmer cannot get the Vancouver price because usually he has to settle for the prices quoted at Thunder Bay.

In respect of these three grains, regardless of volume, it is unrealistic to expect the western farmer to stay effectively in the grain business with these kinds of prices, and I suggest the minister take some action to correct the situation.

Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):

Mr. Speaker, this year, for the second time, we announced initial prices on March 1 giving some advance warning before seeding to farmers about what these prices should be. Now the hon. member opposite comes along with a request to change them, and no doubt to change them again and again instead of simply appreciating the advantage of having these prices fixed at that date.

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion

In fact, when we fixed these initial prices this year we increased the price of barley by five cents despite the fact, as the hon. member pointed out, that there were very definite weaknesses in the barley market. Indeed, at the present time the barley market is not as weak as it has been and this is why I pointed out to him that his point about continual downward prices is quite in error. In the case of rapeseed, the prices go up and down. This is, of course, the nature of the open market. The hon. member knows full well that our position on the rapeseed market is that the farmers can have the kind of market they want, and when they are able to express themselves plainly on the matter we will act accordingly.

Just the other day I had a letter from the rapeseed association saying that after having distributed some 50,000 copies of an analysis of marketing they hoped further time would be available to farmers to discuss the particular marketing techniques for that grain.

Is the hon. member saying the Wheat Board is not getting as much as it can for grain? He is not likely to say that. He does not normally say that. I would challenge him, if he did. The Wheat Board is doing an extremely good job. It is getting the best possible price for the grain. It is getting prices for grain which compete very favourably with what our competitors are getting. It would be more like the Tories would suggest we were making mistakes by selling at prices which are too low, because they would like to destroy the Wheat Board. But my hon. friend would not ordinarily do that. The Wheat Board gets from the market what it can. It does the best possible job, and I give it great credit. If prices are low, it is because of the world situation.

We are making record sales. I should like to tell the hon. member that today, on July 4, I believe I can say with confidence we have now exported more grain this year than we did in the total of last year, with four weeks left in the season. That is because of great action by the Wheat Board and by the trade generally.

In addition, of course, we are not leaving the farmer for his return on his grain alone to the proceeds of sales abroad. We instituted the two-price system. We have marketing development. We are supporting his sales by credit, and indeed our whole foreign policy supports the making of sales and helps the Wheat Board make sales on the farmer's behalf. We have put $42 million into the purchase of hopper-cars to help move this grain. Last winter we put $1.3 million into moving grain from Thunder Bay to eastern ports for export for the first time in history. And so it goes. We go on putting money from the treasury into the hands of the farmer to help him, and that is recognition that the amount he gets, notwithstanding the best possible job by the Wheat Board, is not enough.

Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Wednesday. July 5. 1972