1968-03-04

[Stage Direction]
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
I should like to table a copy of the statement issued by me during the lunch hour on relations between the Republic of Gabon and Canada, together with a note from the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the foreign minister of Gabon which was attached to that statement.
Mr. Speaker:: Has the Prime Minister permission to table these documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: I do not know whether I am in order at this point, but may I ask the Prime Minister whether he would also table the note which the Canadian government received from Gabon?


Mr. Pearson:: I would be glad to look into that at once. I do not know whether a written note was received; I think there was a discussion with the ambassador of Gabon representing his government, but I will look into the matter and see whether we can table a report of that conversation.



FINANCE


Hon. Miichell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Members of the house will be aware of accounts which have appeared in the public media regarding the disturbed state of international financial markets which developed at the end of last week. I believe these reports are greatly exaggerated, and that the situation is not as disturbed as it has been made out to be.
However, the developments of the last few days have resulted in a marked increase in the short term rates of interest in the so-called Euro-dollar market. These rates have 27053-454
risen to very high levels. In view of the already high level of short term rates of interest in Canada it has been thought desirable to protect the Canadian interest rate structure from the effect of these short term rates in the Euro-dollar market as far as we can.
The governor of the Bank of Canada has this morning, by agreement with me requested the banks and other financial intermediaries for the time being not to facilitate swapped deposit transactions, which constitute the main link between the Canadian short term interest rate structure and the rate prevailing in the Euro-dollar market.
I wish therefore to request Canadian investors for the time being to refrain from entering into or renewing swapped deposit transactions through any intermediary, Canadian or non-Canadian. By way of explanation I should add that swapped deposits are made with Canadian funds which are converted into a foreign currency, usually U.S. dollars, and placed on term deposit with a bank or other intermediary, with the intermediary undertaking through a forward contract to convert them back into Canadian dollars at maturity.



HISTORIC SITES


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I ask
permission to table copies in both languages of a policy statement on national historic sites of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table these documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROVISION FOR MATERNITY LEAVE BEFORE AND AFTER CHILDBIRTH

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kings-way) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-204, respecting the employment of women in federal jurisdiction before and after childbirth.


Mr. Knowles:: Explain.

March 4, 1968
Questions


Winona Grace MacInnis: As
the explanatory note indicates, the purpose of this bill is to provide maternity leave for women employed in any work, undertaking or business within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada.
Its provisions are in line with standards laid down by the International Labour Organization and adopted in varying degrees by countries throughout the world. It is hoped that by adopting such legislation as is proposed the parliament of Canada may encourage the provincial legislatures to do likewise.
Motion agreed and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many employees in the Research Scientist classification were on strength in (a) Department of Energy, Mines and Resources (b) Department of Forestry and Rural Development (c) Department of Agriculture, on April 1, 1967?
2.	Are these Research Scientists subject to an annual salary review on the basis of merit and scientific productivity?
3.	What percentage of the Research Scientists in each of these three departments received salary increments with effect from April 1, 1967?
4.	Were such increments awarded solely on the basis of merit and scientific productivity?
5.	What percentage of the Research Scientists in each of the three Departments did not receive an annual increment with effect from April 1, 1967?
6.	Why did the Research Scientists referred to in Part 4 not receive an annual increment with effect from April 1, 1967?
7.	What percentage of Research Scientists in each of the three Departments receive salary increments with effect from April 1, 1967, of $500 per annum or over?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: Insofar as the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is concerned: 1. (a) 388; (b) not applicable; (c) not applicable.
2.	Yes.
3.	Department of Energy, Mines and Resources-64.8 per cent.
4.	Yes.
5.	Department of Energy, Mines and Resources-35.2 per cent.
6.	Their relative salary positions in relation to research scientists in other departments in the government service, based on

an assessment of productivity, did not indicate that an increase was supportable at that time.
7.	Department of Energy, Mines and Resources-17 per cent.
Insofar as the Department of Forestry and Rural Development is concerned: 1. 237.
2.	Yes.
3.	84.4 per cent.*
4.	Yes.
5.	15.6 per cent.
6.	Research scientists not receiving an increment in 1967 were judged to have insufficient productivity to warrant a merit increment.
7.	19 per cent.
* Includes 14 persons promoted into the research scientist class from other professional classes, retroactive to April 1, 1967; all such persons received a salary increase on promotion.
Insofar as the Department of Agriculture is concerned: 1. (a) not applicable; (b) not applicable; (c) 682.
2.	Yes.
3.	Approximately 99 per cent.
4.	Yes.
5.	Approximately 1 per cent.
6.	8 research scientists failed to receive an annual increment on April 1, 1967. The reasons were: lack of merit; at top of grade; leave of absence without pay; retirement leave.
7.	Approximately 33J per cent.


C.B.C. EMPLOYEES ABROAD
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What Is the number of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation staff employed in the following cities: New York, London, Paris, Washington?
2.	Of these, how many are news or broadcasting personnel, how many are technical staff such as cameramen, and how many are administrative and secretarial staff?
3.	In each of these cities, are the heads of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Bureaus, members of the administrative or broadcasting or news sections of the staff?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows:
1.	New York, 10 including 5 hired locally; London, 24 including 16 hired locally; Paris, 23 including 18 hired locally; Washington, 6 including 2 hired locally.
March 4, 1968

2.	New York, Broadcasting personnel-6; Technical staff-Nil; Administrative staff-4. London, Broadcasting personnel-13; Technical staff-4; Administrative staff-7. Paris, Broadcasting personnel-9; Technical staff- 5; Administrative staff-9. Washington, Broadcasting personnel-4; Technical staff- Nil; Administrative staff-2.
3.	In New York, London and Paris the heads of bureaus, or C.B.C. representatives, as they are called, are administrative staff, as is the case in other broadcasting organizations. The Washington bureau is a branch of the New York office, and is administered by New York.


INTER-AMERICAN INDIAN INSTITUTE
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Have Canadians attended plenary meetings of the Inter-American Indian Institute?
2.	If so, at what times and who were the personnel in attendance?
3.	Is it the intention of Canada to join the InterAmerican Indian Institute?
4.	What Canadian organizations or individuals have urged such a course of action?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1.	Yes.
2.	The 1949 congress in Cuzco, Peru, was attended by the secretary of the Canadian embassy in Peru, and the 1964 congress in Quito, Ecuador, was attended by the director of Indian Affairs and the director of citizenship, of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
3.	This question is still under consideration.
4.	In addition to a few individual requests the following organizations have urged Canadian membership: Indian Eskimo Association of Canada; National Indian Council; Canadian Indian Youth Council; Miss Indian Canada Pageant.


TUNNEL UNDER STRAIT OF BELLE ISLE
Mr. Caouelte: 1.	Has the Government of Canada held discussions with the Government of Newfoundland regarding construction of a tunnel under the Strait of Belle Isle?
2.	Does the Government of Canada intend to participate in this project and, if so, to what extent?
27053-454J
Questions


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by several departments as follows: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.


NATIONALIZATION OF DOSCO STEEL WORKS
Mr. Caouette: 1.	Has the Government of Canada held discussions with the Government of Nova Scotia regarding nationalization of the Dosco steel works?
2.	If so, what have these discussions involved?
3.	Have any undertakings been made by the Government of Canada in this connection and, if so, what are they?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by several departments as follows: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


PUBLIC SERVICE BILINGUAL BONUS
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	What are the appropriate standards of competence in the two official languages required by the Public Service Commission prior to qualification of a public servant to receive a seven per cent bonus?
2.	What examinations or other tests are held to assure (i) attainment (ii) continued retention, of such appropriate standards?
3.	What audit or other supervision is conducted by the Public Service Commission of certificates which may be given by Deputy Heads of compliance with required conditions?
4.	In how many instances, if any, by departments, has the Public Service Commission disagreed with the certificate of a Deputy Head and with what result?
5.	What amount of use of a second official language is required for qualification for bonus?
6.	What audit or other supervision is conducted by the Public Service Commission to ensure the actual continuance of such minimum use of a second official language?
7.	Has the payment of the bonus been cancelled in any instances for lack of continuance of minimum use of a second official language and, if so, in how many instances?
8.	Of the 1,780 persons shown in the answer to question No. 784 as receiving the seven per cent bonus, how many, by departments, are persons whose (a) mother tongue is English and are paid the bonus for competence in the French language (b) mother tongue is French and are paid the bonus for competence in the English language?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have been given the following information by the Public Service Commission: 1. (a) An

March 4, 1968
Questions
employee is deemed to meet the appropriate standard of competence in the two official languages if, at the time of appointment, the essential qualifications included a knowledge of both official languages and he or she had been tested by the Public Service Commission and found to meet this requirement, (b) In all other cases employees are required to submit to a test of competence by the Public Service Commission in the other official language in order to qualify for the differential.
2.	(i) (a) Candidates at all levels are required to take or have taken a standard typing test in both official languages at a minimum speed of 35 words per minute with a high degree of accuracy, (b) Stenographers and junior secretaries (St 3, 4 and 5) are required to pass or have passed a shorthand test in both official languages, three minutes in length, at 80 words a minute, (c) Senior secretaries (St 6, 7 and 8) establish competency through a typing test and the certification by the department that they actually compose, type and sign a variety of correspondence and memoranda in both official languages, and have frequent contacts with senior persons outside and inside the Service which require verbal skills in these languages. (ii) No employee, who has qualified by examination for appointment to a position, is given a later test by the commission to determine that he has retained the skills he possessed upon appointment to that position. Therefore, once it has been established that an employee is eligible to receive the bilingual bonus, no further examination or test is given by the commission.
3.	The employing department is in the best position to know the extent to which one of its employees is required to use and is actually using a second official language. Once the commission is satisfied that the employee meets the appropriate standards of competence, no audit or other supervision is carried out.
4.	See answer to No. 3.
5.	The minimum amount of use of a second official language required for qualification for the bonus is 10 per cent of the employee's time in the performance of his or her duties.
6.	As this responsibility rests with the deputy head, the Public Service Commission conducts no audit or supervision to ensure the actual continuance of the minimum use

of the second official language. However, departments have been requested to review the situation at periodic intervals.
7.	The Public Service Commission records do not provide this information. There have been, however, 97 cases in which the allowance was terminated. Termination of the bonus may result because (a) an employee moves from a position requiring the use of the second official language to another which does not; (b) an employee moves to another category in which the bonus is not paid; (c) an employee leaves the service; and (d) an employee fails to continue the minimum use of the second official language.
8.	This information is not available.


CONTRACTS WITH ENAMEL AND HEATING PRODUCTS
Mr. Coates: What was the total value of work available to Enamel and Heating Products Ltd. in the fiscal year 1960-61 from contracts with the Department of Defence Production and contracts obtained through the production-sharing agreement with firms in the United States, and what is the total value of work from these two sources for the fiscal year 1967-68?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: In so far as the Department of Defence Production is concerned: The total net value of contracts placed by the head office branches of the Department of Defence Production and through the production sharing agreement with firms in the United States totalled $159,962 in 1960-61 and $678,823 in the April 1-December 31 period of the 1967-68 fiscal year.


FEDERAL TASK FORCE ON AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bell (Carleion): 1.	Who are the members of the federal Task Force on Agriculture?
2.	What is the principal occupation and experience of each member?
3.	Who is the chairman or convenor of the Task Force?
4.	What are the terms of reference of the Task Force?
5.	Has the Task Force retained research or other advisers?
6.	If so, what is the name, principal occupation and experience of each such adviser?
7.	What honoraria or other emoluments are being paid to each member of the Task Force or research or other adviser?
March 4, 1968

8.	Will public hearings be held by the Task Force?
9.	If so, when and in what places?
10.	When is it anticipated that a report will he received from the Task Force?
11.	When received, will such report be laid on the Table of the House?
12.	What is the total estimated cost of all the work, studies or other services of the Task Force?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	Members of the federal task force on agriculture: Dr. Donald Ralph Campbell, Associate Dean of Arts and Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario. Mr. Pierre Comtois, C.A., Belanger, St-Jacques, Sirois, Comtois & Co., Chartered Accountants, Sherbrooke, Quebec. Dr. J. Clayton Gilson, Head, Dept, of Agricultural Economics, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Dr. David L. MacFarlane, Head, Dept, of Agricultural Economics, Macdonald College, Quebec. Dr. Donald H. Thain, School of Business Administration, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
2.	Dr. Donald Ralph Campbell is professor of political economy and associate dean of arts and science, University of Toronto. He took his B.A. degree at University of Toronto in 1949 and his M.A. at Oxford in 1958. His field is world economic developments. He was an adviser to the government of Jordan from 1962-64; head of the department of agricultural economics at the Ontario Agricultural College, Guelph, 1952-62.
Pierre Comtois, is a partner of Belanger, St-Jacques, Sirois, Comtois & Co., Chartered Accountants, Sherbrooke. He also is a member of a director of Belanger, Chabot, Nobert, Angers, management consultants, Montreal. He received his B.A. from Laval University in 1945; his B.A.S. from the University of Montreal (Institut Agricole d'Oka) in 1949; his M.S. from Laval University in 1951. He was made a chartered accountant at Laval University in 1954. Until 1966, he lectured on accounting at Sherbrooke University.
Dr. J. Clayton Gilson is professor and head of the department of agricultural economics at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg. He took his B.S.A. and M.Sc. degrees at that university and his Ph.D. at Iowa State University. He has specialized in production economics, farm management, credit and land economics.
Dr. David L. MacFarlane is professor and head of the department of agricultural economics, Macdonald College. He took his B.S.
Questions
degree in 1933 and his M.S. degree the following year at the University of Saskatchewan. He received his Ph.D. in 1940 from the University of Minnesota. He also attended Harvard University and the University of Chicago. He was professor at University of Kentucky 1938-42; an economist with the federal government in 1942-44; director of procurement for the United Nations in 194447. A professor at McGill University from 1947 to 1965, he served on the faculty of University of Nigeria, Enugu from 1963 to 1965.
Dr. Donald H. Thain teaches business policy at the school of business administration, University of Western Ontario. He holds master's and doctorate degrees from Harvard University. One of the foremost business consultants in Canada, Dr. Thain was a visiting professor in 1965-66 at IMEDE, Lauzanne, Switzerland, one of the top management schools in the world.
3.	The chairman of the task force is Dr. David L. MacFarlane.
4.	Terms of reference of the task force
(1)	The task force will make a comprehensive assessment of Canadian agriculture in terms of its contribution toward the achievement of national goals. Particular recognition will be given to the income and welfare of farmers. In the above work, concern will be with the productivity of the agricultural industry in the context of the adjustments to new technology and maintaining the industry in a strong competitive position in domestic and international markets.
(2)	It will study and make recommendations concerning agricultural policies required to achieve long range national and agricultural goals, taking account of the interests of farmers and consumers.
(3)	To accomplish the above objectives, the task force will use existing research results and conduct a series of research projects.
5.	As of this date no research consultant or other advisor is under contract to the task force for purpose of research. However negotiations are at an advanced stage with several prominent university groups and research consultant firms.
6.	The following is a list of research projects in an advanced stage of negotiation with the name of the consultant and his occupation: (a) Dairy Industry Study-Professor Brian B. Perkins, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, (b) Livestock, Poultry and

March 4, 1968
Questions
the Feed Grain Economy-Acres Research and Planning Ltd., Toronto. Research Consultants. (c) Wheat and Oil Seeds Economy Study-Hedlin, Menzies & Associates Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba. Research Consultants.
(d)	Goals of Agricultural Policy-Professor P. J. Thair, University of Saskatchewan, Sask.
(e)	Federal-Provincial Relations-Mr. Marcel Daneau, University of Laval, Quebec City, (f) Credit and Farm Management Services-Price Waterhouse & Co. Ltd., Montreal. Research Consultants, (g) Demand-Supply Study-Dr. C. B. Haver, MacDonald College, McGill University. Professor in Agricultural Economics. <h) Long Range Projections of Demand-Dr. James P. Cavin. Private Consultant in *economic statistical analysis. (Dr. Cavin is working very closely with Mr. Frank Shefrin -of the Economics Branch of C.D.A. in this project).
7.	The five members of the task force are being paid on the following basis: $150 per diem, accommodation and subsistence allowance of $25 per diem while working at a location other than their normal place of residence and actual transportation expenses while in travel status. See also answer to question No. 5.
8.	Due to time limitation public hearings will not be held. However advertisements were placed in a wide coverage of major and weekly newspapers, as well as in all the major daily and weekly agricultural publications. This advertisement solicited submissions on agricultural problems and policies from individuals and organizations and the response to date has been considerable and encouraging.
9.	Not applicable.
10.	December 1968.
11.	Not as yet decided.
12.	The total estimated cost is $688,000.


LEVEL CROSSING SIGNALS, HAY RIVER, N.W.T.
Mr. Orange: 1.	In view of the recent crossing accident, involving a fatality, between an automobile and a diesel locomotive operated by the Great Slave Railway in the Town of Hay River, N.W.T., is it the intention of the railroad and/or the government to install warning signals at level crossings in the town and vicinity?
2.	If so, when and at what estimated cost?
3.	If not, for what reason?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Canadian
Transport Commission advises as follows:
1.	There are no crossings in the town of Hay River and vicinity presently being considered for automatic protection by the Railway Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission. However, in accordance with the usual practice, an investigation of the crossing accident referred to will be made by one of the committee's district inspectors at which time consideration will be given to the necessity of installing warning signals at that location.
2.	See 1.
3.	See 1.


GRANTS FOR RESEARCH IN SOCIAL SCIENCES
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	In each of the past two years, what grants have been made by the National Research Council for research in the social sciences?
2.	How many individuals and how many institutions received such grants?
3.	What are the names of these institutions and what was the amount in each case?
4.	For what specific areas of research were these grants made?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The National Research Council of Canada has awarded a number of grants during the past two years in three fields which may be considered to be in the broad area of the social sciences, viz., certain aspects of archaeology and physical anthropology, physical geography and experimental psychology.
In 1966-67 the council awarded 150 grants to 147 individuals at 22 Canadian universities for research in archaeology and anthropology, geography, and experimental psychology. In 1967-68, 208 grants were awarded to 202 individuals at 25 universities for research in these three fields.
Table I shows the distribution of these grants by universities for 1966-67, and table II shows the distribution of grants awarded in 1967-68.
Details of all grants awarded in 1966-67 are given in the council's publication entitled, "Annual Report on Support of University Research 1966-67". The issue covering grants awarded in 1967-68 will be published in due course.
March 4, 1968

Questions


TABLE I
[Stage Direction]
Grants in Social Sciences Held at Canadian Universities 1966-67
Archaeology
&
Anthropology
	No.	Amount
Acadia		
Alberta	1	7,500British Columbia	1	3,500Calgary Carleton Dalhousie	1	9,000Manitoba McGill McMaster Memorial of Nfld.	1	10,650Montreal New Brunswick	1	4,000Queen's	Saskatchewan (Sask.) Simon Fraser Sir George Williams	1	4,000Toronto	Trent Waterloo "Western Ontario Windsor York	1	3,5007	42,150Geography	Experimental Psychology	Operating	Equip-No.	Amount	No. Amount	ment1	3,000	1	9,000	10	55,600	1	3,500	4	13,638	1	3,000	8	26,850	3	13,208	12	67,685	6	20,600	2	18,500	8	58,709	3	4,650	12	95,200	2	14,000	1	5,000	2	7,500	(1)6	33,450	50002	1,258	4	10,120	1	4,600	(1)19	137,100	500013	65,200	6	22,542	1	4,500	(1)11	69,497	15000(3)8	38,650	132	729,257	25000
Questions
[Stage Direction]
March 4. 1968

[Stage Direction]
Acadia Alberta Brandon British Columbia Calgary Carleton Dalhousie Laval Loyola Manitoba McGill McMaster Memorial (Nfld.) Montreal New Brunswick Ottawa Queen's Saskatchewan (Sask.)
Simon Fraser
Sir Geo. Williams
Toronto
Trent
Victoria
Waterloo
Western
Windsor
York
Archaeology & Anthropology (Operating) No.	Amount
1	9,000
2	23,500
1	5,000
2	16,000
1	1,350
2	12,500
1	6,000
1	3,500
Geography (Operating) No. Amount
1	7,000
1	2,700
2	6,000
2	9,200
1	1,400
2	23,000
4	17,940
3	8,760
1	3,000
Experimental
Operating
No.	Amount
1	5,540
10	72,200
12	50,700
9	31,805
5	30,100
14	86,855
1	2,500
5	17,200
13	98,470
16	154,800
1	10,000
3	16,500
6	18,453
6	51,250
3	20,300
2	8,200
25	201,888
1	3,237
2	10,000
17	83,743
10	54,950
1	4,500
11	86,590
Psychology Equipment No. Amount
1	18,400
1	6,600
2	19,000
1	10,000
1	9,000
11	76,850	17	79,000	174 1,119,781	6	63,000

Mr. Orange: 1.	At what locations of Baffin Island, N.W.T., are air navigation facilities located?
2. What is the nature of the specific facilities at Frobisher Bay, N.W.T. at the present time?
3.	Are steps being taken to improve air navigation facilities on Baffin Island generally and at Frobisher Bay specifically and, if so, what are they?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Air navigation

facilities are located on Baffin Island, N.W.T., at the following locations: Arctic Bay, Bre-voort, Broughton, Cape Christian, Cape Dorset, Cape Dyer, Cape Hooper, Dewar Lakes, Frobisher Bay, Longstaff Bluff, Mary River, Pangnirtung and Pond Inlet.
2. The specific facilities located at Frobisher Bay, N.W.T., at the present time are; one radio range station, three non-directional radio beacons, one instrument landing system and one international aeradio station.
March 4. 1968

3.	No steps are being taken to improve air navigation facilities on Baffin Island generally and at Frobisher Bay specifically at this time.


N.F.B. PRODUCTION &quot;WAITING FOR CAROLINE&quot;
Mr. Fairweather: 1.	How much money was budgeted for the CBC/ NFB production Waiting for Caroline?
2.	What was the actual cost of the production?
3.	What length of time was the film scheduled to take to produce?
4.	How long did it actually take?
5.	Whom did the National Film Board recommend to direct the production?
6.	Who actually did direct the production?
7.	Was this person a CBC staff director?
8.	Who was the NFB supervising producer of this production?
3.	Who was the NFB director of production of this production?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by C.B.C. and N.F.B. as follows: 1. $319,768.58.
2.	Final payments have not yet been made. The indicated total cost is $511,252.36.
3.	The original shooting schedule was 9 weeks and 2 days and the original completion schedule was 31 weeks.
4.	Actual shooting schedule:	15 weeks.
Actual completion schedule: 29 weeks, 3 days.
5.	George Kaczender and Bernard Devlin.
6.	Ron Kelly.
7.	No.
8.	J. W. Hewitson.
9.	J. R. Biggs.


&quot;HOW OUR PARLIAMENTARY RIGHTS WERE WON&quot;
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Upon what authority was a circular entitled How our Parliamentary rights were won inserted in the issue of the C.B.C. Times dated December 7 to 13?
2.	Was the cost of printing of this circular borne in whole or in part by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
3. What percentage of moneys received through the order form in this circular will be retained by the C.B.C.?
4.	Under what arrangement will moneys collected in this manner be distributed elsewhere and to whom?
Questions


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: 1. A brochure in support of the sale of a C.B.C. publication entitled "A Man at Westminster", published by the C.B.C. under the authority of section 29.1 of the Broadcasting Act of 1958, appeared in C.B.C. Times for the week of December 2 to 8.
2.	Costs of printing the book and supporting publicity material were borne entirely by the corporation.
3.	All moneys received, through the use of the order form in the circular, are retained by the C.B.C. to be applied against the costs of production.
4.	No other distribution is involved. C.B.C. owns world publication rights in perpetuity.


PRINCE ALBERT RADAR LABORATORY- CANADA-U.S. CIVIL DEFENCE AGREEMENT
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	What, if any, agreements have been reached between the government or any agency thereof and any private company or individual for the continued operation of the Prince Albert Radar Laboratory?
2.	(a) What are the implications for Canadian sovereignty of the civil defence agreement signed August 8th, 1967, by the United States and Canada (b) what specific provisions have been made for joint operations of services or functions by the two countries in the event that the agreement is activated?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of National Defence, External Affairs and Defence Production as follows: 1. An agreement has been reached between the Defence Research Board and the Bell Telephone Laboratories Incorporated for the carrying out of a scientific measurement program for a period of six months, or longer. Order in Council P.C. 1968-8/1 dated 4 January 1968 refers.
2. (a) There are no implications for Canadian sovereignty. The agreement provides for consultation and co-operation in civil emergency planning between the two countries. The purpose of this consultation is to ensure that national plans formulated independently by each country are as compatible as is considered desirable and possible by both countries. The agreement does not provide for integrated planning, and the two countries retain national control over their own civil emergency plans, (b) No specific

March 4. 1968
Questions
provisions have been made for joint operations of services or functions by the two countries. The purpose of the agreement is to identify areas of possible civil co-operation in the event of direct attack involving both countries, and to ensure that in such areas, civil emergency plans are compatible.


ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Has an advisory committee been established to consider salaries and other terms and conditions of employment of public service employees excluded from collective bargaining units?
2.	If so, what are the names, addresses and ordinary occupations of the members of such committee?
3.	What, in detail, are the terms of reference of such committee?


Hon. E. J. Benson (President of the Treasury Board):: 1. Yes. The advisory group on executive compensation in the public service.
2. The Honourable J. V. Clyne (chairman), president of MacMillan, Bloedel and Powell River Limited, Vancouver, B.C.; Dr. John Deutsch, principal-designate, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario; Dr, Roger Gaudry, rector of the University of Montreal, Montreal, P.Q.; Mr. Alan Lambert, president of the Toronto-Dominion Bank, Toronto, Ontario; Mr. Marcel Vincent, president of the Bell
Telephone Company of Canada, Montreal, P.Q.
3. To advise the government on-(a) the rates of pay and conditions of employment that should apply to executive personnel in the public service; and (b) the principles that should govern determination of the rates of pay and conditions of employment of other personnel employed in a managerial or confidential capacity in the public service.


HOME IMPROVEMENT LOANS
Mr. Douglas: 1.	What was the total value of requests for home improvement loans in each of the years 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967?
2.	What amount was granted in each year in each province?


Edgar John Benson: 1. Requests for home improvement loans are submitted by applicants to branches of the chartered banks. The corporation therefore does not have data on the value of such requests.
2. The table following provides the information on the number and amount of home improvement loans approved, by province, in each of the years 1963, 1964, 1965 and 1966. Data for 1967 are not yet available.


NET HOME IMPROVEMENT LOANS APPROVED UNDER THE NATIONAL HOUSING ACT, BY PROVINCE, 1963-1966
[Stage Direction]
1963	1964	1965	1966Area	Number of Loans	Amount $000	Number of Loans	Amount $000	Number of Loans	Amount $000	Number of Loans	Amount $000Newfoundland	
346	662	343	734	346	770	236	548Prince Edward Island	
222	300	222	333	222	336	197	328Nova Scotia	
1,459	1,951	1,263	1,788	1,271	2,150	1,166	2,014New Brunswick	
694	1,186	689	1,286	709	1,402	778	1,610Quebec	
4,107	8,886	4,029	9,341	3,702	8,972	3,118	7,582Ontario	
6,320	9,957	5,588	9,651	5,297	9,320	5,217	10,333Manitoba	
1,425	2,058	1,091	1,681	939	1,501	852	1,414Saskatchewan	
1,085	1,601	1,000	1,593	907	1,493	724	1,271Alberta	
2,588	3,795	2,172	3,421	2,055	3,269	2,218	3,670British Columbia	.... 3,746	6,261	3,361	6,088	3,363	6,304	3,513	7,112Yukon Territory	
17	35	9	21	8	18	10	18Northwest Territories	
15	30	33	72	27	54	13	31CANADA	
22,024	36,722	19,800	36,009	18,846	35,589	18,042	35,931

March 4, 1968

Mr. Douglas: 1.	How many of the new single-family dwellings built under NHA and sold by builders in 1967 were priced (a) under $14,000 (b) $14,000 to $19,999 (c) $20,000 and over?
2.	What is the breakdown for these single-family dwellings by province?
3.	What is the breakdown for these single-family dwellings in Canada's 18 largest cities?


Edgar John Benson: 1, 2 and 3. The data for 1967 are not yet available.


HOUSING STARTS AND COMPLETIONS, 1967
Mr. Douglas: 1.	What was the number of housing starts and the number of housing completions in 1967?
2.	How many of the starts were (a) single-detached houses (b) semi-detached houses (c) duplexes, row houses and apartments?
3.	How many of the completions were (a) singledetached houses (b) semi-detached houses (c) duplexes, row houses and apartments?


Edgar John Benson: 1, 2 and 3. The table following provides data on housing starts and completions, by type of structure, for 1967.
Dwelling Starts and Completions, by Type of Structure,
Canada, 1967 (Dwelling Units)
Type of Structure	Starts
Single-detached	72,534
Semi-detached and
duplex	9,939
Row	7,392
Apartment	74,258
Total	164,123
Completions
73,631
9,089
5,431
61,091
149,242


APARTMENT STRUCTURES UNDER N.H.A.
Mr. Douglas: 1.	(a) Of apartment structures (six or more dwelling units) completed in 1967, how many were financed under NHA (b) what was the cost per unit (c) what was the income classification of the tenants occupying such units?
2.	(a) What is the vacancy rate in apartment structures (six or more dwelling units) in Canada's 18 largest cities for each month in 1967 (b) what is the vacancy rate for single-family dwellings, duplexes and apartments with less than six dwelling units in the 18 largest cities in Canada in each month in 1967?


Edgar John Benson: 1. (a) The data for 1967 are not
Questions
yet available, (b) The data for 1967 are not yet available, (c) The data on the income classification of tenants occupying apartment structures financed under the N.H.A. are not available.
2. (a) The corporation conducts a vacancy survey of apartment structures of six or more dwelling units in 11 metropolitan areas in June of each year. The table following gives the results of this survey for June, 1967 for both publicly initiated and privately
initiated structures. Data	for other large
cities, and on a monthly	basis, are not
available.	
Vacancy Rates in Apartment Structures	
of Six Units or	More
June, 1967 (Per Cent)	
Metropolitan Area	Vacancy Rate
Calgary	1.8
Edmonton	2.3
Halifax	2.5
Hamilton	1.4
Montreal	1.2
Ottawa-Hull	1.9
Quebec	2.2
Toronto	1.1
Vancouver	1.0
Windsor	1.0
Winnipeg	1.5
(b) The data are not available.


N.H.A. APPLICATIONS FOR APARTMENT AND PUBLIC HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS
Mr. Douglas: 1.	(a) How many requests were made for NHA financed apartment units in 1967 (b) how many were approved (c) how many of those approved were low-rental units (d) of those not approved what were the main reasons for not granting such approval?
2.	(a) How many requests for NHA public housing programs in (i) each province (ii) each of the 18 largest cities, were received (b) how many, if any, were refused (c) what were the chief reasons for any such refusals?


Edgar John Benson: 1 (a) Formal requests in the form of applications for undertakings to insure, or applications for direct C.M.H.C. loans, or applications for federal assistance under section 35A of the National Housing Act were received for 36,974 rental dwelling units in 1967. (b) Loans and investments were approved for 35,460 rental dwelling units, (c)

March 4, 1968
Questions
Of the rental dwellings for which federal assistance was approved, 9,848 dwelling units were low rental, financed under sections 16A, 35A and 35D of the National Housing Act. (d) The corporation has not refused assistance for any rental application for which a formal request has been received, though in some cases the applicant has decided not to proceed further. Prior to the submission of formal requests, discussions may take place between a potential applicant and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. If in the course of these discussions the corporation found that a tentative proposal was ineligible, or unacceptable for other reasons, the prospective applicant would be so advised and would not therefore be likely to submit a formal request
for assistance. Records of these discussions, which vary widely in their nature, are not maintained.
2. (a) (b) and (c) Data on formal requests received for assistance under N.H.A. public housing programs are maintained only on the basis of C.M.H.C. field office areas. For the reasons noted in 1(d) above, however, data on these formal requests would differ from data on assistance actually approved only in timing or where the applicant decided not to proceed. So far as assistance under public housing programs is concerned, any eligible application has not been refused. Data on assistance approved under sections 16A, 35A, 35D and 36B are shown in the following table.

PUBLIC HOUSING PROGRAMS APPROVED UNDER THE NHA BY PROVINCE AND METROPOLITAN AREA, 196711]
Area	Federal Provincial Rental Housing and Public Housing Projects Under Sections 35A and 35D	Non-Profit Corporations Under Section 16A	Student Housing Projects Under Section 36B	Dwelling Units	Hostel Beds	Dwelling Units	Hostel Beds	Dwelling Units	Hostel Beds	New	Existing	New Existing	New	Existing	New Existing	New	Existing	New	ExistingNewfoundland	328	_	_ _	_	_	_	_	_	93	_Prince Edward Island	-	-	- -	24	-	-	153	Nova Scotia	103	-	- 	716	New Brunswick	-	-	- -	-	-	209	-	-	-	152	-Quebec	-	-	- -	224	2	1,161	107	-	-	725	-Ontario	6,787	400	- -	434	-	930	-	1,176	28	4,065	26Manitoba	-	-	- -	168	-	383	-	11	-	188	100Saskatchewan	258	-	- -	12	5	321	22	24	-	99	91Alberta	20	-	- -	1	-	20	-	-	-	600	-British Columbia	790	50	- -	241	1	559	64	275	-	269	57Yukon Territory	-	-	- -	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Northwest Territories	-	-	- -	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Canada	8,286	450	- -	1,104	8	3,583	193	1,486	28	7,120	274Metropolitan Areas:	Calgary	-	-	- -	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Edmonton	-	-	- -	-	-	-	-	-	-	660	-Halifax	25	-	- -	-	-	-	-	-	-	132	-Hamilton	739	-	- -	82	-	123	-	-	-	-	-Kitchener	94	-	- -	-	-	-	-	64	-	276	-London	322	-	- -	-	-	-	-	399	-	1,204	-Montreal 	-	-	- -	105	-	396	-	-	-	735	-Ottawa-Hull	175	-	- -	-	-	-	-	-	-Quebec	-	-	- -	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Regina	-	-	- -	-	-	115	-	24	-	-	91Saint John	-	-	- -	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-St. John's	-	-	- -	-	-	-	-	-	-	93	-Saskatoon	30	-	- -	-	-	-	-	-	-	75	-Sudbury	82	-	- -	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Toronto	3,956	384	- -	257	-	572	-	713	-	584	-Vancouver	790	-	- -	130	-	499	10	275	-	131	57Victoria	-	50	- -	38	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Windsor	-	-	- -	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Winnipeg	-	-	- -	26	-	200	-	11	-	3	100Total Metropolitan Areas.	6,213	434	- -	638	-	1,905	10	1,486	-	3,883	248
I1] There was no activity under Section 16 in 1967.
March 4, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES	7211
Questions

March 4, 1968
Questions


BUNGALOWS LAND COSTS UNDER N.H.A.
Mr. Douglas: 1.	(a) What was the average estimated land cost tor new bungalows financed under NHA for 1967 in each province and in each of Canada's 18 major cities (b) what was the percentage change over 1965, 1963 and 1960 in each instance?
2.	(a) What were the serviced land costs in the metropolitan areas of Halifax, Quebec City, Montreal, Ottawa-Hull, Toronto, Hamilton, Winnipeg and Vancouver in 1967 (b) what were the percentage increases between (i) 1965 and 1967 (ii) 1960 and 1967?


Edgar John Benson: 1 (a) and (b) The table following provides data on the average land costs for new bungalows financed under the National Housing Act, by corporation field offices, for 1967. The data are not available by province nor for each of the major cities.
2 (a) and (b) The data for 1967 are not yet available.


ESTIMATED LAND COSTS FOR NEW BUNGALOWS FINANCED UNDER THE NATIONAL HOUSING ACT, 1960-1967
[Stage Direction]
CMHC Field Office
Land Cost Per Cent Change in Land Costs
1967	
[Stage Direction]
$	1960-1967	1963-1967	1965-1967Halifax	
1,968	+	24.5	-	5.3	-	2.5Moncton	
2,208	+	65.0	+	19.6	+	11.9Saint John	
2,600	+	89.0	+	48.7	+	7.3St. John's	
3,355	+	116.7	+	44.9	+	12.7Baie Comeau	
1,839	-	+	84.8	+	14.7Chicoutimi	
1,221	+	29.2	+	3.0	+	4.3Hull	
2,225	-	-	+	3.0Montreal	
1,899	-	0.7	-	14.3	-	22.7Quebec	
2,335	+	69.7	+	18.5	+	19.5Rimouski	
1,519	-	-	-St-Lambert	
1,889	+	14.8	+	6.4	+	3.5Sherbrooke	
1,461	-	+	9.7	-	2.9Trois-Rivieres	
1,507	+	29.9	+	11.5	+	6.1Val d'Or	
1,127	-	-	-Barrie	
3,457	+	103.6	+	49.3	+	31.7Fort William	
2,949	+	27 6	+	21.7	+	14.1Hamilton	
5,999	+	77.7	+	48.0	+	24.0Kingston	
3,386	+	103.7	+	82.1	+	26.6Kitchener	
4,538	+	119.9	+	107.8	+	51.0London	
3,732	+	71.7	+	33.0	+	24.0North Bay	
2,524	+	23.0	+	16.8	+	23.2Osliawa	
5,222	+	64.7	-	+	19.6
3,535	+	20.5	+	10.6	+	5.4Peterborough	
2,774	+	140.6	+	80.6	+	17.7St. Catharines	
4,853	+	136.4	+	88.2	+	30.9Sault Ste. Marie	
2,972	+	17.8	+	10.7	+	0.7Sudbury	
2,359	+	89.8	+	10.8	-	8.8Toronto	
8,306	+	63.7	+	67.7	+	43.8Windsor	
4,567	+	115.9	+	105.4	+	51.6Calgary	
3,585	+	30.4	+	24.4	+	16.7Edmonton	
3,709	+	23.1	+	14.8	+	4.7Lethbridge	
2,231	+	34.0	+	39.1	+	28.1Red Deer	
2,261	+	36.1	-	1.6	+	2.4Regina	
2,130	+	45.6	+	15.1	+	8.0Saskatoon	
2,348	+	73.2	+	46.8	+	17.5Winnipeg	
3,111	+	10.7	+	6.5	-	4.0Kelowna	
3,378	+	71.3	+	47.0	+	13.6Prince George	
2,993	+	126.1	+	79.7	+	5.2Trail	
2,384	+	74.0	+	39.1	+	17.8Vancouver	
3,979	+	25.0	+	17.9	+	13.2Victoria	
3,255	+	74.6	+	41.3	+	17.8CANADA	
3,155	+	33.7	+	17.2	+	12.0
[Mr. Benson.1
March 4, 1968	COMMONS

Mr. Douglas: 1.	What was the average cost of new bungalows financed under NHA in 1967 in Canada's 18 major cities?
2.	What was the percentage increase over the previous year in each of these cities?
DEBATES	7213
Questions


Edgar John Benson: 1 and 2. The table following provides data on the estimated costs of new bungalows financed under the National Housing Act in 1967, by corporation field offices. The data are not available for the 18 major cities.


ESTIMATED COSTS OF NEW BUNGALOWS FINANCED UNDER THE NATIONAL HOUSING ACT, 1966-1967M
[Stage Direction]
Average Total Cost $	
CMHC Field Office	1966 1967	ChangeHalifax	
16,998	17,784	+	4.6Moncton	
15,393	16,645	+	8.1Saint John	
16,410	17,597	+	7.2St. John's	
19,115	17,963	6.0Baie Comeau	
20,013	19,833	0.9Chicoutimi	
13,853	14,387	+	3.8Hull	
16,395	15,783	3.7Montreal	
18,066	15,901	-	12.0Quebec	
15,708	16,502	+	5.1Rimouski	
15,377	15,898	+	3.4St-Lambert	
16,685	16,733	+	0.3Sherbrooke	
14,504	14,923	+	2.9Trois-Rivieres	
15,152	15,824	+	4.4Val d'Or	16,867	-Barrie	
18,942	19,730	+	4.2Fort William	
17,452	18,798	+	7.7Hamilton	
19,947	21,341	+	7.0Kingston	
19,063	19,751	+	3.6Kitchener	
18,907	20,544	+	8.7London	
16,675	18,028	+	8.1North Bay	18,329	-	1.2Oshawa	
19,506	21,272	+	9.1Ottawa	
19,829	19,973	+	0.7Peterborough	
16,583	18,442	+	11.2St. Catharines	
19,395	20,262	+	4.5Sault Ste. Marie	
17,026	17,917	+	5.2Sudbury	
19,168	18,357	-	4.2Toronto	
23,056	24,878	+	7.9Windsor	
21,774	22,620	+	3.9Calgary	
17,980	18,980	+	5.6Edmonton	
17,954	18,967	+	5.6Lethbridge	
16,037	17,530	+	9.3Red Deer	17,629	+	2.2Regina	17,299	+	4.2Saskatoon	
16,391	16,988	+	3.6Winnipeg	
18,297	18,622	+	1.8Kelowna	
19,450	19,700	+	1.3Prince George	
21,451	21,077	1.8T rail	20,365	+	3.7Vancouver	20,687	+	5.8Victoria	
20,732	20,848	+	0.6CANADA	
18,059	18,529	+	2.6
['] Includes land, construction and other costs, but excludes the mortgage insurance fee.
[Stage Direction]
March 4, 1968
Questions

Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Has the Post Office Department increased the price of envelopes and stationery which they sell to the Canadian public?
2.	Is the Post Office Department required to pay the 12 per cent Sales Tax on envelopes which they sell to the Canadian people, and is this amount added to the price?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Posimasler General):: 1. Yes.
2.	The Post Office Department is required to pay a 12 per cent sales tax on the cost of producing stamped envelopes and this is considered when establishing the selling price to the public. The sales tax does not apply to the value of postage represented by the stamp impression.


C.B.C. RELIGIOUS PROGRAMS
Mr. Tucker: 1.	Is there a committee or advisory board that advises the CBC with respect to religious programs?
2.	If so, what are the names and addresses of those who serve on this committee?
3.	What religious denominations are represented on the committee and by whom?
4.	Does this committee select the persons who broadcast on the programs entitled (a) "The Word and the Music" (b) "Morning Devotions" (c) "Plain Talk"?
5.	During 1967 how many different people broadcast their their messages over CBO, Ottawa, in the "Plain Talk" program
6.	What are the names of those who spoke in "Plain Talk" over CBO, Ottawa, more than 5 times during 1967, and how many times did each speak?
7.	Why has "The Word and the Music" been shifted from midnight to 1:00 a.m.?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows:
1.	Yes. The C.B.C. National Religious Advisory Council advises the corporation on all matters of religious broadcasting. Members are nominated by the major denominations and appointed by the C.B.C. board of directors. The chairman of the council is charged with the responsibility of representing the interests of smaller denominations.
2 and 3. Roman Catholic, Anglican, United, Presbyterian, Lutheran and Baptist churches have direct representation on the council as follows: The Right Rev. H. R. Hunt, Chairman (Anglican), Suffragan Bishop of Toronto, Toronto Diocesan Synod Office, 135 Adelaide Street East, Toronto 1, Ontario; The Rev.

Frank Stone, Vice-Chairman (Roman Catholic), National Catholic Communications Centre, 21 Grenville Street, Toronto 5, Ontario; The Rev. Douglas Herron, Secretary (Presbyterian), Calvin Presbyterian Church, 26 Delisle Avenue, Toronto 7, Ontario; The Rev. J. R. Hord (United), United Church of Canada, 85 St. Clair Avenue East, Room 711, Toronto 7, Ontario; The Rev. Keith Woollard (United), Berkeley Studio, United Church of Canada, 315 Queen Street East, Toronto 2, Ontario; The Rev. H. F. Davidson (Presbyterian), Presbyterian Church in Canada, 50 Wynford Drive, Don Mills, Ontario; The Rev. Carl V. Farmer (Baptist), 43 Heath Street East, Toronto 7, Ontario; The Rev. Harold J. Balsdon (Baptist), President, Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec, 815 Victoria Avenue, Windsor, Ontario; Dr. Henry Endress (Lutheran), Waterloo University, Waterloo, Ontario; The Rev. J. E. Moss (Roman Catholic), St. Augustine's Seminary, Kingston Road, Toronto, Ontario; The Rev. Peter Meggs (Anglican), Anglican Church House, 600 Jarvis Street, Toronto 5, Ontario; The Rev. Karl Schweder (Lutheran), Church of St. Luke, 3202 Bayview Avenue, Willowdale, Ontario.
4.	No. However, policy governing the choice of speakers for such programs is approved at the local level by advisory committees comprising local representatives of the major denominations and the CBC. A basic consideration is broadcast ability.
5.	There is no "Plain Talk" program on station CBO, Ottawa. During 1967 there were 12 different speakers on the CBO program, "A Thought for Today", on which speakers comment from a non-denominational religious point of view.
6.	Each speaker in the series, "A Thought for Today", broadcasts for five minutes daily, Monday through Saturday. During 1967 the speakers were: Rev. Dale Crampton (Roman Catholic), 7 weeks; Rev. Donald Stirling (United), 4 weeks; Rev. E. K. Lackey (Anglican), 7 weeks; Rev. Kevin Milaney (Roman Catholic), 6 weeks; Rev. W. R. Bell (Presbyterian), 5 weeks; Rev. Raymond O'Connor (Roman Catholic), 4 weeks; Rev. Pat Playfair (Anglican), 7 weeks; Rev. Wilbur Howard (United), 3 weeks; Rev. Hallam Johnston (Anglican), 6 weeks; Rev. Dr. Arthur W. Currie (Presbyterian), 2 weeks; Rev. Michael Peers (Anglican), and Rev. Peter Meggs (Anglican), (one week shared).
March 4, 1968

7.	"The Word and the Music" was designed for scheduling at the conclusion of the broadcast day. The schedule was recently extended by one hour with the addition of a new program, hence the rescheduling an hour later of the concluding program, "The Word and the Music".


REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING CORRIDOR ROAD THROUGH MAINE
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Has the federal government made any representations to United States authorities at Washington for permission to build a "corridor road" from New Brunswick through Maine to Quebec?
2.	If so, what was the response to the proposal by American authorities?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: 1. No, but I understand this matter has been the subject of informal discussions from time to time between the provincial and state authorities concerned.
2.	Not applicable.


PREVAILING RATE EMPLOYEES DEFENCE DEPARTMENT
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Approximately how many prevailing rate employees and civil or public servants worked for the Department of National Defence on January 1st in each of the last five years?
2.	Has the Department a target for reducing the numbers of such and, if so, what is the target, and how is it to be achieved?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: 1. Jan. 1, 1964, 48,218; 1965, 44,521; 1966, 44,251; 1967, 42,929; 1968, 42,190.
2.	Yes, the target strength of employees occupying continuing positions at March 31, 1969 is 34,950. Casual employees are hired on a temporary basis against man year authorities which for 1968-69 is approximately 6,800. Establishments are under continuous review and adjusted in response to organizational changes, work method improvements and economic influences. Civilian positions no longer required are dropped from establishments and the occupants are assisted in finding other employment, or, as a last resort, released. In addition, as a temporary measure to ensure a more rapid reduction in strength than could otherwise be achieved, personnel who leave the department voluntarily or on retirement are, with some exceptions, not being replaced.
Questions


SUPPORT APPLICATIONS TO MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Fulton: 1.	What was the total number and total dollar value of applications and renewal applications submitted to the Medical Research Council for support of work to be conducted in the fiscal years 1967-68 and 1968-69 respectively?
2.	For each of the years 1967-68 and 1968-69, how many applications for support were (a) approved in full (b) approved in part (c) deferred for later consideration (d) rejected?
3.	What was the total dollar value of applications for support approved for 1967-68 and for 1968-69 respectively?
4.	What was the total value of applications approved by the Medical Research Council after the autumn 1966 and autumn 1967 reviews by its Grant Review Committee respectively, expressed as a percentage of the total of the dollar value of applications coming under review at each such review period?
5.	Is the percentage change in Part 4 above indicative of a change in the judgment standards applied or a change in the caliber of the applications submitted; and to what extent is the change attributable to one or to the other?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In so far as the Medical Research Council is concerned:
1 to 5. This question is similar to parts 2 to 6 of question No. 888 asked by the hon. member for Saskatoon and replied to on Wednesday, February 7, 1968, as shown at page 6547 of Hansard.


NAVY HYDROFOIL PROJECT
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	What work has been done during the past year on the R.C.N. hydrofoil project?
2.	What are the costs, to date, on this project?
3.	Is a project team still assigned to this project and, if so, how many personnel and what are their ranks?
4.	Has the government decided to proceed with this project and, if no decision has been made to date, when is one expected?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. Repairs to the ship and weapons systems necessitated by the fire, and the remaining outstanding construction work was continued with a view to completion during the sumer of 1968.
2.	To January 31, 1968; $41,686,000.00.
3.	Yes, seven as follows: 1 Captain (N), DND; 1 Purchasing and supply officer 7, DDP; 1 Lieutenant commander (N), DND; 1 Purchasing and supply officer 5, DDP; 2 Purchasing and supply officers 4, DDP; 1 Purchasing and supply officer 2, DDP.
4.	Yes.

March 4. 1968
Questions


OVERFLIGHTS OF PLANES CARRYING NUCLEAR WARHEADS
Mr. Caouelte: 1.	Since January 1, 1967, how many American aeroplanes carrying nuclear warheads have flown over Canadian territory?
2.	Had authorization been given for these overflights?
3.	During the same period, how many Canadian aeroplanes carrying nuclear warheads have flown over American territory?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. This information is classified.
2.	Yes.
3.	None.


CHOICE OF INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH INSTITUTES
Mr. Hales: On what basis did the Department of Industry choose the Universities of McMaster, Waterloo, Windsor and Halifax as the four Industrial Research Institutes at a cost of $746,000?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The Department of Industry instituted a program to support the establishment of industrial research institutes at Canadian universities in December, 1966. The program enables the university to establish an institutional framework within which it may undertake contract research on behalf of industry, and is designed to bring about a closer rapport between industry and the engineering faculties of the universities.
To date four universities have applied for and received support under this program, viz. University of Windsor, the Nova Scotia Technical College, McMaster University and the University of Waterloo. Support under this program is available to all Canadian universities having the requisite resources and capabilities.


PILOT LICENCES ISSUED
Mr. Forresiall: 1.	What was the total number of Student Pilot Permits issued in each of the six DOT Regions for the calendar year 1967?
2.	What was the total number of Private Pilot Licenses issued in each of the six DOT Regions for the calendar year 1967?
3.	What was the total number of Commercial Licenses issued in each of the six DOT Regions for the calendar year 1967?
4.	How many aircraft registration markings were allocated by each of the six DOT Regions for the calendar year 1967?


Mr.  J. A. Bryne@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport: 1. Moncton, 412; Montreal, 1,175; Toronto, 2,952; Winnipeg, 1,325; Edmonton, 1,300; Vancouver, 1,858; Total, 9,022.
2.	Moncton, 267; Montreal, 664; Toronto, 1,729; Winnipeg, 851; Edmonton, 764; Vancouver, 1,140; Total, 5,415.
3.	Moncton, 83; Montreal, 264; Toronto, 361; Winnipeg, 178; Vancouver, 351; Edmonton, 157; Total, 1,394.
4.	Moncton, 14; Montreal, 132; Toronto, 333; Winnipeg, 247; Edmonton, 157; Vancouver, 119; Total, 1,002.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION LOANS
Mrs. Wadds: What was the total amount loaned by the Farm Credit Corporation each year beginning 1960 to the end of 1967?


John James Greene: In so far as the Farm Credit Corporation is concerned: Fiscal year and loans disbursed, 1960-61,	$52,305,266;	1961-62,	$68,886,875;1962-63,	$78,428,094;	1963-64,	$96,315,635;
1964-65, $139,750,639; 1965-66, $201,687,642; 1966-67, $234,447,269; 1967-68 to Dec. 31, 1967 (9 months), $210,361,979.


REQUIREMENT FOR SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBERS
Mr. Thompson: 1.	Is it compulsory for every adult Canadian to apply for a Social Insurance number?
2.	What is the penalty for those who do not apply for a Social Insurance number?
3.	How many known cases are there of people who are required to have a Social Insurance number who have not applied or who refuse to apply for a number?
4.	(a) Are there citizens who are being penalized for not having a Social Insurance number (b) what is the amount of the penalty (c) how many Canadians are being prosecuted in the Courts for not possessing a Social Insurance number or for refusing to apply?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission as follows: 1. No. However, every employer who is employing a person in insurable employment shall require that employee, if he has not already been assigned a social insurance number, to complete and sign an application for registration
March 4, 1968

and the assignment to him of a social insurance number and shall forward that application on behalf of that employee to the local office of the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
2.	A person employed in insurable employment under the Unemployment Insurance Act, who refuses to apply for a social insurance number, may be prosecuted and on summary conviction is liable to a fine not exceeding $500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both fine and imprisonment.
3.	Nine (under the Unemployment Insurance Act).
4.	(a) None (under the Unemployment Insurance Act), (b) N/A. (c) One (under the Unemployment Insurance Act).


WORLD CONFERENCE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Mandziuk: 1.	Will the Government of Canada be sending a delegation to the World Conference on Human Rights in Teheran to be held on April 22, 1968?
2.	How large will the delegation be?
3.	Will non-parliamentarians be invited to join the delegation either as members or observers?


Paul Joseph James Martin: 1. The Canadian government will be sending a delegation to the United Nations conference on human rights, to be held in Tehran from April 22 to May 13, 1968.
2.	The size of the delegation has not yet been determined.
3.	The delegation will probably include one or two private individuals with wide experience in the field of human rights. Provincial governments are also being consulted as to whether they wish to attach observers to the delegation, on the understanding that the expenses of these observers would be the responsibility of the provincial governments concerned.


U.S.S.R. CONSULATE, MONTREAL
Mr. Mandziuk: Has the U.S.S.R. set up a Consulate in the City of Montreal and, if so, how large is the Consular staff?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: The U.S.S.R. established a consulate general in Montreal In 1967. At present it has a staff of six.
Questions


CANADIAN CONSULATE IN RUSSIA
Mr. Mandziuk: 1.	Has Canada set up a Consulate outside of Moscow in the U.S.S.R.?
2.	If so, where and who is on the staff?
3.	If not, for what reasons?


Paul Joseph James Martin: 1. No, although our right to do so has been accepted by the Soviet government.
2.	N/A.
3.	The opening of Canadian missions abroad is decided upon by assessing Canadian needs and priorities, taking account of the financial and personnel resources available. At present, resources are not available for the establishment of any new Canadian mission.


ST. ANDREWS AIRPORT, MANITOBA
Mr. Churchill: 1.	What steps will be taken in 1968 to make the airport at St. Andrews in Manitoba, adequate for the Winnipeg Flying Club's activities and for private owners of light aircraft?
2.	Is it the intention of the Department of Transport to transfer all basic flight training to civilian planes to St. Andrews airport?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. It is planned to undertake the paving of two runways, taxiways and apron in the fiscal year 1968/69 and these will be capable of accommodating all types of light aircraft (up to 12,500 lbs.) except light jets.
2. Yes. This may, however, take a little time and could not be undertaken until the construction work planned for this year has been completed.


LEASING OF PREMISES, WINNIPEG AIRPORT
Mr. Churchill: 1.	Will the government arrange for long-term leasing of premises at the Winnipeg International Airport so that business firms engaged in flying activities, and in servicing aircraft, may provide suitable accommodation for such purposes?
2.	Will the government declare its policy in regard to long-term leasing at the above-mentioned airport at an early date so that any construction planned by government or civilian firms may be commenced by June, 1968?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Yes. Within the limits considered feasible in plans for the future use and growth of the airport and to

March 4, 1988
Questions
the extent that facilities can be made available, taking into account particularly the fact that the major purpose of the airport is support of commercial scheduled services and that use by general aviation and light aircraft must be supplementary to this.
2. A special consultant study on future development at Winnipeg is presently in preparation which will be completed this spring and will assist in the determination of policy so that a public announcement can be made.


'BARLEY-FINAL PAYMENT ON 1966-67 CROP
Mr. McLelland: When will the Canadian Wheat Board be issuing the final cash settlements to the Western barley producers on their deliveries through the Board in the 1966-67 crop year?


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (for the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The Canadian Wheat Board closed the 1966-67 pool account for barley on January 31. It is expected that the
Country
Republic of South Africa Hong Kong Australia United States
* Small quantity shipments are not listed


RED CIRCLING OF TECHNICAL OFFICER POSITIONS
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Were any positions previously classified as technical officer between grades 5 to 9 inclusive in the (a) telecommunications (b) construction (c) airport and field operations (d) civil aviation branches of the Department of Transport red-circled in the classification review?
2.	If so, what was (a) the number in each branch and grade (b) the number at (i) Ottawa Headquarters (ii) regional or field offices (c) the average length of service of the incumbents of the red-circled positions?
3.	In each branch and grade, how many incumbent employees have been relieved of the red-circled status of their position?
4.	What plans does the Department have to relieve other employees whose positions remain red-circled?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (c) Yes. (d) No.

final payment cheques for barley will be mailed to producers commencing early in March.


EGG IMPORTS
Mr. Scott (Victoria (Ont.)): 1.	How many eggs were imported into Canada during 1967?
2.	From what countries were these eggs imported?
3.	What was the average cost per dozen per country?


Mr. Jean-Charles Caniin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. The number of "eggs in the shell'' imported into Canada for the period January to November, 1967 (latest available statistics) totalled 11,432,585 dozen. Import statistics class 53-19, "eggs in the shell", includes both hatching eggs and eggs in the shell fresh.
2 and 3. The countries from which these "eggs in the shell" were imported and the average cost per dozen per country, January to November, 1967 is as follows:
Quantity*	Value	Average Costdoz.	$'000	Per Dozen $270,000	84	.31158,027	36	.62044,940	27	.60111,059,558	6,526	.590separately but	are included in total,	2.	(a) Telecommunications-2 technical officers 8; 1 technical officer 7; 7 technical officers 6; 5 technical officers 5. Construction- 4 technical officers 6. Airports and Field Operations-3 technical officers 9; 7 technical officers 8; 14 technical officers 7; 11 technical officers 6; 4 technical officers 5. (b) (i) 28 at Ottawa headquarters, (ii) 30 at regional headquarters, (c) Average length of service 14.6 years.3.	The following have been relieved to thered-circle status:	Telecommunications-2
technical officers 8; 1 technical officer 7; 1 technical officer 6. Construction-4 technical officers 6. Airport and Field Operations-9 technical officers 7; 1 technical officer 5.
4.	The department follows the following courses of action to relieve other red-circle situations:-(1) By requesting a review of the conversion action, (2) by giving the employees an opportunity to place their names
March 4, 1968

in a special inventory maintained by the Public Service Commission, (3) by adopting special procedures to ensure that red-circled employees are made aware of all promotional opportunities for which they are qualified.


HARBOURS AND RIVERS EXPENDITURES, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, N.S.
Mr. Coales: What was the total expenditure by the Harbours and Rivers Division of the Department oi Public Works in the County of Cumberland in the fiscal years 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62 and
1962-	63?
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public
Works): The expenditures for the period 1957 to 1968 were as follows: 1957-58, $22,228; 1958-59, $77,770; 1959-60, $68,014; 1960-61, $220,745; 1961-62, $40,710; 1962-63, $30,313;
1963-	64, $99,400; 1964-65, $46,900; 1965-66, $104,300; 1966-67. $23,300; 1967-68, $264,800 (estimated).


CANADIANS SERVING IN VIET NAM WAR
Mr. Mather: How many Canadians are known to be serving in North or South Viet Nam in the present conflict there?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Canadian government has, of course, no records on the number of Canadians who may be serving in armed forces in Viet Nam. An informal inquiry addressed to the United States authorities indicates that their services' personnel records are not maintained in a form which permits recovery of data relating to nationality.


DISPOSITION OF GREAT RING OF CANADA
Mr. Smallwood: 1.	Now that The Great Ring of Canada has been placed on temporary display at the National Library until August 31, would the government advise as to the permanent disposition of this gift?
2.	Is the government pursuing the matter, in consultation with the Speakers of the Senate and the House of Commons, as to the possibility of placing it permanently in the Houses of Parliament?
3.	When will such a decision be announced to the Canadian people?


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliameniary Secretary to Secretary of State):: 1. Active consideration is being given to the ultimate
Questions
disposition of centennial gifts to Canada, including the Great Ring of Canada presented by the government of the United States.
2.	Yes.
3.	As soon as these consultations have been brought to a conclusion.


PENSION FUND FOR HALIFAX PILOTS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	From what fund are retired Halifax pilots paid a pension?
2.	How was the fund raised, how much was in it at the end of the last five fiscal years, how many were paid from such fund in each of those years, and what was the average amount paid?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Retired Halifax pilots are paid from the Halifax pilots' pension fund.
2. This fund was raised by contributions from the Halifax pilotage fund. The balance in the fund at the end of each of the last five years, the number paid from the fund, and the average amount paid annually were as
follows:	Balance in	No. paid	Average amountYear	fund	from fund	paid1962	$211,134.07	22	$609.73*1963	207,767.91	22	604.421964	212,649.32	21	626.061965	218,271.82	21	617.531966	219,019.02	23	612.81
* In addition, a lump sum payment of $5,947.00, in lieu of pension, was paid to Mr. R. M. Betts, retiring pilot.


PHASING OUT OF FALCONBRIDGE RADAR STATION
Mr. Fawcett: 1.	Is it the intention of the Department of National Defence to phase out the R.C.A.F. Falcon-bridge radar station?
2.	If so, has any representation been made by any level of government (municipal or provincial) or any organization, for usage of the existing facilities at the Base?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.

March 4, 1968
Questions


LONDON, ONT.-STUDY OF AIRPORT USE
Mr. Irvine: 1.	Is a study and program under way by the staff of the Department of Transport or by independent consultants of the future requirements of the London Ontario Airport?
2.	Has any further study been made for the use of the London Airport as an alternate to Toronto International Airport for international and other long-range flights?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1 and 2. While no program is at present under way with regard to the future requirements of the London, Ontario, airport, or its use as an alternate to Toronto international airport, these matters nevertheless are subject to continual review in the department's over-all airport planning.


LANGUAGE QUALIFICATIONS, EDMONTON POSTAL EMPLOYEES
Mr. Lamberi: How many employees of the Edmonton Post Office and postal stations having contact with the public in the normal course of their duties (outside of letter carriers) have a working knowledge of the English language and (a) French (b) Ukrainian (c) German (d) other?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: (a) 9; (b) 27; (c) 6; (d) 15.


ADMINISTRATION OF CHARLES CAMSELL HOSPITAL, EDMONTON
Mr. Lamberi: 1.	Is any consideration being given to transferring the administration and operation of the Charles Camsell Hospital, Edmonton, to the Government of the Province of Alberta or any agency thereof?
2.	If so, what factors would influence such consideration?
3.	Has any decision been reached and (a) if so, what is it (b) if not, when may one be expected and announced?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	No. (a) Not applicable, (b) Not applicable. [English]


LANGUAGE QUALIFICATIONS, TAXATION AND CUSTOMS EMPLOYEES, EDMONTON
Mr. Lambert: 1. How many employes of the Taxation Division, Department of National Revenue, Edmonton District Office, have a working knowledge (oral and written) of English and (a) French (b) Ukrainian (c) German (d) other language?

2.	Of this number, as in Part 1, how many have contact with the public in the ordinary course of their duties?
3.	What are the relevant figures for the Customs and Excise Division in the same district?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of National Revenue):: 1 and 2.
Question No. 1 Question No. 2 Working Knowledge Contact with
	Oral and Written		the Public
English	291	202(a)	French	11	8(b)	Ukrainian	8	5(c)	German	3	2(d)	Other	6	13.	Number of	employees with	a working
knowledge (oral and written) of English and (a) French-1 (b) Ukrainian-3 (c) German- nil (d) other language-1 Dutch, 1 Polish, 1 Finnish.
Three of these employees have contact with the public in the ordinary course of their duties.


PERSONNEL CHANGES, CAMSELL HOSPITAL, EDMONTON
Mr. Lambert: 1.	How many (a) medical staff (b) nursing staff (c) administrative staff, have resigned or left the service at the Charles Camsell Hospital since July 1, 19S7?
2.	How many of the above categories have given in their notices of resignation and how many of these are effective on or about July 1, 1968?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. (a) 2; (b) 29;
(c) 6.
2. 3-Nurses, effective in March 1968. [English]


INCOME TAX RETURNS IN FRENCH
Mr. Lambert: 1.	Are tax return forms in the French language immediately available for the public at the Taxation Division offices and the normal additional outlets for such forms at Edmonton and, if so, when were they made available for the 1967 taxation year?
2.	Have they been immediately available on request in the past?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Yes, January 29, 1968.
2. Yes since the above date and about that date each year.
March 4, 1968


LANGUAGE QUALIFICATIONS, CONSUMER DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS
Mr. Caouelie: 1.	Of the senior officials appointed since last December to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, what proportion are Englishspeaking?
2.	At the section head level in this Department, have instructions been given for respecting the essential requirements of bilingualism?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. Nil.
2. The responsibility for ensuring that the essential requirements of bilingualism are maintained has been vested in the director of the personnel branch.
At the time the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was established all senior officers with the exception of one were with the Department of the Registrar General. Of the eleven senior officers, four were English speaking and the balance French speaking. Since December 21, a twelfth senior officer has been appointed and is French speaking.


RETIREMENT OF NAVAL MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES
Mr. McCleave: Has the government decided to retire those serving in the sea environment of the Canadian Armed Forces five years earlier than those serving in other environments, and if so, for what reason?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: No.


HEATING SYSTEM CHANGE, FEDERAL BUILDING, NORTH SYDNEY, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	Has the heating system at the North Sydney Federal Building been converted from coal to oil?
2.	Will there be a reduction of casual firemen or any other staff at the North Sydney Federal Building as a result of change?
3.	Have the coal stokers, motors, etc., that were in use at the North Sydney Federal Building been turned over to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and, if not, what arrangements have been made for the disposal of such equipment?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes, three seasonal firemen who are being offered alternate employment in the area.
3.	No. They become the property of the contractor under the terms of the contract.
Orders for Returns PURCHASE OF POST OFFICE SITE, YAMACHICHE, QUE.


Mr. Mongrain: 1.	On what date did the Department of Public Works purchase a piece of land which was to be used for the building of a new post office at Yamachiche?
2.	What was the purchase price?
3.	Is the house which is situated on this piece of land heated by the Department of Public Works?
4.	What is the name and address of the heating oil supplier?


George James McIlraith: 1 and 2. On October 23, 1967, Lot 797, property of Eugene H. Bourassa, was expropriated for $8,000.
3.	No, the building was demolished in 1967.
4.	Not applicable.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Harkness: 1.	(a) For each of the years 1964 to 1967 inclusive, what individuals were employed from time-to-time in the Information Services and/or Public Relations Division of the Department of National Defence (b) what position has been and is now held by each such employee, for what period and at what salary or remuneration?
2.	(a) For each of the years 1964 to 1967 inclusive, what persons, firms or corporations, if any, other than the departmental Information Services or Public Relations Division, have been employed and/or retained for the purpose of preparing, disseminating or in any manner dealing with the Information Services and/or Public Relations of the department (b) what are the names of such persons, firms and corporations, if any; for what purpose and period was the employment and what was the cost in each instance (c) were public tenders called for the services described in (a) and (b) and, if not, upon what basis and by whom was the selection made?
3.	(a) For each of the years 1964 to 1967 inclusive, how many press releases have been prepared for or on behalf of the Department and/or the Minister; by whom were the same prepared and at what cost (b) for each of the years 1964 to 1967 inclusive, what radio and television time has been purchased by the Department; for what purpose and for what cost (c) for each of the years 1964 to 1967 inclusive, what advertising or other space was purchased in domestic and foreign newspapers, magazines and other publications; for what purpose and for what cost?
4.	(a) For each of the years 1964 to 1967 inclusive, what was the cost of travel of the Minister and his staff and of any of the personnel described in (1) and (2) above (b) what trips were undertaken and for what purpose?

March 4, 1968
Orders for Returns
5.	For each of the years 1964 to 1967 inclusive, what advertising or any other related contracts have been awarded by the Department; to whom were the same awarded, for what purpose and for what cost? Were public tenders called in each instance and, if not, upon what basis and by whom was the contract awarded?
6.	Does the Department maintain and/or operate any office located elsewhere than in Ottawa for the purpose, in whole or in part, of promoting the public relations of the Department and/or the Minister and, if so, where are such offices located; what is the cost of the maintenance and operation of such offices; how many are employed in each such office and at what salary or remuneration in each case?
Return tabled.


SHIPMENT OF POISONOUS MATERIALS BY COMMON CARRIERS
Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway): 1.	Are there regulations to prevent the shipment of insecticides and other poisonous substances along with foodstuffs in common carriers?
2.	If so, what are these regulations?
3. What are the penalties for infringing such regulations?
4.	What regulations, if any, govern warnings on containers used for shipping poisonous materials in common carriers?
5. What are the penalties for infringing such regulations
Return tabled.


EXPLORATION PERMITS, ARCTIC ISLANDS
Mr. Fulion: In connection with the proposed oil and gas exploratory work in the area of Canada's Arctic Islands to be carried out by Panarctic Oils Ltd., as announced recently by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development:
1.	Have any permits been issued to date for exploration rights in the area in question?
2.	If so, are such permits held by or in the names both of individual persons or corporations, and of consortiums of persons or corporations?
3.	If the answers to Parts 1 and 2 are in the affirmative, what are (a) the names of such individual persons or corporations holding such permits (with addresses in the case of persons); (b) the names of the members of each such consortium holding a permit, with the percentage interest held by each member of each consortium respectively; and (c) the total acreage covered by the permit or permits held by each such individual person or corporation and by each such consortium respectively?
4.	In respect of each corporation named in Part 3, what are the names and addresses of the members of its Board of Directors?
Return tabled.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he will order a personal review of the status of recommendations of the Glassco commission and previous reports of the Auditor General and of the standing committee on public accounts, to ascertain the reasons for the delay in implementing such a substantial number of these recommendations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to make that personal review, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and ask whether he has received any complaints from Glace Bay in Cape Breton, alleging that up to 50 per cent of the operating trades on the Cumberland railway are idle due to the fact that the coal from No. 20 colliery is being shipped by truck. I would also like to ask the minister if the decision to ship this coal by truck was made by the Cape Breton Development Corporation and, if so, what action is he or the corporation taking with respect to employment for those who are adversely affected?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have no personal knowledge of this matter, but I shall inquire and answer the question tomorrow.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I gave notice of the question I want to put to the Minister of Justice. In his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary.
March 4, 1968

Can he tell us if the Canadian bishops have asked to appear as witnesses before the parliamentary committee which is now studying the bill on abortion? If so, has the chairman of the said committee asked them officially to submit their brief on that controversial matter?


Mr. Speaker:: I feel I have to point out to the hon. member that his question deals with the proceedings of a committee now in session and is therefore out of order.



ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE OF PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of his repeated statements that the government would be reporting on its intention to establish the office of a parliamentary ombudsman; in view of the announced intention that such an office will be established in a number of other provinces, and now in view of the intention of Senator Croll to recommend the establishment of an ombudsman committee, would the Prime Minister tell us what are his intentions, before he leaves his office as Prime Minister?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Finance. In view of his announcement of Friday last that after ten months of the present fiscal year the government has a deficit of $141.2 million compared to the position of exactly one year ago when the government reported a surplus of $134.6 million, does the government intend in the very near future to take steps to bring revenue more in line with expenditures?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker; that is the intention.


George Harris Hees: In view of the fact that as recently as January revenues were plus $55 million and expenditures had increased by
Inquiries of the Ministry $107 million, does the government not think this is a matter which is worthy of more than a smile by the Minister of Finance, and a little more action?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, after all we did propose some revenue measures to the house, which were not adopted.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the Canadian military team now in Europe, or to be there this week, for the purpose of discussing with NATO officials a reduction in Canadian forces in Europe?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, a team is going to Europe to discuss with the NATO military committee the commitment that was suggested on the political level at the December meeting. That is the purpose of the visit.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the minister to be a little more explicit. Does he mean they will be there for the purpose of discussing a reduction in the Canadian contribution to NATO?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: As I said at the time, Mr. Speaker, we had proposed to NATO the use of an air transportable brigade instead of two heavy brigades as reserve. This plan if accepted must be worked into the general plan. That is the reason the team is going to Europe to discuss the matter with the military committee.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the Commonwealth secretariat taken any steps to convene conversations or negotiations among the Commonwealth countries with a view to alleviating the plight of approximately 100,000 persons of Asian origin presently living in Kenya?
March 4, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In view of the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has taken the question as notice, if negotiations have not been initiated by the secretariat would the Canadian government undertake to make appropriate recommendations so these conversations or negotiations may commence?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will take that under consideration, Mr. Speaker.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether he was enunciating government policy in the province of Quebec when he gave his views in respect of Quebec's jurisdiction over educational television.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question can only be asked of the Prime Minister.


William Heward Grafftey: Then, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was enunciating government policy in the province of Quebec when he gave his views a few days ago on Quebec's jurisdiction over educational television.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The views were not those reported in the press.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, in order to encourage national stability in the weeks ahead can the Prime Minister assure the house that he has cautioned the ministers who are running for the leadership of the Liberal party, when referring to areas of policy to be articulate in enunciating cabinet solidarity positions?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend was discussing what may or may not be done in respect of a new Canadian constitution.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance arising out of reports in this morning's paper that he is contemplating setting up some kind of advisory council to deal with present economic inflationary and related situations. I should like to ask him whether it is his intention to outline that policy to this house and, if so, when he intends to do so.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government's whole approach to the present situation will be revealed I hope very soon.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether his answer means that the revelation about general government economic and financial policy will come at the same time as a new revenue measure, or whether it will precede it. Will the minister inform the house when we may expect to learn about these important matters?


Mitchell William Sharp: The only answer I can give, Mr. Speaker, is that the whole matter is under active consideration in cabinet and that an announcement can be expected soon.



PERPETUAL BONDS-SUGGESTED REDEMPTION OR INCREASE IN INTEREST RATE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question also to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that new government bonds issued to replace those expiring on September 15, 1967 are today worth only $48 per $100 bond, is the government giving any thought to redeeming these bonds in the near future or to paying an interest bonus to Canadians who are now required to lend their savings to the government at less than half the current rates?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think that is the sort of question which ought to be put on the order paper. I cannot identify the bonds. They would have to be identified much more clearly.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: For the benefit of the minister, I have two of the bonds here.
March 4, 1968	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would like to take this up in private conversation with the minister.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In order to restore some confidence in government of Canada securities, would the minister consider replacing these bonds on a two for one basis at the current rate of interest? The bonds are 3 per cent perpetual bonds.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   Roger-E. Regimbal@Argenieuil-Deux-Montagnes: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Transport.
In view of the fact that the authorities of the city of Montreal have already expressed the wish and the need for closer co-operation with the National Harbours Board, does the hon. minister intend to comply with the request for a certain degree of autonomy in the management and administration of Montreal harbour, at least with regard to the activities affecting the Montreal area?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this is very similar to questions asked last week. I indicated that we were looking at the longer term question and studying the administration of ports in Canada and the different kinds of administrations now in existence. Once that inquiry has been completed I will be in a better position to know what changes, if any, might be recommended for the consideration of the government in the future.


Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister without Portfolio has shown some interest in labour problems in Montreal, as evidenced by his walk along the waterfront on the week end, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour to indicate whether meetings have been held or will be held with the harbour council. If so, has everything possible been done to see that all these problems are settled before the opening of navigation?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the port council asked for a meeting with the Minister of Transport and myself and one or two colleagues from the
DEBATES	7225
Inquiries of the Ministry city of Montreal. That meeting is to take place today.


Mr. Regimbal:: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the hon. Member of the Administration?
Did the hon. minister, when he visited Montreal harbour, have the opportunity of suggesting the establishment of a permanent industrial relations commission comprising the authorities of the port of Montreal and representatives of the employers federation and unions with a view to anticipating difficulties instead of expending such energies in solving them?


Hon. B. S. Mackasey (Member of ihe Administration):: Mr. Speaker, what I suggested on the week end will be revealed in due course.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio from Verdun. Has the hon. gentleman any report to make to the house as a result of his investigations and tours of the Montreal waterfront over the week end?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I expect the hon. member will remember that not long ago a similar question was asked in the house.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chalterlon (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs whether he has now received the Woods commission report.


Hon. Roger Teillef (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received it. I will make an announcement as soon as I do.


George Louis Chatterton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the translation has been delayed for almost five months could the minister, pending the tabling of the report in both languages, give consideration to tabling the report in the language in which it is now available?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I have considered that, Mr. Speaker, but my latest information is that the report should be in my hands in two or three weeks.
March 4, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS



CENTRE BLOCK-DAMAGE TO PLAQUES IN MEMORIAL CHAMBER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to ask a question based on sentimentality. I would like to direct the question to the Minister of Public Works, based upon my affection for the centre block of the House of Commons and my reverence for the veterans' memorial chamber. Having spent one hour yesterday in the memorial chamber I noted that certain plaques have suffered damage; namely, one soldier has lost his head and another his right arm, both being cases of recent damage.
My question to the Minister of Public Works is this. First, is any action being taken to repair the damage? Second, will he take under consideration the erection of an appropriate fence guard some 18 inches or two feet in front of the plaques so that all visitors to the memorial chamber can see and read but may not desecrate the memorial chamber plaques?
Hen. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for drawing this matter to my attention. I will look into it immediately and give him a fuller answer later.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Could he tell us whether it is true that his department directed the ambassador of Canada to Gabon not to present his credentials until Gabon has apologized for inviting Quebec to take part in the conference on education last February?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secreiary of Stale for External Affairs: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I put a
supplementary question?
As the minister answered in the affirmative, and, moreover, as the federal government leaves a vacancy in that field, could the minister tell us whether his department would take offence if the place left vacant by them is filled by the Quebec authorities?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I wonder whether the minister would reassure a jittery parliament and public that today's stark evidence of deterioration of relations between Gabon and Canada should not be construed as a fatal blow to our international prestige. In asking this question I give myself the opportunity of reassuring the minister of my highest consideration.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is mutual.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister in a position to tell the house what was the nature of the discussions he had in Washington over the week end with United States treasury officials?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I made the statement this morning, because of press inquiries, that I had visited Washington on March 1 for discussions with the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Fowler, in order to give him the views of the government of Canada on certain trade measures under consideration by the United States government.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Were those discussions related to the declarations made by the President on January 1 last?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, they were related to the matter of the border tax proposals that had been mentioned previously. I took advantage of the occasion to give him the views of the Canadian government in this field because of the discussions that I knew were going on in Washington at the present time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister in a position to tell us what was the result of his conversations with his United States counterpart?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Fowler listened very carefully to my representations, and I hope he pays some attention to them.
March 4, 1968


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the minister have any discussion with Mr. Fowler, the Secretary of the Treasury, regarding the United States subsidiaries in Canada which have been requested to return a portion of their retained earnings to the United States? Has any clarification of that point been made; and if the Canadian dollar is in any danger, is the United States government prepared to make some exception with respect to Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, needless to say, when the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States and the Minister of Finance of Canada get together they talk about many things. They talked about that subject, and they also talked about our mutual concern in this very disturbed international atmosphere.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether he received from the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States any assurance that no measures would be pursued which would further endanger the Canadian dollar in the world money market.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Fowler gave me an assurance that none of the steps the United States has taken in defence of their own balance of payments situation are likely to have any adverse effect upon Canada.


CRIMINAL CODE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Maiher (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct my question to the Minister of Justice. Perhaps in his absence the Solicitor General might take it as notice. I have in mind the announcement made in Great Britain today that this month again the death rate from car crashes has shown a one third decrease since they introduced their mandatory tests for drunken driving. My question is whether the government would consider proceeding soon with similar legislation which was introduced in the house some weeks ago.


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: The
house leaders have already agreed upon the order of business for the next few days.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Since the release of the Laurendeau-Dunton report, two provincial governments, those of Ontario and Newfoundland, have taken concrete steps to implement its recommendations.
Could the right hon. Prime Minister tell us if the secretariat on bilingualism, which he is chairing, has developed a program for the early implementation of the main recommendations made by the commission on bilingualism and biculturalism?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could make a statement on this important matter in a day or two.


THE SENATE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. O. Bower (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that Nova Scotia has had a vacancy in the other place for over two years and that this now seems to be the season for appointments there, does the Prime Minister plan to give predominance to the French Acadian fact when he gets around to considering Nova Scotia in this respect?


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance, and it deals with the statement he made last October concerning the International Monetary Fund and the drawing rights. At that time the minister stated that a plan was being prepared to lay down the conditions respecting drawing rights, and that it had to be completed by March 31. My question is, can we now assume, in view of the activities which have taken place over the last two weeks with regard to Canada and the
7228	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry International Monetary Fund, that this plan is now completed?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I think what my hon. Mend is speaking about are the plans that are under way for the creation of a new reserve currency. These discussions are still under way, and they are not related to the action we took the other day in drawing our gold tranche and transferring our credit balances with the fund.
I am hopeful that progress will be made in the creation of a new international reserve currency, but I regret to say that not as much progress has been made as I had hoped for.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand from the minister's last statement that there is a possibility the plan will not be completed by the end of this month?


Mitchell William Sharp: There is a plan in existence which has been discussed on a number of occasions by the ministers in the group of ten and in the International Monetary Fund, and certain decisions were taken in September at the time of the International Monetary Fund meeting, but no decision has been made to activate that plan in any way.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bud Germa (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance which has to do with the increase in gasoline and fuel oil prices. It was raised first by my colleague from York South on January 26 and several times subsequently. At that time the minister stated that his department was investigating the matter. I should like to ask whether this investigation is completed, and what are the results.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the department has been working on this and this morning I received a report, but since I was at a cabinet meeting this morning I have not been able to review it.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to

DEBATES	March 4, 1968
the Minister of National Defence. In view of the announcement on Friday that in the first ten months of the present fiscal year his department's expenditures amounted to $166 million more than in a similar period last year, when can we expect the minister to announce new policies which will make it possible for Canada to realize the savings from unification which were promised to the country by his predecessor?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, we indicated in the unification debate-perhaps the hon. member was not there at the time-that the implied savings in the administration of the forces through unification were of the order of $270 million.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister take the first opportunity on motions to explain why in the first ten months of the present year expenditures of the department amounted to $166 million more than a year ago? Where are these savings disappearing?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who reports to the house for the Atlantic Development Board. In view of the fact that the projected decreases in spending by the Atlantic Development Board this year, as explained by the minister, were related to the inability of many Atlantic provinces to use the money that is made available, I should like to ask the minister whether some changes will be made in the cost sharing arrangements.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we can consider that subject at the appropriate time.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister, in giving thought to this subject, is giving consideration to the suggestions by the premier of Prince Edward Island that the provinces be allowed to exercise greater responsibility in the spending of Atlantic Development Board money?
March 4, 1968	COMMONS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, at the federal-provincial conference the premier of New Brunswick made certain representations which are under consideration. I am sure we will be happy to consider those of the premier of Prince Edward Island as well.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether the government is investigating the startling results of scientific work being done on insecticides and some drugs with the object of bringing down legislation to protect the Canadian people from these newly found dangers?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: All these matters are kept under continuous review by the food and drug directorate.


SHIPPING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My
question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Several days ago, prior to a certain event, I asked the hon. gentleman whether the government of Canada had been informed or had been consulted by the government of New Brunswick of the province's discussions with the state of Maine regarding the possible establishment of a super port in the Bay of Fundy. The minister said at that time that he would look into the matter but perhaps, owing to his preoccupation with other matters, he let it slip his mind. Can he answer the question now?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend asked on February 16 whether the government of Canada had participated in these reported discussions. We were aware, of course, of the reports of such discussions, but no agency of the federal government has participated in them. The chairman of the Atlantic Development Board announced on January 23 that a study of the economic potential of the Atlantic region's deep water ports is being carried out by that board.
DEBATES	7229
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Lamberl:: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that these discussions are taking place, and is the government of Canada actively participating or maintaining a direct connection with any of these discussions?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, we will be, Mr. Speaker.


PUBLIC WORKS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and ask him when he expects to be able to make an announcement to the house regarding the agreement between the federal government and the government of British Columbia in connection with the Fraser river flood control.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the draft agreement is now completed and in the coming days I hope to meet the provincial minister responsible for this matter.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture; he has been given notice of it. Has the minister made a decision on the request of western provinces potato growers and agencies for the imposition of value for duty on potatoes imported into the western provinces from the United States?


John James Greene: No decision has been made in this regard, Mr. Speaker.


Edward Richard Schreyer: May I ask a supplementary question. Could the minister indicate if he will be making any statement in this connection this week, or soon?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member may or may not be aware, the situation is that the western growers are requesting that value for duty be imposed while maritime growers, particularly those in New Brunswick, oppose this quite vehemently. The
March 4, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry situation is continually under surveillance, Mr. Winch: I appreciate the information, and what is in the best national interest will Has the minister received a report that be done by the government. If there is any Premier Bennett denies the federal govern-value for duty to be imposed it will be ments' right to proceed, and will not accept announced at the proper time.	federal operation alone?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: May I ask a
supplementary question. I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture, in view of the very grave difficulties in connection with potato marketing all across Canada as he has just indicated, has given consideration to the calling of a special conference on the potato industry with representatives from all parts of Canada.


John James Greene: No consideration has been given to that particular manoeuvre, Mr. Speaker. We are in consultation with the growers and with producer organizations in all parts of Canada, and if they deem it would be in the interests of the industry, we certainly would be prepared for such a meeting.


HARBOURS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. I asked him a question the other day and he never even heard it. Perhaps this time he will. In view of the statement by Premier Bennett of British Columbia that he will not accept the latest federal proposal for financing of the Roberts Bank harbour development, may I ask what consideration will be given now to an arrangement which will guarantee that port facilities will be available for the export of coking coal from British Columbia to Japan in accordance with what I understand is a tripartite contractual agreement among the United States, Canada and Japan?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The federal government, through its National Harbours Board, is quite prepared to build the required port facilities. We have made that clear in our communications with Premier Bennett. We believe also that if we start at once, and if we receive reasonable co-operation from all the other interested parties, it should be possible to have the port facilities ready on time by the end of March, 1970. My hon. friend will be interested to know that we have a drilling rig on the job this morning in order to do test borings in preparation for the calling of tenders at an early date.
[Mr. Greene.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I heard there was such a report in the newspapers out there, but I have not received a direct communication from the premier as yet.


Harold Edward Winch: This is very important to us, Mr. Speaker, so may I ask the minister if he is prepared to go ahead on his own authority this year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


LABOUR RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Siarr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I posed two questions to the Minister without Portfolio who was then acting as Minister of Labour. One question had to do with the report of the maritime trustees; the other had to do with the report from Mr. Murchison on the labour code, particularly the hours of work. I wonder if he is in a position to reply to those questions now.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the report of the trustees is being prepared and translated so it can be tabled. In so far as the Murchison report is concerned, I believe the Minister of Labour is on record on several occasions as stating that the report would be studied by his officials.


Michael Starr: May I ask a supplementary question. If and when the final report of the maritime trustees is in the hands of the department, will it be the wish of the minister, as I am sure it is the wish of the members of this house, that the report be submitted to a standing committee?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I suggest the hon. member ask the minister, who is in his place.


Michael Starr: Will the Minister of Labour give us the assurance that this report will be submitted to a standing committee?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I answered this question some days ago. I said then that, after the report was received and had been studied, consideration would be given to having it referred to
March 4, 1968

the committee for review. The former trustees are no longer trustees, but we might even try to arrange for their attendance before the committee if the committee so wished.


Michael Starr: May I ask a further supplementary question. Is it the intention of the minister and the Department of Labour to implement the Murchison report and recommendations?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, it has been said in this house on more than one occasion that the Murchison report is an excellent report. However, there is no report so good that it cannot be improved. Suggestions for some modifications have been made and they are being studied by the department. They are also being discussed with representatives of both sides, and when a recommendation has been made by my department, which I hope will be soon, that recommendation will then go to the government for decision and action.




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Winona Grace MacInnis: In the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the continued severe suffering and heavy civilian casualties, can the Prime Minister report on the government's intentions with regard to immediate large scale medical and relief assistance to the disaster area of Viet Nam?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I know the matter is being actively considered, but at the moment I do not know the result of that consideration. I will find out.


AIR TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: have a question for the Minister of Transport. Inasmuch as recent recommendations of the air transport committee of the Canadian Transport Commission for the removal of subsidies to western regional air lines are a denial of the regional air policy announced by the government in 1966, will the minister reassure the house that this 1966 policy for 27053-456
Inquiries of the Ministry improving air service on the prairies still stands?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, until TransAir complies with the judgment of the Air Transport Board, clearly it would be inappropriate for the government or the Canadian Transport Commission to comment in any way on representations which have been made in this respect. As my hon. friend will appreciate also, because of the right of appeal from a decision to the minister it would also be inappropriate for me to comment at this moment.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I assume that the air transport committee has been informed of government policy in this respect?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


INCOME TAX
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In view of the fact that old age pensioners between the ages of 67 and 70 who are drawing the guaranteed income supplement, even though they have no other income, are being required to pay income tax on a portion of their supplement, will the minister take up with his colleague the Minister of Finance the possibility of exempting the supplement from income tax?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will be glad to discuss the matter with the Minister of Finance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I expect an answer at ten o'clock one of these nights?


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: I
have a question for the Prime Minister. Can he advise the house when he expects to accept the resignation of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, thereby enabling the minister to make in the house the same criticism of financial policy that he makes outside of this house?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
March 4. 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: have a question for the Minister of Public Works. In view of the urgent need for a decision on a provincial-federal agreement concerning the third crossing between Vancouver city and the north shore, can the minister advise us on the situation in view of Premier Bennett's statement that the provincial contribution of $27 million is based on all or part of the new crossing being toll free?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member's question is not in order.


Harold Edward Winch: Why, Mr. Speaker?


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF COMMUNICATIONS ON COST SHARING PLANS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In order that we may prepare ourselves for the forthcoming financial debate this week, will the minister undertake to make available, on behalf of the government and in advance of that debate, any communications the government has had with the provinces about cost sharing plans and, in particular, about the vocational training agreement?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I shall see if I can comply with the hon. gentleman's request.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainie-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier), as chairman of the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts.
In view of the serious accusations made by the director general of the C.B.C. French network, against certain employees in authority, 
to the effect that there would be some brainwashing and planned propaganda in the public affairs division, does the hon. member intend to put this question before the committee under his chairmanship?


Mr. Speaker:: The question asked by the hon. member relates to a matter of internal policy of the committee and it cannot be asked at this time.


Mr. Gerard Pelletier (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there is a mistake-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, in view of the numerous changes occurring on the other side of the house, I directed my question a while ago to someone who was not responsible to parliament. I should like to correct this and direct my question to the hon. Secretary of State, in her capacity as minister responsible to the house for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
In view of the serious charges made by the director general of the French network of the C.B.C. as regards certain employees, to the effect that the C.B.C. resorts to brainwashing and to planned propaganda, is it the intention of the hon. minister to refer the question to the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the specifics, but I think I know about the incident to which my hon. friend is referring. I have been in touch with the new management of the corporation in order to ascertain what is going on there. I am informed that the matter appears to come within a breach of internal security in the corporation, and this may give rise to a study by the new management. The study obviously will cover the merits of any such charges if, indeed, there are charges.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Since such charges can affect the confidence the public should have in this crown corporation and in order to clear especially the persons responsible for the administration, would the hon. minister allow the committee to examine this question?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's supplementary question cannot be accepted.
March 4, 1968


INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister aware of the possible collapse of the new and expanding P.M.U. estrogen drug industry in western Canada because of the terms of Bill C-190? If so, has the minister consulted with his cabinet colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, with a view to saving this new agricultural industry?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I have not specifically considered it with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but I shall be glad to take the hon. member's suggestion and consult my colleague.


PUBLIC WORKS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Oates Bower: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister received word from his department's regional office in Halifax about the grave danger threatening the very existence of Yarmouth harbour, a danger brought about by the possibility of the ocean breaking through Yarmouth bar because of lack of adequate breakwater facilities on the seaward side of that topographical feature? If he has received word, what decision has been made to obviate that danger? If he has not received word, will he get in touch with his people in Halifax and find out if something can be done?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has made his submission to the minister, and I think he should go no further on that point.


BROADCASTING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Melville Carlyle Germa: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Is she planning to make representations before the Board of Broadcast Governors on behalf of 27053-4565
Inquiries of the Ministry the large group of Italian citizens in Sudbury who have lodged a complaint with her about the arbitrary discontinuance of the Italian language hour program on radio station CHNO, in Sudbury.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question should be on the order paper.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the Minister of Industry. Has he received complaints from employees of Polymer Corporation at Sarnia to the effect that many employees are being laid off while at the same time excessive overtime is apparently being worked by others in order to maintain production? Has the minister received such complaints and is action being taken now with respect to them?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I personally have received no such complaints. I know the labour contract currently is under negotiation, and representations of this kind may be expected to arise during the course of negotiations.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister to give the house an assurance that the government has no intention of disposing of the Polymer operation to private interests.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is well aware of the considerations which have prompted the government's approach to the ownership of Polymer Corporation.


LABOUR RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell us if he intends to have Bill No. C-186, on the Canada Labour Relations Board passed during this session and before recess?

March 4, 1968
Supply-Agriculture



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: have a question for the government house leader. May I ask the government leader of the house to indicate when the committee on northern affairs will be called together to hear representations of residents of the western national parks. I first put this question to the acting government house leader on February 7.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I shall be happy to investigate the matter with my colleague the minister who is particularly concerned with it.



RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago the Prime Minister promised to indicate if there were tangible developments about the possibility of establishing in Canada an international development centre. He said he would make a statement. Is the Prime Minister yet in a position to make that statement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have had two meetings with those concerned since my hon. friend asked the question, and I brought up one or two points which I wanted to have further clarified before being in a position to make a statement. My hon. friend knows that I am interested in this matter, as he and other members of the house are; I am following it with interest, and hope to make a statement as soon as possible.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Research-
5c. Administration, operation and maintenance- to extend the purposes of vote 5 of the main estimates for 1967-68 to include a contribution of $10,000 to the town of Kapuskasing toward the construction of a road, $1.
[Mr. Gregoire.l


The Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of supply, supplementary estimates (C), 1967-68, Department of Agriculture, vote 5c. Shall the item carry?


Mr. McCutcheon:: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention in participating in this debate today merely to complain about the cost-price squeeze in which Canadian farmers find themselves. I should like, in addition to discussing this difficulty of agriculture, to consider for a few minutes the effect of farm prices upon the consumer.
The joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate on consumer prices, of which I was a member, held many hearings at which irate housewives, housewives allied against high prices, complained bitterly about the high cost of vegetables, meat, fruit and almost every item of food produced on our farms. I would be the first to admit that they had reason for complaint. Our committee did not hear representations from many farm groups because I am sure the steering committee and the chairman were pretty well convinced in their own minds that the cause of the housewives' dilemma was not to be found on the farms, though I must in all honesty say that some of the witnesses did try a little to point the finger at the poor old farmer.
We found out something else that was very interesting. We found out that most of the benefits of increased productivity, improved technology and greater efficiency on the farms were passed on to the consumer in the form of the cheapest food in abundance available almost anywhere in the western world. We found out also that the Canadian agricultural community had since the second world war improved its output per man or its efficiency, however hon. members may wish to describe it, faster and to a greater extent than any other industry had done.
I wonder why the farmers did it. There are several reasons. First, I suggest, was their pride in the industry. Second, they were encouraged to make these efforts by the work of the extension services of the Department of Agriculture. Third, and most important, they were all on a treadmill and had to improve their efficiency or go broke. I might add that many did go broke and that many thousands more had to take jobs off the farm to make ends meet.
In view of this tremendous effort one would think that agriculture today would be in good shape. Believe me, such is not the
March 4, 1968

case. What happened to this great improvement, this great technological advance? Who reaped the benefit? Well, the consumer did derive a great deal of benefit from the farmers' improved production. But somebody else, somebody other than the farmers, got a heck of a lot too.
In 1949 the consumer was spending 24.3 per cent of his income on food. In 1965 he was spending 21.1 per cent on food, and today the figure is even lower. As a point of interest, though, it is reported that in communist countries expenditure on food accounts for 50 per cent of wages. Since 1949, it should be remembered, many consumers have received increases in salary or wages amounting to between 50 and 60 per cent. May I remind hon. members that in 1949 the average industrial wage was $42.96. In 1965 it was $91.01 and in 1966, $96.30. For 1967 it is estimated to be $102.80.
Who got the biggest benefit from the farmers' sweat? Here are some figures which I find interesting. In 1949 domestically produced food having a retail value of $2,111 million had a farm value of $1,234 million. The processing and selling cost was $877 million. In other words, it cost about three-quarters of the farm value to get the produce of the farm to the retail level. What is the story now? In 1965, the last year for which I have figures, the retail value of domestically produced food was $5,029 million and the farm value was $2,043 million. The processing and selling cost, therefore, amounted to $2,986 million. It now costs one and a half times the farm value to get the products to the retail level though in 1949 the selling cost or markup was three-quarters of the farm value. Today it costs twice as much or one and a half times the farm value, which is just double the cost of the service as it existed in 1949.
I am not complaining particularly about this because the increase I have mentioned is pretty well in line with increases which have taken place in other segments of the economy. What I am complaining about is the absence of any real effort on the part of the government to correct an inequitable situation in such a way that the farmer can at least get some benefit from doing his job well.
What have we done? Precious little. The government did make some minor tariff quota concessions, if one can call them that, when the turkey industry pleaded for help last fall. What has been done for greenhouse operators? The Minister of Trade and Commerce
Supply-Agriculture
certainly made things much easier for them, as reported in the magazine Farm and Country of January 23, when he gave this advice to greenhouse operators who had apparently asked for some form of protection against imports:
I suspect any protection given would be of a temporary nature so growers can phase out their capital commitments and seek other means of earning a livelihood.
What has the government done about a sugar policy, promised for at least five years? I am told the Department of Industry had consultation with the C. and D. Sugar Company on the question of an alternative use for the Chatham refinery. But nobody thought it worth while to let the growers know until the last minute.
One evening last week the Minister of Agriculture told some growers it would cost the consumers $50 million more each year were Canada to enter upon a sugar policy or agreement such as the United Kingdom and the United States governments have endorsed. Where this figure came from I do not know, and how accurate it is I cannot say. But even giving the hon. gentleman the benefit of the doubt, it seems to me the sum he mentioned is small in relation to the five or six billion dollars which Canadian consumers spend annually on food. And what about the advantages? An industry which employs several hundred workers, full and part-time, would be kept in operation and 900 farmers could keep 20,000 acres of crop land under profitable cultivation instead of being obliged to produce alternative crops which will be difficult to sell. In addition, Canada would be assured of a basic supply of domestically produced sugar in the event of a world crisis. This is a matter of great concern in my area, but as of March 1 this industry in Chatham to all intents and purposes ceased to exist. Why? Why did we not develop a national sugar policy? I will tell you why. It was because Canada was waiting in hope that somebody, somewhere, somehow, some time, would develop a world sugar policy.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The problem at hand is a serious one. If I may say so, it will take the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of Job to come up with a satisfactory solution, but, however difficult, the problem must be attacked. It must be attacked immediately and with vigour. If it is not attacked immediately and with vigour the result may well be chaos.

March 4, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
Surely the government can remember the
10,000	farmers who were on parliament hill last year. Can anyone tell me that since then a serious attempt has been made to bring forth any practical solution to the agricultural problem? The Minister of Trade and Commerce has waved goodbye to the greenhouse industry, and the government has cut the quality subsidy on pork and lamb by one-third. Even so I would not be so worried if we had some assurance from the government that it has an over-all plan.
I suggest that if any person or group has a problem to settle the first thing to do is to decide what should be done first. It is just as simple as that. So the first thing the government has to do now is to decide whether we want and need an agricultural industry in Canada. I hope we can get an answer in the affirmative, although there has not been too much evidence forthcoming to make one optimistic. If by chance the answer is that we do want an agricultural industry, then we have to develop a price policy for Canada that is compensatory. It should help the efficient producer and it should help the potential efficient producer. It should not guarantee the individual farmer's income but it should give him an opportunity for a reasonable income if, and it is a big if, he does the job. I am sure we are all agreed that productivity gains in the past tended to be passed along to the consumer. Surely we can agree that as a nation we want to encourage even greater efficiency in agriculture. Above all, surely the farmers should not be forced to carry full responsibility for a cheap food policy.
Where do we start? I suggest that a good place to start would be to find out what effect our present legislation is having. I suggest we will find some strange situations. May I give an example of the lack of a clearcut philosophy as to what our policies were expected to accomplish. For example, price supports under the Agricultural Stabilization Act apply only up to a maximum production of approximately 100 hogs or 500 laying hens. A farmer, to be a potentially efficient operator, must have roughly five times this volume of livestock. Why do I say this? Just go to the federal Farm Credit Corporation and apply for a loan. The first thing they will say is that in order to be eligible the unit must be large enough to be efficient.
Here we have two points of view, two different opinions. It is difficult for me to understand why the maximum limits set under the stabilization act are not even close to the size
[Mr. McCutcheon.l
of poultry or hog operations required by the federal Farm Credit Corporation when farmers apply for credit from that agency. How can we justify providing incentive payments enabling uneconomic units to keep going and at the same time try to encourage the amalgamation of these same uneconomic units?
It is not clear to me whether the levels of price supports were intended to stabilize or intended to raise farm prices, were intended to provide a floor, were intended to give farm prices some degree of parity of purchasing power, or whether they were set up as a result of pressure or by way of reaction to crises in the farm industry. I suspect the last explanation to be the case because it is abundantly clear they have not created any favourable degree of parity of purchasing power.
Many learned and knowledgeable people have discussed this problem at great length. Mr. Gilson of the department of agricultural economics at the University of Manitoba has presented some very interesting comments on a truly compensatory farm food and price policy. Here is what he said:
We believe that the primary locus of a national food and farm price policy in Canada should be a cheap food program. Agricultural production policies have long been aimed in that direction. The only price policy which appears to be consistent with this general objective would be a compensatory price program where the food consumer pays the free market price and the farmer is paid the difference between this price and some designated support price in the form of a direct compensatory payment.
Mr. Gilson advances four reason why such a compensatory price policy is practical and he also lists a couple of objections. His reasons are:
1.	Such a compensatory price policy is consistent with the objective of efficient production in the agricultural industry.
2.	It provides a means for supporting farm prices without interfering unduly with the functions of the market price system.
3.	In view of the fact that all commodities clear the market, it would prevent the creation of burdensome surpluses-farm products would move into the hands of the food consumer where they belong, not in government storage bins.
4.	A compensatory price policy would permit food consumers to purchase food at the lowest possible price, an objective which appears to be reasonable from the standpoint of our prevailing economic and social philosophies in Canada.
Mr. Gilson points out that many farmers object to any price policy that involves direct payments from the government. Other farmers are very apprehensive that upper limits placed on compensatory price payments as a result of political pressures will discriminate
March 4, 1968

against efficient production in the agricultural industry.
Two further objections can be raised. The first is that such a policy could be interpreted as a form of dumping, that is, selling abroad for a price lower than that received by the domestic producer, a practice that was strongly condemned by Canadian farmers when others followed this method. The second is that the Canadian taxpayer has no moral obligation to pay for a product, the gains from which accrue to food consumers in other nations. The problems involved should not detract from our attempt to develop a truly adequate national price policy for the Canadian agricultural industry. Mr. Gilson's plan is not a two-price system but it does parallel many agricultural programs in other countries.
Again I return to the paradox of different directives by different departments of government. If the economic size of poultry operations involves 5,000 laying hens, then for goodness sake set the limit at that level. If it takes a production of 500 hogs per year to be efficient, for heaven's sake let us set the limit there. But let us at least be consistent. Why use one department to penalize or frustrate the efficient farmer-the extension department and the farm credit adviser who all work on his behalf?
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
It is time we had a definite policy in respect of farm and food prices. We have had in the past and have even today a great amount of ambiguity concerning farm price policies and who should bear the cost of price supports. When the storage and purchase method is used, presumably the food consumer is expected to pay the higher food costs. When the deficiency price system is used, the consumer buys at the free market price and the difference between that price and the support price is paid directly to farmers. This means that the general Canadian taxpayer must bear the cost. Let us not become involved here in the social and non-price problems of the agricultural industry. They are entirely different and separate problems and should not be included here because it would have the effect of drawing attention away from the main problem and dissipating our strength of purpose. We would come up with our usual spontaneous reaction to political pressure. Of course our record of just wandering from crisis to crisis would be intact.
Supply-Agriculture
Is it too much to ask that now at least the government define for the Canadian people whether or not they are to have a Canadian agricultural industry? Mr. Gilson went on to say this:
What would the proposed compensatory price policy cost the Canadian nation? If, for example, the prices received by farmers under the proposed policy were related to the prices of the goods and services which they buy, we estimate that the total annual cost of such a policy would amount to approximately $300 million at the present time. This is a fairly substantial sum but when it is remembered that this policy would eliminate the need for many of the payments now being made under various forms of hit and miss policies, and when we recognize the very substantial gains to the food consumer in the form of sheap food, we suggest tthat $300 million may be relatively small sum for the nation to invest in such a program.
Mr. Gilson uses the figure of $300 million to cover the whole program of a food price policy but the Minister of Agriculture uses $50 million for a national sugar policy. Who is right? Perhaps both; I do not know. I submit that in a country which can develop a nuclear reactor that meets competition anywhere in the world, as we have been able to develop in Canada-I believe it is called CANDU-there is no reason why we should not be able to develop a national food and farm policy which would provide for inexpensive and abundant supplies of food and at the same time ensure to those who produce it a reasonable compensation for their efforts.


Mr. Roxburgh:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few rather contentious problems with which I should like to deal. Before I do so, however, I should like to say to hon. members opposite that although, as we all know, there have been many problems in agriculture throughout the years the present Minister of Agriculture certainly has done a great deal to alleviate them.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: I am surprised that the farmer from Ontario-


Michael Starr: The greatest farming area in Canada.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I heard an opposition member say that the Minister of Agriculture has done absolutely nothing for the farmers of Ontario.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: All right, have your fun. First of all, I wish to support the stand taken on Friday by a number of speakers who dealt with the importation of fruit, especially

March 4, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
peaches, from Australia. The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary and others referred to this matter. I should like to mention the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary particularly because he went into great detail with regard to the problem. He gave factual information. I do not intend to continue along that line other than to say that I sincerely hope the minister will give this matter his full attention.
Without going into detail perhaps I might refer to the tax concessions that provide a considerable natural incentive to Australian exporters. First of all there are the income tax concessions and, second, the payroll tax. A rebate on the payroll tax has been authorized by the government in order to encourage greater exportation. A special income tax deduction is allowed by the government for expenditures in the field of market development.
I have yet to hear of any Canadian farmer who has complained about fair competition. However, when an imported product is subsidized by the exporting country it certainly is time that our government took a real look at the situation. As an hon. member pointed out on Friday, the Australian pays more for his homegrown peaches than we pay for our homegrown peaches. I certainly think the officials of the Department of Agriculture should look into this problem.
I should like to deal now with a subject which in many ways is very dear to my heart. It involves a problem which has bothered me for a long time. I have reference to the wine industry. One of our important industries in Ontario is the wine industry. The wine industry, of course, is directly connected with the grape growing industry. Any action that influences the wine industry is passed on to the grape growers.
I do not know whether this fact is generally known but in Ontario alone approximately
15,000	acres are under cultivation for the growing of grapes. If an acre produces a full crop the Ontario and federal governments collect $1,300 per acre before the farmer receives what little benefit there is to him from that production. In the years 1964 and 1965 the federal government collected over $4 million, in the form of an excise tax on wine. In that same period the growers received about $1 million less, a little over $3 million. The provincial government received approximately $13 million.
I should like the gentlemen in the press gallery to take special notice of what I am

about to say. When we attend their functions and order wine, what are we served? We are served imported wines-oh, yes. I have been there and they serve only imported wines.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: What is the government's policy in this regard? On practically every state occasion the wine served is imported. What do the great wine producing provinces of Ontario and Quebec serve at state functions? They serve imported wines. What about our embassies abroad? What do they serve? They also serve other than Canadian wines. There was a Canadian special function at an embassy-I will not mention which one-and they did serve Canadian wine. After the function was over there were a number of cases of wine left. Did the embassy keep this wine to serve to other guests? No. The embassy sold it at giveaway prices to the embassy staff.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: That is an old Liberal custom.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: Let us not have any interruptions from my friends over there. President Johnson has decreed that only United States wines are to be served at their embassies. I think hon. members will agree, and not just because we are Canadians, that Canadian wines have a much better reputation than United States wines.
I have been privileged to attend functions in a number of embassies of European countries here in Canada. What do they serve in the way of wine? They are proud to serve the wines of the country they represent. Portugal is known to be one of the worlds' best producers of sherry and port; yet that country imports some Canadian sherry. Canada is a trading nation and let us not forget that. One sure way of expanding our wine exports is by acquainting the people of other countries with our wine products by serving them in our embassies in those countries.
I know what will immediately be said, by some people who should know differently, about Canadian wines compared with imported wines. They will say our wines cannot be compared with the imported products. I have some facts here that indicate this is a lot of hooey. They show that Canada is producing some of the finest wines in the world, some of which have won gold medals.
March 4, 1968

I will not mention the name of the company but one company held a wine tasting test using Canadian wines and similar types of imported wines. These wines were decanted in the identical bottles prior to the test and were marked "x" and "y" in each classification. The test was carried out in many areas of Canada including Toronto, Kitchener, Ottawa, London, St. Catharines, Fort William Windsor and Hamilton. More than 500 people made this test and the over-all result as 267 in favour of local wines and 247 in favour of imported wines. I am sure if I asked the general public for an opinion regarding imported wines compared with local wines they would probably favour imported wines on the basis of 75 per cent to 25 per cent. Note how wrong they would be.
Let me give you the results of the test held at St. Catharines. Among the people who tasted the wines were some of our friends from the press. I am sure they should know something about wine if anyone does. They should be good tasters from what I know about them. In the classification of dry red table wines our Canadian claret outpointed imported claret on the basis of 19 preference votes to 5. In the classification of burgundies the reverse was true. I am trying to give a true picture. The imported burgundies received 15 preference votes against 9 for Canadian burgundies. There were still 9 votes in favour of the Canadian wines. In the Rhine wine classification the imported product was favoured by 16 votes to 8. In the sauterne classification, and we all know that sauterne has the highest wine consumption record, the Canadian wine scored 17 preference votes to 7 for imported sauternes. Canadian sherry was preferred by a vote of 16 to 7 over the imported wine. Portugal is recognized as one of the great producers of port wine but the Canadian product was preferred over the imported by a vote of 15 to 7.
These results confirm the claim by Mr. W. D. Hatch, president of the Canadian Wine Institute, that fine Canadian wines are equal to or even better than the great majority of imported wines. In spite of this a great many people serve imported wines. I suppose it is because it has been bred into us over the years that imported wines are better. I sincerely hope that these facts I have presented will encourage not only the members of this house but other people in Canada to use Canadian wines.
Since France brought about the run on the dollar a great deal of the imported wines in
Supply-Agriculture
wine cellars in the United States, in New York particularly, has been dumped down the drain. That is an indication of what these people think of imported wine. Perhaps in the long run they figure their own is better or at least as good. People acquire a taste for a product, be it wine, good whisky, certain types of food, cigarettes, cigars or many other products, only by the use of that product. It is like a child trying his first olive. Boy, what a face. Yet in later years he will eat olives with many meals and enjoy them.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I say to the government of Canada and the governments of our wine producing provinces that they can do a great deal to promote the future of the wine industry and keep the grape growing industry in good shape without laying out one cent. In so doing they will be helping to solve our foreign exchange problems, and God only knows we need some help along this line.


Mr. Clancy:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


John Maxwell Roxburgh: Certainly.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Port and sherry are fortified wines. They are not real wines; they are fortified. In other words, 20 per cent alcohol is added to them.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: It depends on what wine you are buying.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: I said port and sherry.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: That is possible, but nevertheless our wines are considered to be among the best in the world. We produce good wine.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, it has been pleasant in the last few minutes to listen to hon. members discussing the merits of Canadian wine. I do not think it is as pleasant, however, to discuss the merits of the policy of the Minister of Agriculture. A long time has elapsed since we last had an opportunity in this house to debate and consider the agricultural policy of the government. Since the last time the subject was under discussion in the house there have been developments and changes in regard to agricultural policy which have been very serious in their effect, and we have not really had a chance to focus on them here on the floor of parliament.

March 4, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
In the other place last week or the week before a senator introduced a bill having to do with dairy policy. I refer to Bill No. S-34. I presume the reason it was introduced was that it is being realized by more and more people in western Canada, in the prarie provinces in particular, that the changes in Canadian dairy policy are militating against large numbers of western dairy producers. Therefore a bill was introduced in the Senate which would have the effect, if passed, of taking away from the control of the Canadian Dairy Commission the power to exclude milk and cream producers from the subsidy benefits under the present dairy program if the amount of production is less than 50,000 pounds of milk or 1,750 pounds of butterfat per year.
1 am sure the minister is aware that when the new policy was first introduced it took a little time for its full implications to sink in, but when they did a storm of protest began to arise. Even the Winnipeg Free Press was moved to editorialize last spring that the proposed dairy subsidy program would discriminate against western dairy producers, particularly shippers of farm separated cream and even of manufactured milk. I should like to read a paragraph or two from the editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press last May:
The implications of the new policy for the western farmer thus become clear. The quota system will mean a decrease in Manitoba's dairy production; it will mean that many small producers will be forced out of business; it will make it virtually impossible for a new producer (since he has no quota) to enter the business; and it will mean that farmers who were planning on increasing their herds will have second thoughts on the matter. It will work directly against the attempts of the provincial government to make Manitoba self-sufficient in dairy production; it will be-
This should be marked, Mr. Chairman.
-a blow to small rural creameries; and it will stand in the way of a number of new milk processing plants that are either coming into being or are being planned, in some cases with the provincial government as sponsor.
The editorial goes on to specify the regions or areas of the province-and this applies equally to Saskatchewan and Alberta-where creameries have existed for a long time and plans were being made to construct processing plants for manufacturing milk, and it became clear that the dairy policy of this government would militate very directly and gravely against the continuation of these creameries and processing plants. The minister will argue, of course, that subsequent to these complaints being made the government

and the commission adjusted the policy somewhat so that instead of eliminating all those producing under 50,000 pounds of milk they eliminate only those whose production is under 12,000 pounds. Between the levels of
12,000	pounds and 50,000 pounds it is left to the discretion of the commission whether these producers will be eligible to receive the dairy subsidy.
I admit that this is an improvement, but it is not good enough. The fact that it is a matter of discretion for the commission implies that some applicants producing between 12,000 pounds and 50,000 pounds will be deemed eligible to receive the subsidy but many will not. That is the point. The minister must realize that what I am saying applies to Saskatchewan as much as Manitoba, and perhaps even more so. Eighty-three per cent of the Manitoba producers of milk for cream and manufacturing milk have a production of under 50,000 pounds. So the policy is, in effect, playing with the future prospects of 83 per cent of the cream and manufacturing milk producers of that province, and a higher proportion in Saskatchewan. The number of producers affected in Alberta is almost as high.
In the past 20 years there has been a rapid process of adjustment in the agricultural industry. It has been so rapid that it has resulted in social dislocation. It really does not behoove this government, nor is it necessary for it to come forward with a policy or acquiesce in a policy or trend that will have the effect of aggravating this problem. Yet this is precisely what will happen.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
At the same time the government is smart enough to realize the deteriorating economic conditions in most rural regions of the country, and so it has spoken of the need for coming forward with ARDA programs, retraining allowances, and so on. There is a basic inconsistency in the fact that on the one hand the government is denying price support to large numbers of small agricultural operations while on the other hand it becomes necessary to provide financial assistance in other ways. The cost to the public is just as great, if not higher. Since ARDA was first established, and as those engaged in those programs realize by now, it has become evident how excruciatingly difficult it is to come forward with plans which can be applied practically and have immediate results in many agricultural districts in the country.
March 4, 1968

Before any of these long-range readjustment programs under ARDA can take effect, some reconsideration must be given by the government to its dairy program so that the small dairy operators, shippers of farm separated cream, or those who ship under 50,000 pounds of manufacturing milk who constitute 83 per cent of the producers, can receive a guarantee that they will be eligible to receive price support in proportion to their production as well as those who produce in excess of
50,000	pounds. I agree with the former member for Assiniboia, who is now a senator in the other place, that the government should not hide behind the skirts of the dairy commission. As I said, the intent of the bill before the Senate is to remove from the discretionary powers of the dairy commission the power to determine whether or not those producing less than 50,000 pounds will eligible for continued price support. If the government does not give consideration to this problem it will mean that the number of farmers on the prairies engaged, at least in part, in a dairy operation will decline.
I have some figures here which indicate that whereas only four years ago 25 million pounds of creamery butter were produced on the prairies, last year only 17J million pounds were produced, a decline of almost 8 million pounds. If we translate that into financial terms as it affects farmers engaged in part at least in dairy production and look at the loss in financial returns and the loss in hours of work for the creameries, one can see what an immediate adverse effect all this is having. So the government will respond by pumping in more money through ARDA. Of course the situation would be worse if the government just ignored these developments and did not attempt to provide any compensation in dealing with these problems. In any case, it will have to spend as much money. If the government intends to cut down on dairy price support it will have to do something more through ARDA and, as I said, this is difficult.
I also wish to say to the minister that as his policy succeeds in forcing more farmers in western Canada out of dairy production there will be a proportionately greater onus on the government to do something about its western grain pricing policy. There are some very disturbing developments in this area. We know now that at the half way point in the present crop year exports of Canadian wheat amount to only 40 per cent of last year's level. I know that the minister opposite will
Supply-Agriculture
say that the reason for this is the developments in international markets, and we all know they are very good at offering justifications for what is failure on their part. The fact is that United States wheat exports are virtually the same as last year. If one country can do it, so can another if it has the will to make the extra effort.
The Department of Trade and Commerce has been relatively successful in promoting export trade in Canadian goods. The budget of the department has been increased to provide for greater effort in sales promotion, the promotion of trade fairs, trade missions, and the like. An equal increase in effort should be made with respect to the promotion of sales of Canadian wheat and feed grain.
In addition to the rather disturbing developments on the export sales front in regard to western grain there is the problem of price. Over the years hon. members on this side have given the Liberal party an education with respect to the cost-price squeeze, particularly in western Canadian agriculture. So the Minister of Agriculture and his colleagues are well aware of the fact that there has been no improvement. Not even one small step has been made toward finding a partial remedy for the problem.
From time to time the president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool makes public statements which are very informative indeed. He is not one who is given to overstatement, and precisely for that reason I wish to read the following few sentences which tend to go to the heart of the problem of prices and costs in western agriculture. Mr. Gibbings of the Saskatchewan wheat pool said:
-the recent large wheat sales-
He was referring to last year.
-had given rise in eastern Canada to the erroneous idea that the prairie farmer's problems had been solved.
But the sales had only obscured the adverse cost-price relationship, which would rise further if farmers got a short crop or if Canada couldn't sell and had to store a large amount of surplus grain.
The central point of the argument which I am trying to develop is contained in the following statement made by Mr. Gibbings:
Farmers had received the same prices for grains as they did 17 years ago, yet their costs of production had increased 54 per cent in that period. Farmers had absorbed that increase in costs by improved efficiency. None of the increased cost had been passed on to the consumer.

March 4, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
Owing to the government's performance in combating the crisis of inflation in our economy, the cost of production in agriculture has increased tremendously in the last three years. It has increased steadily through the 1950's and 1960's, but in the past two and three years it has greatly surged upward. In the light of these developments, how can one sit back with equanimity and view a static level of prices for farm products? Prices of farm products have remained static and there has been an upward surge in the cost of agricultural production because of the haphazard and inadequate performance by this government in dealing with inflation as it burns its way into all sectors of our economy. In the light of all this, Mr. Chairman, it is not difficult to understand why the Liberals of western Canada have become increasingly disgruntled in the past couple of years and from time to time have been calling for regional conferences. They have been trying desperately to come to some meeting of minds amongst themselves as to what should be done, but even when they have a regional conference they seem unable to agree on policies for western agriculture.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
To be fair, I think it must be said that at their last meeting a few weeks ago they did manage to agree. They reversed a decision of a committee session at a plenary session the following day and agreed to endorse a resolution which would be forwarded to the government, presumably, asking for an improved pricing policy for western grain. I am sure the resolution was submitted to the Minister of Agriculture and to the cabinet. No doubt the minister was present. He knows what western Liberals have asked for in the way of pricing policies for western grain.
In so far as wheat is concerned they have asked for the two price system so that there would be a floor of $2.12 per bushel and an additional $1 per bushel for the amount consumed domestically. As I say, probably the Minister of Agriculture was there. No doubt he made a very good speech, because he can make a good speech on occasion. I am certain he assured his Liberal friends in the west that this resolution would be given serious and sympathetic consideration and that the government would try to do something. The problem with the minister, and I am not being offensive when I say this, is that he makes very good statements when he is speaking to groups outside of the house. He

spoke at Vancouver and he has spoken to farm union gatherings on the prairies. However, his performance in that respect is not equalled by his performance in cabinet. Obviously he has been unable to persuade his cabinet colleagues to do something about the problem now. Nobody has come up with a pricing policy.
I know the Liberals will say that last fall they indicated the price of wheat would be supported at the floor level of the international wheat agreement, which in effect was $1.95. How can one reconcile this statement with the fact that a few years ago western Liberals were talking, not just during election campaigns but at regional conferences, of the imperative need for a $2 floor under wheat? Those statements were made in 1963. Since 1963 inflation has decreased the value of the dollar by approximately 12 or 13 per cent. Instead of offering a $2 guarantee, however, the government comes forward with $1.95. I suppose $2 in 1963 is worth about $1.90 now. I guess this is how the government is going to justify itself when it goes to the western provinces in the next election. The Liberals are going to say, yes, we promised $2 in 1963 but because we have not been able to do anything about inflation $2 in 1963 is only worth $1.90 now, and since we are giving you $1.95 we are actually giving you more than we promised. I am sure this will confuse everybody, including the minister and his colleagues. Perhaps this is the only way the government can get out of this shameful position with regard to its treatment of western agriculture. The fact is that $2 promised in 1963 to be equalled now would require $2.12 per bushel at least.
I have already indicated how this government's dairy policy is adversely affecting dairy production and dairy producers in western Canada. The very least the government could do to make up for this adverse effect would be to improve their policy with respect to grain producers on the praries. However, they are not doing that either, Mr. Chairman.
I should say to hon. members that the performance of the government and the minister is so difficult to follow that from time to time I have to pause and ponder just what to make of it. Hon. members on this side have asked repeatedly if the government would do anything about increasing the amount of money available for cash advances. I feel this is a point worthy of some deliberation. There
March 4, 1968

has been the failure to keep up with export levels set in past years and the movement of grain off the farm and from the country elevators has slowed down greatly. It appears it is going to slow down even more in the next few weeks and months. This is all the more reason for increasing the amount of money available to farmers through cash advances.
We have no indication of intent from the government. Its ministers act as though they were not really concerned. I have said before but I want to say again that the image the government projects so far as the agricultural industry is concerned is one of the complete indifference, indolence and nonchalance. This applies to their attitude to the trend away from the farm which has been going on since 1952 and has been accelerating. Rather than trying to come forward with policies to slow down this trend and avoid social and economic dislocation, this government is indifferent with respect to dairy policies, indifferent about setting agricultural price supports for western agriculture and actually seems to accelerate the trend. Those who have tried to peer into the future of the agricultural industry have said that the trend will continue. Where 40,000 farmers in a given region are involved in hog production today, by 1980 the actual number of farmers so engaged will be between 4,500 and 5,000. That is how drastic the transition is, and the loser in the end will be the Canadian consumer. For these reasons no government ought to hesitate in supporting the prices of agricultural commodities.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Some hon. members from Ontario on this side of the house have referred specifically to sugar beets, vegetables, and so on. I wish to speak briefly about potato production in Manitoba. Potato prices in the past year have fallen drastically in the United States and as a result potatoes have been moving into western Canada at prices which, if they do not constitute dumping, come very close to it. There has not been much overproduction of potatoes in western Canada. As a matter of fact, there was no overproduction last year. Despite that, potato prices to producers slumped disastrously. As a result a delegation called on the Minister of Agriculture and asked him to consider imposing on United States potatoes a value for duty. Today the minister indicated that he has made no decision. He clouded the issue by giving an indirect answer and so I take that he is not
Supply-Agriculture
inclined to make a decision on the request. He has not even given the delegation the satisfaction of any answer.
A few months ago the Prime Minister indicated that since some industries in this country will be adversely affected by the implementation of certain features of the Kennedy round agreement the government would consider extending grants to such concerns as are adversely affected. I submit that the government should extend this kind of thinking to the agricultural industry. Helping industry overcome the disruption of rapid changes in trade patterns is unfair unless agriculture is given similar treatment.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.


Edward Richard Schreyer: May I have a couple of minutes to conclude?


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Does the committee agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is all very well to talk about the problems of various sectors of our economy. It is all very well to talk about agricultural problems and to give smooth assurances of sympathetic consideration and probable action, as the minister likes to give from time to time, but clearly, after the passage of more than two years, the time has come for the minister to produce.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edward Richard Schreyer: The government should do nothing less than allocate substantial amounts of money, in a selective manner, for the purpose of stabilizing the production of various agricultural commodities and improving the income positions of the producers. This must be done because in many ways Canadian agriculture is in dire straits. The agricultural industry is so vital to this country and the portents of what is happening are of such consequence to the Canadian people that the minister will be excused if the government for a change takes drastic and meaningful action. It must do so now.


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say at the outset that while one may have much sympathy for the minister, when the industry which he represents in the cabinet is in serious trouble one cannot extend

March 4, 1968
Supp ly-A gr {culture
sympathy to the government. Through indifference or lack of understanding the government's policy or, to put it more properly, the government's lack of agricultural policy, has been tantamount to an exercise in futility in solving the immediate problems of farmers or in attempting to bring about long-term solutions of their problems.
The minor changes the government made to legislation that was eight years old when it took office seem to have added to farmers' difficulties instead of alleviating them. For example, one might mention the plight of western cream shippers and the local dairies that service them. One could go right down the list through every sector of the industry and find the same situation. The industry struggles to meet competition from commodities that have been produced abroad under subsidy. Usually they are surplus commodities. This struggle takes place under circumstances for which the government must take much responsibility. I refer to tight credit, higher interest rates, lower prices, higher production costs and lack of adequate cash for working capital. The old adage that none are so blind as those who refuse to see is still true. As a previous speaker said, this government does not have the answers to our agricultural problems because it does not understand them.
The low grain delivery quotas now in effect at prairie elevators are causing a great deal of concern to western farmers. When we compare today's situation with the situation one year ago the cause for this concern becomes apparent. Three hundred and ninety-four elevators in western Canada are now on a three bushel quota, 1,071 are on a four bushel quota and 387 are on a five bushel quota. At this time last year only 726 elevators were on a quota of five bushels or less. The remaining 1,156 elevators were on quotas of six to eight bushels.
The disparity between the farmers' cash position this year and last year is evident. Cash advances, while helping to pay some fall expenses, do not alter that position since cash advances were available last year also. The gravity of the situation is compounded this year because of higher interest rates and because farmers cannot obtain farm improvement loans at statutory rates of interest.
Much though one wants to see some improvement in the grain delivery situation, the cold, hard fact is that deliveries will more than likely slow to a trickle. In their recent

market letter James Richardson and Sons, Winnipeg grain merchants, said:
Stocks of all grains and oil seeds in country-elevators are now over 295 million bushels, within about 15 million bushels of full working capacity, and the off-farm movement will soon be slowing down considerably as elevators become congested.
Shipments east have practically come to a standstill as there is enough grain in the pipe line to fill the terminals at the lakehead, and outward shipments to the Pacific coast have slowed down recently.
With our wheat-flour exports down by approximately 160 million bushels compared with the same period last year, the outward movement of wheat is the lowest since 1956. The figures I have quoted were published in the Manitoba Co-operator of February 22 and seem to indicate that we cannot look for any decided improvement in the foreseeable future.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
All of this means, of course, that the farmers cannot expect any immediate alleviation of their cash position. No doubt the government is hoping that the final payments on last year's grain pool will help the situation, and to some extent they will. However, the bulk of these payments are on wheat and are not expected until near the end of the current month. They will be needed to finance spring operations and very little will be used to pay accumulating bills. The farmer who grew a good crop in the past season but who suffered crop losses in the year covered by the pool will certainly not be in a very good position to start spring operations if he cannot realize more cash from the grain he has had to store in his bins.
It has always seemed to me that one responsibility of good government is to create an economic climate in which the various segments of our economy can operate efficiently. Such a government would take whatever steps might be necessary to achieve that objective. This does not always entail large government expenditures, but it would entail understanding by the government of basic principles of good economic husbandry.
In the case of modem agriculture, efficiency can only reach its highest level with a reasonable amount of available working capital. If working capital is cut off because of the inability of the producer to market his produce at a given time, other means must be found to overcome the difficulty.
March 4, 1968

Fortunately, so far as wheat is concerned we have machinery already in operation to supply funds in advance of delivery. Unfortunately, advancing costs have made the amount available inadequate. I am pleased to see the Minister of Trade and Commerce here. He suggested to me the other day that this was a matter for discussion between the department and the wheat board. But I think it would mean an amendment to the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act before larger cash advances could be made. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture in its submission to the government has recommended that the Prairie Grain Advances Payment Act be amended to allow advances to be made on wheat, oats and barley to a maximum of $4,500 a figure which is quite realistic under the circumstances considering the low delivery quotas.
It is not my intention to point out how similar situations in other fields of agriculture can be resolved. Other speakers more qualified in their respective areas will be presenting their views during this debate. I would, however, again bring to the attention of the minister, as I have on other occasions, the serious effect which the heavy importation of vegetable oils is having on the sunflower industry in Manitoba.
Past experience has shown that the industry is able to overcome a surplus situation with the assistance of a floor price at very little cost to the treasury. As a matter of fact the one and only time a floor price was set it cost the government something like $40,000-I think the exact figure was $44,000-which is a very small price to pay for saving an industry. I hope the government will see fit to give serious consideration to this question and to the extent to which the importation of foreign oils is affecting our domestic vegetable oil market.
Recently the Lower Red River Valley Water Commission sent a brief to all federal cabinet ministers urging the government to accept the recommendations of the International Joint Commission in regard to the construction of the Pembina river project. I hope the minister took time to read his copy of the submission because of the importance of this project to the economy of the area in assuring adequate supplies of water for irrigation, industry and conservation. The protection it would afford the large area of rich farm land contained in that part of the Red River valley from disastrous and expensive flooding would
Supp ly-A griculture
bring benefits which would outweigh the initial cost. I would hope the minister would give his unqualified support to this important project.
Finally, I should like to express my disappointment to the minister that the excellent work under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, which has provided water storage dams throughout the prairies since its enactment, has apparently been brought to a standstill. If it is because the government has not decided under which department the legislation will continue to operate, as I have been led to believe, then I think it is time a decision was made. If it is because the government is contemplating bringing in a water resources act before proceeding further with this type of work, I hope the necessary legislation will be brought down as soon as possible. The main thing is that works so important to the economy of the prairies should not be further delayed because of government uncertainty and inaction.


Mr. Godin:: Mr. Chairman, previous speakers have clearly explained the problems both serious and urgent, now facing the farmers.
I do not intend to go over the details again, but nevertheless, those problems must be considered in the light of the whole economic situation in Canada. We are therefore justified in expressing our deep concern about the slowing down in numerous sectors of our economy, which threatens to expand and develop into a real crisis.
Higher interest rates and budgetary restrictions are so many factors which contribute to the shortage of capital now affecting the Canadian economy.
Since policies of austerity generally have adverse effects on less privileged classes, I feel that the period we are now going through could jeopardize the situation of agriculture which is already deep into debt, at the very time when farmers are faced with increasing production costs and must increase their production through further investments.
In my opinion, the situation in which farmers find themselves is definitely inferior to that of other groups, in spite of the numerous efforts made to improve their lot. Such a situation cannot and must not go on any longer, since it is causing a steady decrease in the number of farmers, without for all that improving the lot of those who remain on the farm.

March 4, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
In spite of the ever fine words and high-sounding statements about the importance and the value of agriculture, parishes which, in the past, owed their prosperity to agriculture now only survive with the help of welfare allowances.
Due to the lack of an adequate policy which would anticipate problems rather than create them, whole sections of parishes are being abandoned because of inadequate income. Some of those farmers looked to the department of health, and they were given help providing they abstained from any activity.
Also, agricultural experts, from both federal and provincial governments, are constantly engaged in research to improve agriculture. They have discovered new breeding and feeding methods. They publish all the new developments in agriculture, such as insect and weed control. All these experts are busy making the farmers understand that they would really increase their profits by increasing their herds.
The present situation, which has existed for a long time, shows that increased efficiency alone is not the solution to the urgent problem of a better income for the farmer.
For some producers, such as hog and poultry farmers, that is the egg producers, large herds or flocks have proved disastrous.
Mr. Chairman, we had with us last week Mr. Lionel Sorel, general chairman of the U.C.C., an organization built up by the Quebec farmers. As you know, Mr. Sorel is also vicechairman of the Canadian Dairy Farmers' Association and of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and this was the reason for Mr. Sorel's visit to Ottawa.
This association submitted a brief to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the members of the cabinet. This brief was brought to our attention at a meeting of our group.
Mr. Sorel was not present at this meeting, for a good reason, I am sure, but we had an opportunity of ascertaining his views on the present farming situation.
Even though we were unable to meet Mr. Sorel, still it has been proved that Mr. Sorel is well acquainted with the problems of agriculture.
In the interview he gave a reporter for Le Droit, which was published in that paper on Friday, March 1 last, Mr. Sorel made the following statement with which I agree:
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The farmers' problems are always the same. The challenge they must meet is always that of

increasingly higher production costs, on the one hand, and selling prices which, for them, seldom or never change, on the other.
In fact, the farmer has two sets of costs to meet, his rising personal costs and his costs of production, Mr. Lionel Sorel, president of the Catholic Farmers Union of Quebec, said on Wednesday. Other workers, who are not directly concerned with production, do not have to cope with one of those two sets of rising costs, explained Mr. Sorel.
Mr. Sorel was in Ottawa at the time, in connection with the presentation of the annual brief of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to the federal cabinet.
Here are a few points, taken from the brief of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which the president of the C.F.U. brought out: the need for consultation; the problems of the dairy industry in eastern Canada, the production of wheat in the west; farm loans and improvement, taxation, medicare and, finally, marketing.
Mr. Sorel indicated, on the same occasion, that to his mind:
-the farmers' appeal to the government was ill-timed this year because of the political crisis in Ottawa.
Mr. Sorel felt that the price of manufactured milk should be $5 per hundredweight. He said:
-the goal remains a minimum price of $5 per cwt. for manufactured milk. Even after three years of efforts and partial success, that objective has not been attained.
Indeed, Mr. Sorel is convinced that the average price of milk in 1967 was somewhere in the vicinity of $4.65.
Further on, Mr. Sorel pointed out another problem, namely that of marketing.
With regard to marketing, which in a way is to the farmer what collective agreements are to the worker, the president of the Quebec union said that the government of his province should soon come to an agreement with the federal government to eliminate the harmful effects of foreign competition.
He said that today competition comes both from foreign countries and the other provinces.
Mr. Sorel stated that the appropriate solution could probably arise from a delegation of powers between the two levels of government in Canada.
About the attitude of the Union nationale government in Quebec with regard to agriculture, Mr. Sorel had this to say: "I do not find it very constructive. We are not really told the truth.
People say: We want our rights. But concrete solutions are never put forward."
According to him, communications between the federal and the Quebec departments of Agriculture have decreased since the defeat of the Liberal party in June 1965.
Since I had been told the night before at a dinner with Mr. Sorel and an influential member of the cabinet, I feel that his
March 4, 1968

reference to the defeat of the Quebec Liberal party and the attitude of the Quebec Union Nationale was a declaration of love.
I feel also that it is rather easy to say at a given moment that co-operation is lacking. But when did that happen in Quebec? Did it become obvious in 1964, 1965 or 1966?
For instance, under ARDA, a joint program of the federal government and the provinces, Ottawa allocated $11 million for Quebec whereas the provincial contribution did not exceed $3 million. Everyone knows that funds are lacking.
As far as co-operation is concerned, I am always reminded of that young man who decides to get married. If he makes $125 a week he has a much better chance to find someone willing to co-operate than if he gets only $25 in unemployment insurance benefits.
One remembers the years between 1929 and 1939, when good farm hands earned a dollar a week and a great number of young people in the cities had to make do with the dole. At that time, it was very difficult for the farmer who wanted to set up his own home to find someone willing to co-operate. But when the war came along, wages rose, and Canadians all found someone willing to co-operate and set up a home. As you know, there was no pill at the time, and co-operation was one hundred per cent.
Personally, before I came here, I drove, as a worker, a $200-$300 car, and even if you had offered me a 50 per cent subsidy on a $6,000 Cadillac, I would not have accepted, for I could not even have paid my share. On the other hand, if the hon. minister gave me the same deal today, I would be willing to co-operate, because I have earned a steady salary these last few years.
Mr. Chairman, the problem of the farmers, whether in the eastern, central or western provinces, is a financial problem. Efforts are made to obscure the issue by various means; it is said that the difficulties are due to the political crisis which occurred in Ottawa, or to a lack of co-operation, whereas in fact they are due to a lack of money. Instead of dealing with the real problem, everything is being done to evade the issue. All those who want to speak on the subject are given ample opportunity to do so.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
In Quebec, people say: Things are going badly because you are being robbed by the English. Supposing that such is the case, we must still admit that there are honest people as well as thieves among all races.
Supply-Agriculture
There are honest people among the Jewish, Italian, Canadian or English people. Whenever the province of Quebec complains about the Englishmen, I should like to know, for instance, who has been swindling the English people in Nova Scotia.
I should like, at this stage, to make a short comment on a brief submitted to the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on consumer credit. As can be seen on page 2964, No. 39 of the committee proceedings, the brief was dealing at that time with the housing problem and with personal income in Nova Scotia. This is something I wish to point out, since these people in Nova Scotia are Englishmen.
The brief states the following:
The first factor that must be considered when discussing the housing situation here is that incomes are generally lower in the Atlantic region. Average incomes in this province run 25 per cent lower than the national average. Nova Scotia, then, has more than its share of poverty.
In a previous paragraph, one can read that:
One fifth of all homes in Nova Scotia are overcrowded, without running water, bath or shower. Over one fifth of all homes do not have flush toilets. The number of homes requiring major repairs here is twice that of the national average.
Further on, we can read the following:
This is an old province and the last one hundred years have not produced the expansion and growth experienced in most areas of this country. As a result of the stagnant population and industrial growth situation, our housing stock has remained much as it was 50 or even 100 years ago. Many of these old homes have been maintained so that they will not appear in bad housing statistics, and therefore distort these figures. Most of these very old; wood structures, residential and commercial, while sound, are not attractive.
A portion of our housing stock must be demolished and a much greater portion restored if our communities are to become more attractive.
That report was submitted in 1967, when the hon. leader of the official opposition (Mr. Stanfield) was the premier of his province. When all is said and done, we realize that really pitiful conditions existed there. Nevertheless, since the arrival of the hon. Leader of the Opposition on the federal scene, newspapers try to make us believe that conditions are different, and they never speak about the problems of Nova Scotia.
We are told that the Leader of the Opposition has been successful in everything he undertook. Another day, we read in a newspaper that the hon. member initiated a campaign against the government. But with

March 4, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
regard to poverty in his province and its slums, I think that he should have started by bulldozing those slums before coming here to bulldoze parliament.
At all events, I repeat that the farmers' problem is not one of honesty but a financial one. The problem of starvation is not a problem of honesty either, but a financial one. The agriculture problem is not a problem of production but of consumption. Mr. Chairman, I wonder how farmers will manage to make both ends meet in the coming years. We realize that all classes of society lack the necessities of life.
We know that crop insurance, accepted by other provinces three years ago, has been accepted by the province of Quebec only this year.
We know also that the cost of this insurance is shared equally by the federal government and the provinces; that is, Ottawa pays 50 per cent and the provinces, 50 per cent. As for the premium, 25 per cent is paid by the federal government and 25 per cent by the provinces. Finally, there remains only 50 per cent to be paid by the farmer, by the person concerned. In spite of all that, Quebec has not been able to implement its plan earlier because of a shortage of money. Today, it is obvious that the minister should not wait for the provinces, should not flounder in joint programs, because under the present system, the provinces have become poor relations.
I do not know the intentions of the minister with regard to the continuing rise in the price of farm machinery. I do not know what will be his policy in the face of the farmers' requests for a price of $5 per hundredweight for milk. I do not know what will be his policy with regard to quotas which will be favourable or unfavourable to farmers who want to increase their revenue.
We know that the minister has decided to reduce cheese subsidies as well as subsidies on sheep and hog production on account of an inadequate budget.
I would like to remind you, Mr. Chairman, that during wartime there was never any mention of an inadequate budget. We did not wait until the government had collected taxes from people who were unemployed to declare war. We went right to the source, namely the Bank of Canada.
We also remember that price support was extended throughout Canada and in spite of the shorage of manpower, Canadian production increased to such an extent that it was used to feed part of the world.

We also remember that millions and millions were granted as assistance to Great Britain. I feel that this gesture could be repeated and would be an appropriate opportunity for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) to launch war against poverty. In view of the fact that England does not need any more of our gifts and that present subsidies are inadequate, I think that the hon. minister could consider granting a special discount, paid with new money, on all Canadian consumer goods. That discount could be paid on every food item produced and consumed across Canada. What was good for England would be good, I assume, for the whole Canadian people and it would be accepted by them.
When the government used the Bank of Canada, it was for the war effort. Of course, to use the Bank of Canada today would run counter to old habits. This always requires an effort, but, in my opinion, it would be an effort in the right direction. The minister could depend on the support of all the people, and in view of the fact that the farmers would be involved indirectly, he could depend also on the support of Mr. Paul-Henri Lavoie, general secretary of the C.F.U. who, it is a known fact, is one of the directors of the Bank of Canada. Since the agricultural class would be assisted indirectly with that new formula, I am convinced that Mr. Lavoie would be very happy to give his support to such an initiative. I imagine that Mr. Lavoie who is secretary of the C.F.U. and a director of the Bank of Canada, does not wish, any more than the hon. minister and myself, to see the appearance of a period similar to that of the years 1929 to 1939.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay any longer the business of the house, but I am glad to have the opportunity of saying a few words on the subject of agriculture in Canada.
It must be recognized that the minister's task, as he presides over the destiny of the Department of Agriculture, is a very arduous and important task indeed.
I shall not spend the time at my disposal in taking him to task, but I will rather use the few minutes available to me to make a few suggestions, together with a few suggestions to improve the well-being of our rural population in general.
We know, Mr. Chairman, that for the last few years, farming has been going through a
March 4, 1968

period of considerable development and transformation. Production methods have changed drastically. Machinery itself is changing from one year to another, which is not without creating very serious problems both to the farmers and to those who want to promote agriculture in the country.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The number of farmers has gradually been reduced in the last few years. Several marginal farms no longer exist and several more will disappear. That is why there is a need for close co-operation, not only between the federal and provincial departments of agriculture, but also between other departments. A close spirit of co-operation should exist between the two levels of government, and I hope that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) will be willing to co-operate as fully as possible to prevent farmers from suffering losses through lack of co-operation at some stage of the discussions.
As things are at present, there should be continuous consultation between the various departments. It is to be hoped that we will see a continued improvement for the greater general good.
One of the main success factors for a farmer is doubtless the facility to get the necessary credit so as to equip and manage his farm. For several years, the Canadian Farm Credit Corporation has rendered great services to farmers, but, I think, we have reached a point where the act should be amended in order to enable farmers to take better advantage thereof.
I do not think it is slander to suggest that many times, the officials responsible for implementation of the Farm Credit Act do not protect the farmer's interests sufficiently. One would think that the sole purpose of some officials is to protect the government, which is much too rigid.
I know several farmers who have complained of their treatment. There was not enough confidence placed in them and they could not obtain the amounts which would have enabled them to develop their farm so as to make it profitable.
It is a fact that the farmer is generally a good risk. And I think that if banks could obtain interest rates in accordance with modern requirements, they would readily grant more loans to farmers. Therefore, I would urge the minister to use his power of persuasion to convince the officials dealing with agricultural loans, to have more confidence in
Supply-Agriculture
farmers applying for an agricultural loan, because they are creditworthy.
It seems to me, we should have a special concern for the young farmers, who want to settle on the land. The minister knows also how few of our young people look to agriculture for their future. Those who would like to become farmers have great qualities, but often they are prevented from carrying out their plans, because their father cannot give them the money required to settle on their own land. In many families, more than one son wants to settle on a farm, but the father whose land is limited, cannot logically and equitably help all his sons to become farmers.
To my mind, that is where the farm credit bureau could be of great assistance, not only to the farmers who wish to borrow, but also to the nation as a whole.
It must be recognized that it is the farmers who feed the nation. If we place ourselves in a situation where sooner or later we have to get our supplies from foreign sources, it will surely be to the disadvantage of our people. [DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak, for a few moments, on the dairy industry. We know that this is a very important industry in Canada because it represents 40 per cent of the farmer's income. Therefore, we have the right to pay it a very special attention.
We know that in recent years, because of a policy that did not meet their demands, many farmers sold their cattle to devote themselves to other agricultural fields. The result was that interested farmers were handicapped and that many plants had to close down because of the lack of raw materials.
I would like hon. gentleman to pay a very special attention to the recommendation made to him by the C.F.A. We know that the C.F.A. presented last week to the cabinet its annual brief in which it repeated the request made last year and the year before, that it is absolutely necessary for the farmers to get a price of $5 per hundredweight of milk.
Indeed, the C.F.A. says in its brief that this price of $5 per hundredweight is even more necessary today than in previous years, because the cost of production is always increasing. We know, for example, that the average price which the Canadian farmer received last year amounted to $4.65 per hundredweight. It is easily realized that the request of the agricultural organization is reasonable and that the government should take measures at once to enable the farmers

March 4, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
to get this price. It is essential that the hon. Minister of Agriculture make available to the Canadian Dairy Commission the funds which will enable it to meet the demands of the farmers.
In its brief, the C.F.A. mentions also that the present dairy policy contains two things that are unfair to the people concerned. The first one concerns cream shippers who get rather less than the producers of manufacturing milk. According to the brief, the second concerns discrimination against the producers of fluid milk who must sell a substantial part of their production for processing at a price established by the industry. This deprives the fluid milk producer of a badly needed revenue supplement. To this end, the federation submits the following recommendation:
We believe that more funds are needed to bring back the old federal policy whereby subsidies paid to the other dairy producers were also paid to the fluid milk producers-
In its brief, the federation urged the government to revert to the old way of paying subsidies, which was more suited to the farmer's needs.
The cheese industry is also of the utmost importance. As you know, the Lac St-Jean area alone exported last year about six million pounds of cheese to Great Britain. The managers of the cheese factories in the Lake St. John region believe that they will encounter difficulties because of the devaluation of the pound sterling. According to rumour, and in view of the devaluation of the dollar, it would not be surprising if cheese sold at about 15 cents per pound less than last year, and this will surely affect the amount paid by the cheese factories to the farmers. Therefore, the hon. Minister of Agriculture should not reduce the bonus on cheese, as he proposed or intended to do. This bonus should remain, for it is in the interest of the farmers who produce cheese.
Mr. Chairman, this leads me to talk for a few minutes about the need to increase compensation for animals slaughtered on account of contagious diseases.
A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of introducing in the house a notice of motion urging the house to study the possibility of increasing compensation paid for cattle slaughtered under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. I set such compensation at $200 for pure-bred cattle and at $125 for crossbred cattle.
When one knows, Mr. Chairman, that a good milch-cow, for instance, costs $500, one

must face the facts and conclude that the compensation paid a few years ago is inadequate. The C.F.U. representative would like an increase in the compensation paid, and I feel that the minister should do his utmost to meet his wishes.
It is true that the motion I introduced was referred to the standing committee on agriculture for consideration, but that is not enough. I think that the minister would give the farmers a most welcome gift if he announced shortly that he has taken the necessary action so that the compensation 1 suggested in my notice of motion will be paid.
There is another source of concern for our farmers, mainly for the fruit and vegetable growers. Every year, Mr. Chairman, greenhouse products from other countries compete with our Canadian products.
I think that the hon. Minister for Agriculture should pay a great deal more attention to the matter, than he has in the past, because when our farmers' products reach the market, it is already overloaded. It follows that our farmers are forced to lower their prices in order to sell their products. It is quite interesting for the housewives to have, earlier in the season, strawberries on their table, but to me it is only a matter of logic, and the hon. minister should protect our producers.
I know that in some quarters prevails a certain ideology under which we buy products abroad at a better price than those produced domestically. If we follow up that ideology, sooner or later we will necessarily have to assist our farmers or to direct them toward other forms of production in which they are interested.
I think that even if the consumer lacks greenhouse products for a week or a few days more, it will bring a distinct advantage to our farmers.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Shortly after taking over the portfolio of agriculture, the minister promised the farmers, if my memory serves me right, that a thorough study would be made of the various conditions concerning the purchase of farm machinery, and he also promised them relief.
Farmers are still waiting for the minister to carry out his promise in that respect and it is high time that he should assure them of his support and take positive steps to put an end to the yearly increase in the prices of farm machinery.
March 4, 1968

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I should like to tell the Minister of Agriculture that hog producers were sorry to hear that the bonus on hogs would be reduced. I trust the minister, after having given due consideration to the matter, will make strong representations to the Treasury Board, in order that the decision to reduce the bonus on hogs will be dropped. If not, Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister will realize that farmers are going to lose a great deal of money as a result of this decision and they will find themselves in a very unfavourable position to meet their obligations and production costs.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I will ask the Minister of Agriculture to tell us what measures he plans to take, in order to ensure that our Canadian products will not be adversely affected by the Kennedy round of tariff negotiations.
Farmers are greatly concerned at the present time. Seeding time is fast approaching and our farmers would like to be assured that their efforts will not be in vain, in short that they have not worked for nothing.
Already the farmer has to face many unknown factors that can ruin the fruit of his labour for a whole season. He should not, in addition, face the risk that imports of foreign products will force him to reduce his operations or force him to sell his products at a price that would not enable him to meet his production costs.
This being said, Mr. Chairman, I should like to repeat my best wishes to the Minister of Agriculture and assure him that the farmers expect to receive from him the protection they are entitled to.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Chairman, I should like during the few minutes at my disposal to discuss that famous problem of agriculture, but in a context somewhat different from that of my colleagues, that is in relation to its future, endeavouring as much as possible not to play politics. I do not wish to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene), in order to increase his political capital, but on the other hand, I do not want to criticize him and have the press report that I have done a good turn to agriculture, because I wish to speak about its future.
I heard a member opposite early this afternoon stating that the minister had a poor record up to now. I found that he was rather
Supply-Agriculture
harsh until he said that when the Conservative party came into power in 1957, it had issued a challenge.
Mr. Chairman, I remember that challenge in the dairy industry. I do not want to quote figures, since, as I said earlier, this would be dabbling in politics and the hon. member would be embarrassed. I would prefer to refer to the problem of agriculture, or to make an attempt at showing it from another viewpoint different from the monetary angle.
Nowadays, I think the problem of agriculture is rather a social problem. It has reached the point where you see the young leaving our rural areas to go and live in the cities. When I was a boy, I sometimes had to walk to school barefoot, as my parents had very little resources. However I did not feel I was being persecuted, since my schoolfellows came from the same background as mine. But today, our children have to go to school in urban centres, where they mix with children from other classes of society.
As a matter of fact, when a child suddenly realizes that a school friend is better off, that he has some spending money, that a little girl can change her dress a little more often, that child suffers from an inferiority complex and finds it somewhat more difficult to concentrate on his studies. He returns home and asks his mother to buy him the same things that the others have. If he does, it is because he is intelligent; if he realizes it, it is because he is intelligent.
Quite often, the conflicts that arise in rural families are merely due to a lack of money.
It was explained earlier that the lack of money was due to a faulty administration. There is no doubt about it. It is a known fact that the state must subsidize 50 per cent of the farming community, but it is also true that the latter is responsible for that situation to the same degree. This is not surprising, because the farming community has given priests and bishops to the church, lawyers and notaries to the legal profession, politicians to public life.
So, who is left in agriculture? People who experience perhaps a little more difficulty than others in understanding problems and managing operations. In the light of all these facts, we have before us someone who has trouble managing his property; in my opinion, a successful farmer is a very intelligent man, with a variety of skills hard to find in other

March 4, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
levels of society, because he must be businessman, accountant, veterinarian-without a diploma, but able to detect diseases affecting animals-and also a mechanic. With all this, he succeeds as a farmer because he is a superman of sorts. However, a farmer's problems result sometimes from bad management. That is the important point.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I wish to congratulate the minister who took the initiative of putting computers at the disposal of the farmers to enable them to administer their farms better.
Macdonald College has already begun using them. In my opinion, that will give agriculture a new impetus. It is almost impossible to be sure of selling our products because of foreign competition. Therefore, we must find a way to get a maximum production out of our farms. That is where computers will be really useful.
I was a dairy farmer at one time and only after having been able to assess the production of each head of cattle I had-it varies a great deal from one to another-I realize that this cannot be determined at a glance. We need technicians. Technique plus practice may lead to a reasonable income.
Besides the technical aspect of the problem, I would like to draw the minister's attention to a few particular points which, in fact, have been raised by other hon. members including the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin), who, I am bound to say, seemed to have some idea of what he was talking about. Listening to him, one knew that he had first hand knowledge of agricultural problems.
Then there was talk of quotas. That should be changed. Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw the attention of the minister to the question of quotas. Five dollars was the price mentioned at first. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) spoke of $5 a moment ago. But in the Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot region, as in the 26 ridings in the province of Quebec which are part of a large co-operative of that province, the average price of milk will range from $4.94 to $4.96 per hundredweight. This last figure has not been announced officially, but it is very close to $5.
Now, since the Minister of Agriculture had set his objective at $4.75, one must admit that he went over it and the farmers of my constituency are quite grateful to him for that.

In addition, and if we had not lost the 25 cents premium paid by the province of Quebec, we would have $5.25. At this point, I ask those who are close to the provincial authorities not to be shy if they can help to get that premium for the areas where the price of milk does not reach $4.75 per hundredweight, because it is impossible for the federal government to establish a price throughout a province and throughout the country, considering the diversity of conditions in agriculture because of geographic location or changes in the weather. In fact, even in the province of Quebec, it is not necessary to go below Quebec city, or lower Quebec as they call it, to realize that the dairy industry is operated at an inferior level.
This is, I think, a unique problem which comes within the jurisdiction of the province. The federal government gives subsidies in order to establish an average price across Canada, but since particular factors have to be taken into account in the provinces, the decision should remain theirs, provided there is an agreement between the provinces, that they will not resort to dumping practices and then ask the federal government to settle the problem.
In our district for example and in the rural areas of the eastern townships, in the Montreal area and in the Beauce area, which covers 23 counties, we get nearly $5. However, there is a deficiency in the field of quotas.
Mr. Chairman, I should like the hon. Minister of Agriculture, to think of the farmers who gave up the market of fluid milk in favour of industrial milk, assuming they would be eligible to subsidies, because their production is a little too close to the 45 per cent standard established by the commission, to forbid farmers to change from one production to another. Therefore, those who have changed because they were not aware of the regulations are penalized. These people are not recognized as producers of processed milk entitled to subsidies. Everyone knows that if you go through a stop sign even if you claim later on it was unwittingly, you still have to pay. Consequently, I believe that those who were penalized should be granted the quota for this year. In the year 1967-1968 the farmer was obliged to sell his milk at $3.54, and if it were possible for that farmer who cannot go back to the production of fluid milk, to be recognized, then he could be subsidized.
Quotas under 50,000 pounds of milk were also mentioned by an hon. member. For the
March 4, 1968



benefit of those who do not know it, the commission has already recognized those quotas and I even think that it has been lowered to 12,000 pounds. Personally, I was not in favour of such a low quota, because a 12,000-pound production represents only the yield of two cows which produce 6,000 pounds of milk each. A farmer cannot live on such production and I am under the impression that it is even prejudicial to anyone who would like to make a living out of farming or dairying.
However, let us say that due to pressures by farm associations, the Canadian dairy commission following an agreement with the hon. minister, has recognized the merits of that request.
But I also think that we should consider raising them so that the farmer who wants to live on dairy farming gets a large enough production, because no one can live reasonably with less than 200,000 to 300,000 pounds of milk.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order, please. When the committee rose at six o'clock it had been considering vote 5c of supplementary estimates (c) of the Department of Agriculture.


Mr. Cote (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Chairman, before the committee adjourned, I was trying to explain to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) that some deficiencies exist in the administration of the Canadian Dairy Commission, especially with regard to quotas.
I have not dealt specifically with the price of milk. I said that it reached almost $5 per hundredweight in some areas, but not in the country as a whole. I could have asked, like some opposition members, an increase of 25 cents per hundredweight. I would then have expressed the same wish as the minister. He would have liked to comply with that request, but even had I asked him for such an increase, it would have been to little avail. When the price of milk is raised by one cent per hundredweight, it costs $1 mil-
Supp ly-A griculture
lion to the country. If a further increase of 25 cents is requested, then the Minister of Agriculture would have to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) for $25 million more.
Every time that members of the opposition or of third parties ask for higher milk prices, the Minister of Finance must set up a new fiscal policy to get the money. He would then be defeated by the opposition, and that is why it is useless to ask for it. I would rather stick to the present quotas.
I would like to see all those who have abandoned fluid milk production for industrial milk production be recognized by the Canadian Dairy Commission as industrial milk producers in order to benefit from a quota for 1968-69.
Another problem which I want to bring to the attention of the minister and which involves many people is that of the milk producers who sell a few quarts of fluid milk in villages or rural areas. Because they sell 2, 3, 4 or 5 per cent of their production, or 5 to 10 quarts of fluid milk, these farmers are recognized as fluid milk producers and are ineligible for subsidies paid by the dairy commission.
These same farmers are forced to stop delivering milk to the villagers and to go exclusively into the production of industrial milk; even then they are not recognized. As for the villagers, they are forced to buy their milk from city distributors at twice the price they would pay at home. I should like to bring one of these cases to the attention of the minister. In my riding, several farmers have stopped selling a few pints of milk in order to be recognized by the Canadian Dairy Commission, and they have not even been recognized. If possible, I should ask that subsidies be granted to these people in 196869. We should also think of young farmers with financial obligations and whose quotas do not amount to 300,000 lbs. of milk. These younger people should be afforded the opportunity to have their quotas readjusted according to their production for the year 1967-68.
An 18-year old youth who is almost a salaried worker or who does not receive a salary from his father tries to invest, to get a piece of land which he will be able to work one, two or three years later.
But the father is not recognized as having two employees officially and he cannot get a quota exceeding 300,000 pounds of milk. I would like those farmers to receive subsidies and to be recognized by the Canadian Dairy Commission.

been reduced. There is another problem that we must try to examine properly. I know that in my riding and in that of Saint-Hy-acinthe-Bagot-if I often talk about the latter, it is because it is next to my own, where we find the same type of farming and the same problems-but perhaps the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot is not aware of the conditions of the pork industry-you find pork breeders. Some people go in for integration. Farmers are told: you must produce, you will be provided with piglets and financing and then, you will get $3 per hog. All you have to do is sign the invoice, the cheque, and give them to us. In that case, I feel that the money is taken from the Department of Agriculture but is not handed over to the farmers.
I do not want that subsidy to be discontinued. I would not want anybody to say that the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska is against subsidies for farmers. But I want those subsidies to be paid so as to benefit the farmers. Such is the change that I am asking for. Let us say that the subsidy is being discontinued temporarily because of restrictions. The Minister of Agriculture will certainly have to make further restrictions if the opposition refuses to vote the necessary estimates. But if we are to eliminate the farmer's problems all members of the house will have to agree to increased taxes, even if that is bad politically. If we are aware of the problems of that class of society, we must assume our responsibilities, face the electorate and explain that the money we put in the pockets of some members of society must come from society as a whole. It is as plain as that.
Mr. Chairman, I see my time is running out and I would ask a few minutes more.
It must be understood that when we ask for assistance for our farmers-I am speaking to all those who are not familiar with agriculture and who do not live in a farming area -farmers are not pocketing the money or hoarding it in their cellars. However, every dollar invested benefits the whole industrial and commercial sector. Agriculture represents 35 to 40 per cent of the national economy. This includes not only the sale of agricultural products, but everything that has to do with agriculture. Money invested in agriculture is not only invested in farming but in the whole community which is dependent upon agriculture.
I toured the Gaspe and Timiskaming regions and I saw places where there is nothing but rocks for 20 or 25 miles, small villages whose 27053-457
Supply-Agriculture
inhabitants depend wholly upon the tourist trade or on fishing for their living. However, if you cross a plain of about 10 or 15 square miles, you see farmlands, a pretty village and all sorts of enterprises which settled there because they depend on agriculture.
Every time the farmer is subsidized, he buys something to improve his operations. We should not get the idea that those subsidies are simply going into the pockets of the farmers.
In order to prove my point, I am going to quote some figures which will show that any investment in agriculture is beneficial to many.
For instance, in 1965, dairy producers shipped products valued at $909,172,000, that is $145,186,000 more than in 1961. Now, that increase of more than $145,000,000 went to organizations related to agriculture. The dairy industry employed 31,866 persons whose salaries amounted to $137,681,000. The cost of supplies and raw material amounted to $721,735,000. The cost of containers and packing material amounted to $47,798,000. The cost of fuel and electricity should also be added. That impetus given to the dairy industry permitted the purchase of supplies in other fields.
I see that my time has expired, and to give an opportunity to others of my colleagues to state their views, I shall resume my seat and ask all who are present here to realize that when the Minister of Agriculture makes special requests to the Minister of Finance, those concern other sectors of the economy.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I think we can all agree, Mr. Chairman, that there are many serious problems facing Canadian agriculture and I say at the outset that in the time I intend to take tonight I do not propose to solve all of them. After all, the minister himself has not succeeded in doing so during all the time he has been Minister of Agriculture, so I shall not attempt to do so in half an hour tonight. Nevertheless, there are some views that I wish to express.
I think the problems involved in agriculture are revealed by statistics with which we are all familiar in connection with rural poverty and farm income in relation to other sections of the economy. The extent of the difficulties is revealed also by the obvious dissatisfaction of Canadian farmers to which my hon. friend from Kent (Ont.), referred on Friday. After all, Mr. Chairman, a couple

March 4. 1968
Supply-Agriculture
of years ago 60 per cent of the farmers of Canada were sufficiently unhappy about the approach of this government to agricultural problems that they cast their votes against the government, and I think the proportion would be much higher today. However, I suggest there are several misconceptions widely held about Canadian agriculture and I think they are reflected, to some extent at least, in the approach of the government.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I think it is worth emphasizing that agriculture is not an isolated industry unrelated to anything else. We say this all the time, but I think it is worth emphasizing the significance of it. Agriculture is of course directly affected by general government policies, and not only by the policies of the Department of Agriculture. I think this is an important point to keep in mind. Equally important of course is that agriculture itself directly affects the economic health and progress of the country. We cannot think of agriculture in isolation. We cannot deal with agriculture intelligently isolated from the rest of the economy. There will not be a healthy Canadian economy unless there is a healthy agriculture-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -and there will not be a healthy agriculture unless there is a healthy Canadian economy.
Today the farmer is caught in a cost-price squeeze. His international markets are threatened by the apparent reluctance of the government to pursue these markets vigorously. His domestic markets are threatened by import policies which certainly many farmers and farm groups find incomprehensible, and there is a particular difficulty in securing credit except to the extent that it is supplied directly by government agencies. Farmers are caught up in the general uncertainty as to the Canadian economy and government economic policies.
Agriculture of course is an industry in which the federal government is very heavily involved, as well as provincial governments. On many commodities government policy controls quotas. Government policy controls transportation and transportation charges. Government policy to a very considerable extent controls marketing, the rate of stabilization payments, the decision as to whether stabilization payments are to be made, and to a very large degree the availability of credit.

Consequently to a very large extent the fate of the farmer is in the hands of the government.
The government is certainly deeply involved, certainly it cannot withdraw. I seem to discern-and I hope this is not justified-but I have an impression that the minister and the department tend to some extent to wash their hands of the problem involved as being too difficult, and something that will have to be worked out by the process of attrition. But I suggest the government has an obligation to develop effective long range policies.
No one can deny the difficulty of the problem. Certainly I do not. Our agriculture problem on the one hand is related to persistent world poverty and on the other hand to rapid technological change, which confronts our farmers with constantly changing conditions of production and competition. Agriculture is certainly resistant to any blanket policy because of the different types of farming in our country, because of the regional differences, because of the great variety of crops that can be and are grown in Canada. But surely the difficulty of the problem is not an excuse for ineffective policy, nor is it satisfactory simply to phase out the industry or allow it to work out its destiny through a process of attrition.
Our agriculture must be viable. The world, as well as our country, needs and will continue to need food. The former Conservative government, which had confidence in Canadian agriculture-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -introduced some very
important initiatives in the fields of credit marketing, the ARDA program, and indeed other programs. The policies of that period created a momentum and an optimism in agriculture, a feeling which has definitely been allowed to lapse. Many of the present policies relating to this industry of agriculture are either ineffective or else cause more problems than they solve. I think perhaps it is an even more serious criticism that the basic approach of the government to agricultural policy has very serious faults in itself.
I have already emphasized in a general way the importance of the government's general economic policy, or lack of it, to agriculture. We have made our point before about mismanagement of the economy and the general lack of confidence in the economic policy
March 4, 1968

of this government. There is no need for me to review this now, except to say that the economic mismanagement of the government affects the business of agriculture at least as effectively as it affects any other business.
There are particularly serious consequences for agriculture in inflation. I would simply remind the minister of the increase in farm costs that has taken place during the last two or three years. In 1960 through to the end of 1963 there was an annual increase in farm costs, but it was relatively moderate. The increase for 1964 in farm costs in Canada was 10 percentage points; in 1965 it was reported to be 13 percentage points, and in 1966 it was 22 percentage points.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is, I should say, 22 percentage points over 1963. This shows a steadily increasing rate in farm costs.
I think inflation is the largest single factor contributing to the cost-price squeeze in which the farmer finds himself. Inflation increases the prices which the farmer must pay for his means of production and for the other commodities he buys, and of course it eats away at the effective returns he receives, because it reduces the buying power of his dollar. Inflation holds a special threat to the agricultural community because unfortunately many farmers already live near the subsistence level, and few farmers are able to pass the burden on to others.
Many of our farmers are competing in international markets in which prices do not reflect inflationary pressures in Canada, but certainly our farmers' costs of production reflect inflationary pressures. Many of our farmers who do not sell in international markets, who sell only in our domestic markets, are competing also with outside producers who are not subject to the same inflationary pressures. The abject failure of this government to control inflation is, I suggest, costing the farmers of this country dearly indeed.
Closely related to inflation is the high, increasing rate of interest which farmers have to pay for credit in Canada today. The investment required to operate an efficient and competitive farm increases each year. Inflation aggravates very substantially the farmer's investment problem by adding to the cost of buildings and of equipment that he must buy. But the cost of farm credit today, except where it is available through provincial and federal agencies, makes it increasingly difficult for a farmer to maintain efficiency 27053-457J
Supply-Agriculture
and make a profit; and certainly he cannot make a profit if he is not efficient, Mr. Chairman.
I think credit is particularly difficult to obtain at today's rates. Raising the bank rate almost dried up the source of credit for farm improvement loans which involved a statutory ceiling of 5 per cent, because naturally banks are reluctant to lend at those rates when there are more attractive rates available.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I think the cash squeeze on some of our farmers is particularly acute, especially in western Canada where the sales of grain have been disappointing. Consequently the farmers are facing an acute shortage of cash. Then in addition we must remember that the general rate of return on farm investment is substantially lower than in most other sectors of the economy. Consequently the attractiveness of farm investment is particularly affected in an adverse way by any substantial increase in the cost of credit to the farmer. This is one more example of how the actions of this government today frustrate the operations of programs which have been passed by parliament, and which are known to be necessary for healthy agricultural growth.
I recognize that part of the pressure on interest rates is international in origin, but we know all too well in this country that the recent increase in the bank rate is due to protective measures which were felt to be necessary in order to take care of conditions within Canada. I suggest that the scarcity of credit and the high cost of credit to the farmer is a clear indication of the disastrous consequence to the farmer of the general absence of economic policies on the part of this government. In addition, the question of confidence affects the farmers as it affects other people in business. Agriculture is now big business which requires, as I indicated, a very large capital investment. Anyone making a large capital investment requires the type of certainty which makes long term planning possible. Even if a farmer should be able somehow to arrange his financing today, naturally he is reluctant to make large commitments perhaps at high rates of interest and certainly under conditions of anything but a secure return.
Naturally under these conditions farmers are jittery in terms of investment, and unwilling to make long term commitments while economic prospects remain uncertain.

March 4, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
This economic uncertainty in agriculture is complicated by the further uncertainty resulting from inconsistent and unco-ordinated government federal policies. I have referred to the effect of the raising of the bank rate, and the effect this naturaly has on farm credit. The hon. member for Kent (Ont.), referred on Friday to the inconsistency involved in emphasizing retraining on the one hand and on the other hand cutting back on the federal involvement in vocational schools where training must take place. Several speakers have pointed out the inconsistency between a federal policy which subsidizes Canadian production on the one hand and allows import competition on the other. Clearly the present government seems to lack an over-all policy with regard to agriculture because I think if one existed the inconsistencies could be avoided.
As a whole I believe this clearly indicates that the government gives rather low priority to the farmer and to agricultural problems because, as well as the inconsistencies within the federal government, serious conflicts can arise between governments and perhaps it is time to consider more effective measures for co-ordination between governments at different levels. I suppose it is clear that problems of provincial jurisdiction are involved to some extent, but I think these can be overcome by a federal government which is prepared to perform its obligation of leadership and adopt a co-operative and reasonable attitude.
I should point out that in addition the government has made several bad decisions for which Canadian farmers have had to pay the price. These are not necessarily decisions of either the Department of Agriculture or the Minister of Agriculture, but they are decisions which definitely affect the farmer in a very real way. As has been stated many times in this house, a government blunder left Canadian farmers without a world wheat agreement, and therefore unprotected, for a period of some 11 months.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Now I understand that as a result of this there has been some price undercutting. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle has pointed out previously that the United States would never have become involved in this type of thing-price competition with Canada -had this Liberal government not dropped its gentleman's agreement relating to price

stabilization, an agreement which had been developed by the former prime minister, Mr. Diefenbaker, and President Eisenhower, and confirmed I believe as recently as April, 1963 by the late President Kennedy.
That agreement, which had been sustained through informal quarterly meetings between the Canadian and United States officials, apparently was abandoned by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Canadian farmers bear the burden of this decision on the part of the government, because it is the farmers who directly bear the burden of the lack of stability in prices.
Government policy clearly has complicated the problems of the dairy industry. The blame for this I believe lies at the door of the Department of Agriculture, because I think in three years we have had three different national dairy policies. That type of action defeats planning and destroys confidence.
Now there would seem to be the danger, because of its indecision and lack of leadership, that the government may allow the difficult situation at the Montreal docks to continue. This is a condition which obstructs the movement of grain and one which is particularly unfortunate now, when the farmers have already suffered through an autumn when deliveries were difficult. The government recently has been questioned about this matter and is held responsible by this house. It is important that action be taken to ensure that shipments of grain are not further disrupted by troubles at the docks in Montreal.
It is not just the policies of the Department of Agriculture which affect the farmers; it is the policies and activities of the government in totality. Perhaps the most serious aspect of the policy of the government, such as it is, is that it seems to be based on a rather sweeping premise that the number of farms should be reduced and an emphasis placed on larger units. Certainly some farmers must be helped to move and many others must be encouraged to diversify. I suggest, however, that it is wrong to base an agricultural policy on the sweeping view that we must everywhere cut back on the number of farms and increase the size of the unit, because I believe there is some evidence that the future of Canadian agriculture in some respects lies in more intensive farming, increased productivity per unit and not necessarily in larger units. That seems to be the conclusion of the Kemptville study, which drew evidence from all over
March 4, 1968

Ontario, and of the study conducted in one of the larger grain producing areas of Alberta.
There is evidence that in the next decade the best use of land will require more farms than at present, not fewer, and that land which is not now in use will be brought into production. This of course was one of the basic purposes of the ARDA project, which we believe should not be forgotten when considering the agricultural policies of this country. Those policies, I suggest, ought not to be based on sweeping premises which are not valid everywhere. I believe there is good reason to anticipate in the future an expanding market for an expanded Canadian agriculture based on the continuing growing demand in the world for food. This does not solve our immediate problem, of course, but it does give us grounds for confidence in the future.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
It is known that the world is entering a period in which the spectre of famine again threatens the progress of less developed countries. The coming decades will apparently be years of crisis so far as famine is concerned. I think there is a real challenge for Canada to co-operate with other developed countries in international programs which provide immediate food relief, by building up a long range agricultural capacity for selected recipient countries. That may mean changing from the attitude whereby we should produce for the nearby city or domestic markets only. Certainly this will require research for the development of new techniques of processing and marketing to allow an increased flow of all Canadian farm commodities to foreign markets.
I should like to say a few words about ARDA, because I believe this program is of central importance to Canadian agriculture, perhaps particularly in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec. It is important not only to those provinces but to all areas of Canada where farm income and productivity has been inordinately low. Under the present government I think ARDA has not realized its full potential. It has placed emphasis on studies which, of course, are necessary, but this has not been sufficiently matched by an emphasis on action. We continue to believe that ARDA could be one of the most effective instruments of social and economic policy ever devised in Canada, but it must be used if it is going to achieve this purpose.
Let me emphasize again that agricultural policy must be based on a sound and growing
Supply-Agriculture
economy. The government must attach a high priority to agriculture, taking the long range view and recognizing that as an industry with several problems, it is also an industry with expanding opportunities. The government has not shown much confidence in the future of agriculture, and agriculture itself must have confidence in the government.
This industry like all others must of course adapt to change, and the government must assist the process of change, not resist it. Farmers must be efficient to survive profitably; but how can a farmer become efficient and maintain efficiency under the general economic policies of this government as applied in this country today, where credit is as scarce as the proverbial hen's teeth, and when the cost of production is so high in relation to anticipated earnings? Most farmers today have little incentive to mortgage not only their farms, but their lives, because of the little hope and expectation and little return.
The particular point I want to make is that it is not enough to improve efficiency because improvement in efficiency can be taken for granted. I suggest that the government and the minister, so far as agriculture is concerned, have been caught in a vicious circle. Certainly to be profitable a farm must be efficient, but because of rising costs fewer efficient farms are profitable. I suggest this government is eliminating incentives to be efficient by permitting inflation to continue and allowing the farmer to be confronted by high cost credit, making it virtually impossible for a farmer to feel any confidence in planning his investment.
So, as I say, it is all very well to talk about efficiency, but the total effect of government policy is to eliminate the incentive for farmers to be efficient today. I suggest this is a very serious state of affairs. There are very many problems in agriculture today. Before much progress is to be made with these problems this government, or some other, must once again provide some incentive for the farmer to be efficient, and make it possible for the farmer to plan wisely and to look ahead with some confidence of gaining a reasonable return on the increasing investment he has to make.
Thank you very much.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, I was most
pleased to see the Leader of the Opposition enter this debate on farm policy. I must

March 4, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
apologize to other members who have spoken, because I certainly intend to the best of my knowledge, to attempt to answer the queries they have raised, but in light of the position held by the hon. gentleman who has just spoken as leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition I think I owe him the courtesy of speaking immediately. I trust other hon. members will bear with me in this regard.
First of all, the hon. gentleman began in a tone of humility by indicating to the house that he would not have all the answers or solutions to agricultural problems in half an hour. Whatever else may be said of the speech he has just made, I think we can all agree that his humility was well justified. What we have heard is a series of platitudes in respect of the problems facing agriculture, most of which have been voiced over the years by other speakers when discussing agricultural problems.
The hon. gentleman has not taken care to check the facts he has presented to us in respect of the well-being of the agricultural industry today as compared to its well-being at the time when the country was beset by the government of the party opposite. I think possibly it might be well, as we all wish the hon. gentleman good fortune during his years in opposition, if we set the facts straight, so that in the future he may base his agricultural criticism on the facts as they exist.
First of all, the hon. gentleman indicated that this government had been remiss in some ways in respect of its export policies, and indicated that if there had been vigorous export policies larger markets could have been found. He suggested this was one of the inherent problems. Let me help the hon. gentleman by citing the record in this regard, particularly in respect of the comparison he attempted to make between this government and the Conservative party when it was in office, as to the respective measures taken to achieve export sales. These are the facts for the perusal and consideration of the hon. gentleman.
Wheat is probably the major item of our agricultural exports, which has contributed greatly to our balance of payments, and represents the considerable and worthy contribution made by the farmers of Canada. In 1960-61 some 353.5 million bushels of wheat were sold at a value of $602 million. In 196162 some 358 million bushels of wheat were sold at a value of $686 million while in 196263 some 331.4 million bushels of wheat were sold at a value of $668 million.

[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Then, strangely, things began to improve. In 1963-64, there were 594.5 million bushels which brought to the farmers of Canada a total of $1,185,000,000. In 1964-65, the figure is
399.6	million bushels, bringing to the farmers of Canada a total of $880 million. In 1965-66 the figure was 584.9 million bushels, for a total return of $1,126,000,000 to the farmers of Canada. In 1966-67, the estimated figure is
516.6	million bushels for a total of $1,072,000,000 return to the farmers of Canada.
An. hon. Member: Finish the story.


John James Greene: I know that hon. gentlemen opposite do not like to discuss facts, but whether they like it or no, I propose to tell something of the factual story of what has happened in agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John James Greene: The record in this regard speaks for itself.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, would the minister permit a question?


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, I think-


An hon. Member:: He is afraid.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it is all right for the hon. member, the farmer from Oshawa, to laugh, but we listened in quietness to the remarks of hon. members opposite and I would ask them to do the same for us, please.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order, please. The minister has the floor, and I think it makes his task more difficult if hon. members make gratuitous remarks from their seats.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, I hope to be able to answer the allegations of the Leader of the Opposition and to set the record straight as to the facts, upon which he can in future base his agricultural endeavours, thinking and suggestions. We need suggestions badly in the area of agriculture. We know there are very difficult problems to be solved. We do not minimize them and we cannot gloss them over. Neither do we base our decisions upon imperfect conclusions of facts; it is in this regard that I hope to straighten out the record.
The Leader of the Opposition, as well as saying that we have not been vigorous in our exports, was also concerned about the real
March 4. 1968

net income received by farmers for the great contribution they make to the total economy of this country. I share the concern of the hon. gentleman in regard to the position of farmers and agree that there is still a long way to go if, incomewise, we are to bring farmers to the standard of the rest of the Canadian economy. But the hon. gentleman indicated that in some measure, if I understood his words, the farmer had suffered, incomewise, since we had been in office from the standpoint of real net income.
While I agree that the farmer is not as well off today as many sectors of the economic community in real, net income, I will cite statistics to indicate that since we have been in office the real net income position of the farmer has progressed at the same pace as has the rest of the incomes in the Canadian economy. If the farmer is still behind, it is because he was too far behind when we took office, and we have not yet been able to catch up.
Here are the facts in this regard, Mr. Chairman. If hon. gentlemen opposite are interested-and they have not shown a propensity to be interested in anything but the political facts of the situation to date-I would point out that based on the 1945 index at 100, in the year 1962 the Dominion Bureau of Statistics represented the total productivity then as being 148. By 1966 this figure had risen to 183. Cash receipts from the sale of farm products totalled $3.1 billion in 1962. In other words, for 1962, the last year hon. gentlemen opposite, or at least some of them, were in office, the total income of farmers in Canada was $3.1 billion. This rose to $4.2 billion in 1966. In other words this was an increase of over $1 billion during the four years we were in office. Hon. gentlemen opposite may well say: "Yes, but that is gross income. Sure, they got an extra $1 billion; but their costs went up."
The Leader of the Opposition made what I think was a valid point as to the increase in costs of the farmer and the cost-price squeeze with which he is faced. But what has happened to his real income during this period? During this same period the farmers' net income rose by 33J per cent from $1,492,000,000 in 1962 to $1,978,000,000 in 1966, an increase of 33 J per cent in the four years we have been in office.
I say it is singular that this increase of 33J per cent compares with the rate increase enjoyed by wage earners of the rest
Supply-Agriculture
of the Canadian economic community. In other words, during our term of office we have been able to increase the farmer's real income, not only through his own productivity but through our aggressive sales in world markets, which has meant that his income has increased by 33J per cent which is about the same rate as the rest of the Canadian community.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, if he is still behind it is as simple as two plus two, because this situation prevailed before we took office. Hon. members opposite tell us about the great accomplishments when they were in office. It is very strange that in spite of the situation which prevailed when hon. members opposite were in office, the farmer has gone ahead 33J per cent since we assumed office but is still behind the rest of the Canadian community.
The hon. member for Kent (Ont.), who I think speaks at times for the party opposite in regard to agricultural matters, indicated a concern about the number of farms that were no longer in operation. He was concerned about the rate of disappearance of farms during our tenure of office, and the fact that a smaller percentage of people in this country were producing the food for the rest of the Canadian community.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
First of all I would point out that, generally speaking, it is apparently an axiom in the world of economics that as the total well-being of a nation progresses, as a nation progresses in industrial development and technology, it is inevitable that a smaller percentage of the people produce the food for the rest of the community. I think we can look at examples of the underdeveloped countries where almost 100 per cent of the population is on the land, but who do not produce a sufficient amount of food to feed these unfortunate people. In lands, such as for instance in Poland, if I recall rightly-and I had occasion to study the statistics last summer when the Polish delegation was here-they have reduced the agricultural population from something like 40 per cent at the end of world war II to some 32 per cent of the total population today. We in Canada, at the beginning of world war II, had some 30 per cent of our people on the land. Today, 8 per cent of the people produce the food, very efficiently, and probably according to the most productive techniques in the world. 1 think this is inevitable with industrial progress which gives new opportunities and new technology.

March 4, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
Experts, be they right or wrong, tell us that with a completely advanced economic community in today's terms it is likely that within the next decade or so some 4 to 5 per cent of Canadians will produce the food for the rest of us. This appears to be an immutable law of economics that, with technology and industrial progress, a smaller percentage of the people produce the food. So I do not quarrel with the basic premise of the hon. member for Kent (Ont.), to which I believe the Leader of the Opposition subscribed. However, I would point out that because of new efficiencies, a smaller percentage of people can produce the food for the rest of us, and if the hon. gentleman opposite has a complaint in this regard, I would say that in the period from 1956 to 1961, when hon. gentlemen opposite were in office, some 94,000 farms went out of production in this country, while from 1961 to 1966, when for a large part of the time we were in office, only 50,000 farms went out of economic production. So again, if there is complaint I think it should be on the basis of facts as they exist.
I should like to point out further that during the period from 1961 to 1966, while 50,000 farms did go out of production, most of them were rated, under the Dominion Bureau of Statistics method of assessing farm income, as non-commercial farms, and during the same period the so-called commercial farms increased by 15,000. In other words, during our term of office many farms have moved from uneconomic farming to economic farming.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: You are
stealing some three years there, but don't let it bother you.


John James Greene: The Leader of the Opposition also complained of the lack of confidence of the agricultural community in the government, and of the fact that this lack of confidence has impeded progress, restrained growth, and persuaded the farmer not to expand his holdings and not to create bigger economic units, because with this government in office, in which they had no confidence, they would not be going ahead in a progressive way, expanding their holdings, and moving ahead with confidence in the future. Let me say this, that the farmer of this country is a pretty hard-headed, tough-fisted, capable, and sound businessman. He certainly would not mortgage his future, borrow now and pay later, in order to create a more prosperous
[Mr. Greened
and bigger farm unit. He would not be borrowing if he did not have confidence in the future, and if he did not feel that the government in office was going to build a bigger and better Canada in which he could thrive and wherein he could pay back the debts that he has accrued.
Let us see what the Canadian farmer has done since we have been in office, and how much confidence he has displayed in the future. In 1961 the Canadian farmer borrowed $69 million from the Farm Credit Corporation. That was the extent of his confidence in the future when the Tories were in office.


An hon. Member:: He did not need to borrow.


John James Greene: In 1962 he borrowed $78 million; in 1963 he borrowed $96 million; in 1964 he borrowed $140 million; in 1965, $202 million; and in 1966, $234 million.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: He had to borrow money then.


John James Greene: That is how little confidence the Canadian farmer had in the future of this country.
I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the Leader of the Opposition cannot have it both ways. In 1966, because of his faith in the future, the Canadian farmer borrowed over twice as much as he did when hon. gentlemen opposite were in office.


An hon. Member:: He had to, to survive.


John James Greene: I think the Leader of the Opposition must decide: Either the Canadian farmer borrowed this large amount in the year 1966 because he had confidence in the future of this country and in this government, or the Canadian farmer borrowed this kind of money without knowing what he was doing; and he was a very stupid fellow to borrow the money if this country did not have a future. I do not know which way the Leader of the Opposition wants to have it, but either he is saying that the judgment of the Canadian farmer must have been very poor indeed, if he borrowed the largest amount in history to expand his holding when this government was in office, and when he should have had no confidence in the future of this country with this government in office, or that he did in fact have confidence in the future of this country and in this government.
March 4, 1968

1 know the Leader of the Opposition will be taking part in future debates on agriculture because I am sure he learned something about agriculture in his native province, which he left only too recently. I do not wish to delve into this area because it is not our immediate concern-although it is indirectly, because of course there are federal and provincial departments of agriculture. Certainly I think there is great co-operation between provincial departments and the federal department in attempting to reach new levels of well-being for the Canadian farmers. I know the Leader of the Opposition has some concern in agriculture, because if there is one area in Canada that is in trouble in agriculture, it is the province of Nova Scotia. So I think he knows whereof he speaks when it comes to problems of agriculture. I think he knows that the solutions there are not easy. The rationalization of farm units and the creation of bigger and more productive farms in the province of Nova Scotia has gone at a pace slower than it has in other parts of this country. I would throw no rocks at anyone for this, because I am very certain the government of that province is doing everything possible. Certainly we are prepared to cooperate with the province in every way possible in order to help them move ahead in creating more viable and more productive economic units which will provide better income for those who choose to remain in agriculture.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I certainly appreciate the fact that the Leader of the Opposition must have grave concern for agriculture by reason of the very difficult situation in his province because despite his many years in office there, they were not able to solve completely their agricultural problems, and what they have solved has been achieved at a slower pace than in other parts of Canada.
I was somewhat lost by the argument the hon. gentleman advanced when he stated that most of these fine policies to which he referred had been the creations, the brainchildren of the party opposite when they were in office. This is what he said at one point; and shortly thereafter he said the policies were ineffective, inadequate and virtually useless. I am not quite sure whether these policies have become tired and jaded since we came to office. If they were their policies in the first place and they were good then, evidently they have become no good now. I
Supply-Agriculture
hope the hon. gentleman will enlighten us in this regard.
The Leader of the Opposition referred specifically to ARDA. I believe I have always tried to give credit where it was due. ARDA was originally conceived by hon. gentlemen opposite when they were in office. I have never been quite sure in my own mind as to whether it was the offspring of the hon. member for Calgary North when he was minister of agriculture or that of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. Certainly one of the two of them deserve credit for the original ARDA concept, and I would not deny this for a moment. I do suggest that the scope of ARDA has been broadened considerably since we have been in office. Originally ARDA was purely an agricultural scheme whereby the small farm might be made more productive, and so that larger units such as those to which we have referred might be created. This program is now used in conjunction with the FRED program. With this as the foundation stone, if you like, we may, if we move ahead with courage, with imagination and with vision, take great steps toward the abolition of rural poverty from the Canadian scene. I do give full marks to hon. gentlemen opposite for the original concept, but I should like to say to the Leader of the Opposition that the original concept has been broadened very widely, has been enhanced, has been used far more in the past few years than it has been since its original conception.
The hon. gentleman alleges it has not been used sufficiently. I would remind him although I think he is familiar with the fact, that the initiative under ARDA lies with the provinces. If the program has not been used sufficiently, and I know of no important ARDA project that has been turned down at the federal level, then I can only say it is certainly only because the provinces in their wisdom have not seen fit to bring as many ARDA suggestions or programs to us as the hon. gentleman would like. However it is surely most inconsistent to say there have not been sufficient ARDA projects when, to the best of my knowledge, we at the federal level have turned down few, if any. If the hon. gentleman has any quarrel in this regard, I trust he will take it up with the provinces where the initiation of ARDA projects emanates.
Again, Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman complains that the Canadian farmer is unable to obtain sufficient credit. We have established the fact that the Canadian farmer is

March 4, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
able to obtain more credit and does obtain more credit through the Farm Credit Corporation today than ever before. The hon. gentleman complains that the Canadian farmer is having a difficult time, and I agree, in connection with farm improvement loans. He complains that farm improvement loans are inadequate because the interest is set at 5 per cent per annum. It is stated that the banks will not lend money at 5 per cent per annum and therefore the farmers are- not getting as much money as the hon. gentleman deems they require. I respectfully ask him this: Do I take it from his remarks that he advocates raising the ceiling on interest on farm improvement loans? The hon. gentleman shakes his head negatively. If that is the case, then I do not quite understand his complaints that farmers cannot get money because the interest rate is too low, but he does not want to raise the interest rate. I hope that at some future time he will tell us how he would solve the dilemma. Apparently he wants to have it both ways.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would be very pleased to do this.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman opposite complains also about the possibility of future strikes.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order; I must advise the minister that the time allotted to him has expired.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Oh, no, carry on.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee give unanimous consent to the minister to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John James Greene: 
Mr. Jorgenson:: Where is the $2 promise for wheat?
March 4, 1968


John James Greene: Well, now-


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Give us some more peanuts.


John James Greene: Well, now, hon. gentlemen of the opposition ask about wheat prices. I think that is a good question, and I am glad they have asked it. Apparently they take exception to the fact that, for the first time in history, this government has seen fit to guarantee the price of wheat to the western farmer at $1.95J.


An hon. Member:: What about $2 wheat?


John James Greene: With respect to the implementation of the Kennedy round agreement and the world wide wheat agreement, I fail to understand how the Leader of the Opposition who, to the best of my knowledge in public life is known for the care of his statements-I believe he is known as a square dealer-can say that Canadians in any way are responsible for the fact that the maximum and minimum prices agreed on in the Kennedy round have not yet been brought into the world wide wheat agreement.
Canadians attended at meetings of the world wheat council. I think my colleagues will indicate to you that we have been in constant communication and constant negotiation with others to assure the implementation of the Kennedy agreement into the world wheat agreement. I feel sure that those negotiations will be successful. How the Leader of the Opposition can allege-and this, really, is not only a criticism of the government but also of its officials, who are responsible for carrying out negotiations to bring the agreements under the Kennedy round into the world wheat agreement-that there has been negligence, that we or our officials have been remiss in our duties and that we could or should have done something in order to implement the Kennedy round agreements into the world wheat agreements, I fail to understand. I think that that was a very unfair and untrue criticism, with all respect, Mr. Chairman.
As hon. members know, after the successful conclusion of the Kennedy round negotiations on May 16 of last year, world wheat prices dropped sharply. That made it difficult for the buyer nations to implement the Kennedy round agreement and world wheat agreement in July, as we had anticipated would be possible. It made that negotiation more difficult. We do not control world wheat prices. Certainly I think the Canadian minister and 27053-4584
Supply-Agriculture
Canadian officials took every proper step and pursued the end most actively of implementing this price range of the Kennedy round agreement into the world wheat agreement.
If we want to talk about world wheat prices, here are some facts about world wheat prices. In 1957-8 the price of No. 1 Northern was $1.62. In 1958-9 it was $1.60; in 1959-60 it was $1.59; in 1960-61 it was $1.80 ; in 1961-62 it reached $1.91. Let us recall that these prices were on volumes of sales that equal about half the volumes that have been sold since we have been in office. The price in 1962-63 was $1.87; in 1963-64 it was $1.97. I did not hear much about $1.97 wheat from 1957 to 1962. The price in 1964-65 was $1.89; in 1965-66 it was $2; the estimated price in 1966-67 is $2. That is that $2 wheat hon. members over there are talking about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John James Greene: So, if we are going to talk about wheat prices, let's talk about them.


An hon. Member:: We will, just wait.


John James Greene: Let us put them on the record and let us see who sold wheat and in what quantities and at what prices, and we will stand on that record every time.
I will not take much longer, Mr. Chairman, since many hon. members of the opposition have asked me to reply to the questions they have posed. I would not have intervened at this time had it not been for the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. I thought it would be proper for me to make a few comments. Speaking to the hon. Leader of the Opposition I feel that, having now been straightened out as to the facts in agriculture, the hon. gentleman in future when addressing this house, and now having those facts, will be able to make some very worthy contributions to the difficult subject of agriculture.


Mr. Ormiston:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to spend the time at my disposal in arguing with the Minister of Agriculture. I commend the leader of the official opposition for the grasp that he appears to have of the problems facing us in agriculture at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Norris Ormiston: Certainly, he sank the Minister of Agriculture and his protestations, and methinks that the minister protested too much.

March 4. 1968
Supply-Agriculture
There is no doubt that since Friday the minister has had to absorb many suggestions to do with agriculture. Many more will be forthcoming in the debate, before it is over. The minister has had suggestions not only from members of this house, but from two organizations which have presented briefs; I refer to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the National Farmers Union. Certainly, the briefs cover many aspects of agricultural needs. I shall not deal with those aspects in the few minutes at my disposal.
Having perused those briefs, I can appreciate what is contained therein respecting the vagaries of increased production costs and diminishing financial returns, with which those who presented the briefs are so concerned. For the life of me, I cannot find anything which would indicate that the present voluntary crop insurance plan, plus the provisions of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, are sufficient to protect western farmers from the effects of natural hazards or to compensate them for losses.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
It is all very well to talk about prices when farmers have a crop to sell. But when there is a crop failure more should be done than is being done at the present time to help farmers out of a serious situation. The prevalence of a short crop in the 1967 year and the experience of payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act bring into focus the state of our agriculture legislation. We are today employing the provisions of an act which was brought into effect in 1939, when conditions were much different from those which exist today. In 1939 there were many quarter section farms where farmers used horses and horse-drawn machinery. The number of farms was far larger, and a different type of farm operation was being carried out in many cases. The provisions of the act might have been more effective then than they are today. Under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act the maximum number of acres in respect of which an award may be paid to an individual farmer is 200. The maximum award is $800, and over the last 29 years the average payment has amounted to only $300.
It can be seen from these figures that in the event of a crop failure the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is only of limited value. Because of the very nature of the legislation, a growing number of abuses has come into being and these are known not only to the local inspectors but to the supervisory staff as well.

This is a situation which causes grave concern to those administering the act. Should further erosion take place the usefulness of this legislation will be even further impaired.
Several years ago, in 1964 to be exact, a report was produced by Judge Harold Pope in consequence of alleged irregularities, and he made several recommendations for the improvement of the act. Regardless of the good intentions of the commissioner none of these recommendations was put into effect, possibly because it was felt something more than piecemeal improvements were needed to bring this legislation up to date. I suppose it was with this idea in mind that the Crop Insurance Act was passed in 1959 in the hope that eventually it would provide suitable assistance to prairie farmers and supersede the older legislation.
I realize that the provinces administer the crop insurance scheme, but further help is needed from the federal government before the plan is equipped to give full and comprehensive coverage. Many farmers in low yield areas feel present premiums are too high if an adequate financial return is to be ensured. Surely a review of the act is now in order. It has been in effect for seven years and further thought should be given to the application of premiums actuarially set, with the possibility of assistance to marginal areas for a limited period, certainly for long enough to ascertain whether or not such a scheme is practicable.
In the meantime, since we have to live with P.F.A.A., there is certainly one improvement which might be considered and this is the application of a deterrent fee when municipalities apply for inspections. Too much money is being wasted in the business of inspection, and if the approximate cost of inspection were to accompany an application a more responsible attitude would almost certainly result.
That is the only point I wish to make before closing. Before I resume my seat, though, I should like to commend the Minister of Agriculture for the impartial way in which the local P.F.A.A. inspectors have been chosen. Certainly this added strength to the administration of the act last year, and if there are any complaints they are certainly not to be directed against the dedicated public servants who are doing their best to administer this legislation.


Mr. McKinley:: I am sure the farmers of Canada will be interested to hear the Minister of Agriculture telling them tonight they have never had things so good as they are now. Of
March 4, 1968

course this is what they were trying to tell the minister when they were up here last summer, out on the lawn. Maybe he would like to give us a report as to how good the security measures were on that day.
There is a theory going around that there are just too many farmers altogether, and that the only way to cure the problems of agriculture is to starve them off the farms. This is a theory which I cannot accept. We have seen the elimination of the quality subsidies on hogs, lambs and cheese. This is another indication of the belief in this theory that is going around.
There is another theory which is held by some people in the government, and it is that all farmers are well off. I have talked with some of the officials working in the public service and they come up with this idea. They figure that all farmers drive around in Cadillacs except when they are in Florida-they fly down there. This is not very true, and it is the wrong way in which to consider the problems of agriculture. The fact of the matter is that farmers who make a go of it are obliged to work very hard indeed. They have to be well up in the latest methods, they have to be extremely fortunate with regard to marketing conditions and they have to enjoy a lot of luck. I think luck comes into it as much as anything, and maybe it is the most important factor.
Farming is no bowl of cherries even for fruit farmers, and if anyone in the government thinks it is his ideas ought certainly to have been changed when the farmers came down here last summer to see the Minister of Agriculture and the other ministers, out here on the lawn. The Prime Minister was afraid to face them.


John James Greene: So was I.


Robert Elgin McKinley: They even got shut out when they wanted to come inside. That is something I never thought we would see in the House of Commons. I guess that is when the farmers learned pretty well where they stand with these fellows across the aisle. Later on they did get some adjustment in the dairy farm situation. Returns for milk improved to a certain extent, but just enough to cover extra costs of production. With every single thing he produces, the cost situation as it affects the farmer grows worse. I think the minister knows this. He lives in a part of the country where costs have risen just as quickly as anywhere else, and where prices received by farmers have failed to keep pace.
Supply-Agriculture
The market is not organized as it might be. One province tries to organize a little, then it runs into imports from other provinces and says: What the heck, we might as well forget about it. More assistance might be provided for a national marketing scheme if the government were interested in doing anything like that. I cannot see how this minister, knowing what he knows, can stand up in his place and say in effect that the farmer has never had it so good. It is simply not true. Maybe members of the cabinet have never had it so good, but that does not apply to the farmers of this country.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Farmers are caught in a tremendous cost-price squeeze, more so than they were even back in the 1950's. The little changes in the price of wheat that the minister has mentioned have not kept pace with farmers' costs. It does not matter what farmers produce, be it livestock or wheat, their costs have increased, while the prices of their products have either remained stationary or in some cases have gone down. However, everything they have to buy has soared in price. Hog prices, cattle, farm prices in general have gone down, including the prices of eggs and poultry. But the price of prepared feed, of farm implements, gasoline and all the other necessities has almost doubled within the last few years. On top of this the retail price of farm products to the consumer has gone up something fabulously. The consumer price index has increased by about 50 per cent since 1951, but the farmer is still selling his produce at the same price. It should be remembered that the farmer is also one of the consumers.
The farmer, along with the miner, fisherman, lumberman and labourer is one of the basic producers of the country, and as a food producer he is probably the most important economic unit in the nation. Yet when a situation arises in which he should be in a position to show a profit after the lean years, what happens? The implement manufacturers raise their prices. The food retailers raise their prices. But they don't give the farmer anything more for what he produces. They do, however, charge him more for what he consumes. The feed manufacturers raise their prices, but what the farmer gets stays the same. How can anybody honestly say that the farmer never had it so good? It seems that everybody in this country goes all out to

March 4, 1868
Supply-Agriculture
gouge the man whose production is the very basis of economic prosperity.
This is the classic pattern. The government pays no attention to what is happening to the farmer, because it feels that with the drop in farm population it can get along without the farmers' votes. Mr. Chairman, I suggest this government is going to find out how wrong it is in that theory at the next election.
The farmer has not been able to organize. Until recently he did not have a union. When automobile workers feel that they are being stepped on they all get together and pull a strike. The farmer does not do this; he is not organized to that extent. But in recent years he has become much more organized, and those who are growing rich by buying the farmer's product cheap and selling it back to him and others at a high price, may find that when the farmer finally decides it is necessary to be organized he, the farmer, may be a lot tougher than many labour unions.
The government has taken very little action to help the farmers. It even locked them out when they came to parliament hill. These farmers are not going to put up with that kind of treatment too long from a bunch of people who are elected. Occasionally these people seem to forget that they are elected. The farmers are not going to sit around and put up with the importation of $6 million worth of eggs, as happened last year. We had 9 million dozen eggs imported from the United States of America and 50,000 dozen from Australia. That is how the government treats the Canadian egg producer. We had the importation of over $700,000 worth of dried eggs and $1 million worth of egg products, including egg yolks, from other countries. We imported 112,000 pounds of dried eggs from Poland. What does this do to help our Canadian producers?
In the first ten months of 1967 we had over
4.000	pounds of butter imported from East Germany, 58,000 pounds from Belgium, and
22.000	pounds from New Zealand. Last year more than $7 million worth of cheese was imported. What does this do for the Canadian dairy farmer? In the first ten months of 1967 we had a lot of turkeys imported from the United States, yet we can raise all the turkeys in this country that Canadians can eat. They don't have to come from any other place.
It is all right for the minister to give a rosy picture of the Canadian farm situation. The government seems to look at the problem in light of the fact that there will be fewer
IMr. McKinley.]
farmers on the land to vote against it, and it feels that this is a good trend. Some 12,000 farms have disappeared in Ontario since 1961. That is how serious the situation is. I think we will have to make up our minds as a nation whether farming is to become strictly a business or whether it can continue as a way of life for a great many Canadians who know no other way to live, and who do not want to join the unemployed in the big cities. That is what we will have to decide in working out farm policies, and that is the decision the government has refused to face.
We will have to help the successful farmer to stay successful, because we must have what he produces. At the same time we will have to take steps to make it possible for farming to continue as a way of life for those who wish to carry it on, because we need a continuing supply of food producers in this nation.
An article in the December issue of the Canadian Geographical Journal, by D. F. Symington, deals with the question of rural problems and describes the kind of government policies, aimed at regional improvement, which should be applied but which are not being applied at the present time. I quote as follows:
The 1961 passage of the ARDA legislation encouraged governments not only to admit, but to proclaim the reality of serious rural economic dislocation. Since then statistics on rural hardship have been widely quoted. Based mainly on analyses of the 1961 census, the figures indicate that of the Canadian total of 481,000 farms, 209,000 have gross annual sales of less than $3,750.
That is astounding. These people, along with their families, comprise a formidable corps scattered throughout Ontario; yet of its total of 120,000 farms some 50,000 sell less than $2,500 worth of products per year. The article continues.
Hundreds of thousands of farmers throughout Canada have been forced out of business by the price-controlling effect of vastly more efficient agricultural production. Huge productive capability in western Canada resulted from wartime mechanization applied to vast level and generally fertile lands. Application of large-scale capital investment to chicken, egg, milk, beef and other areas of production throughout Canada resulted in penalties for those who could not or did not employ enough capital.
In my opinion it was mostly "could not."
National policy, and the provincial policies with which it must be coherent, is not simple to work out. The key, in Canada at least, is probably in setting up a viable framework for regional development, to provide full rein to the real potentials of each region.
March 4, 1968

[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
This involves flexible tax arrangements between the federal and provincial governments; it involves decentralization of federal administration, with considerable changes in the federal departmental framework; it involves introduction of new technologies and new approaches to research and data collection; it involves education, manpower mobility and industrial development programs much more dynamic and coherent than are at present in effect. In sum, regional development demands sensitive and intelligent consideration of the natural resources, the market potentials, and the attitudes, skills and potentials of the people.
A recent United States report establishes that rural failures often become a factor in respect of city unemployment figures. There is absolutely no advantage in removing people from the farms and bringing them into the city as unemployment or welfare charges. A presidential advisory commission in the United States has urged full employment and prosperity for the rural people even if, as reported in the New York Times for December 10, the government has to provide the jobs to end what the panel calls a national disgrace. A similar situation exists in Canada where ARDA programs, idealistic in concept, have been reduced to ineffectiveness by administrative bumbling, as revealed in recent reports. The President's national advisory commission on rural hardship in the United States calls for equality of opportunity in rural areas in regard to housing, jobs, education and welfare. The report of the commission states that the need is even greater in rural than in urban areas. It urges that this need be given priority in legislation and appropriations.
What about the situation in Canada? There has been criticism with regard to soil and water conservation programs carried on under ARDA. The ARDA concept was and is a good one. It is an encouragement to the farmer to stay on the land and arrest the drift to the city that has become a flood. Recent reports by the economic council reveal that the administration of ARDA is not carrying out the original principles upon which ARDA was based. It says that 500,000 rural families are suffering hardships. ARDA funds are being dissipated in unrealistic projects-the "blueberry patch" approach. This is administrative weakness and does not carry out the original ideals. In effect the report of the economic council emphasizes concentration on human resources rather than physical resources, although the latter is not outlawed as a supplementary aid. The report talks about "out migration" from rural to urban communities, which it regards as a partial
Supply-Agriculture
solution to the problem. If the problem could be solved in that way, it is well on its way to solution.
It is very difficult to see any solution in the putting forward of government policy to assist what is going on, and will continue to go on even if no policies at all are put forward. What is required at this point, in the light of all the information, the numerous studies, and the enormous amount of money that has been spent, is a decision by the government, or rather by the nation. What is our policy as a nation in the face of rural hardship? We must as a nation decide whether we consider it important to retain a rural population on the land, halt the exodus, put an end to economic and social attrition, and stop the hopeless drift away from the farms and villages. Some people feel that such a decision cannot be economical. The cost of sustaining those who have problems is not greatly altered by their transfer from a country to a city environment. There is also the social question of whether or not we can afford to make the effort, in view of the growing chaos of underprivileged metropolitanism. Such waste is self-perpetuating and multiplies from generation to generation. Rather than add to the problems of urbanism, there is a decided social and economic advantage in dealing with the rural people in the rural area where they are at home, and which they know best.
If successful, programs designed to this end will produce decided benefits such as stability, social balance, dividends in terms of health, lower delinquency and reduced welfare in the cities. Those who are subject to this form of economic attrition have not been able to resist the lure of urban benefits and higher incomes. They have drifted in from the rural areas, seeking higher incomes in the cities. In some cases they have found them; in other cases the improvement has been temporary, since they have found themselves unable to adjust and have been forced to go on to the welfare and unemployment lists. This of course is no solution, and simply adds to the misery and congestion of already overcrowded city areas. If we are to maintain a progressive society we cannot afford to have within our midst growing pockets of hardship. The attempts over the years by various governments in Canada and the United States are an illustration of the general acceptance of the concept of equality of opportunity for all. We have within our midst "have not" Canadians; we have underdeveloped regions which need help as much as do the underdeveloped nations.

March 4, 1968
Business of the House
As an indication of how bad the situation is, I might mention it has been brought to my attention that a Liberal from the other place has written an editorial on his subject, after bringing in a bill. It seems to me that if this is something which can awaken a Liberal senator, then it is indeed an indication that things are very, very bad. Twelve thousand pounds of milk is the production from only two cows. In Huron county I do not suppose anyone is milking only two cows, but I am given to understand that this is the situation in some areas through the country. I believe another look should be taken at this policy. May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Monleilh:: Mr. Speaker, is the house leader going to announce the business for tomorrow?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we propose to continue tomorrow with the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being ten o'clock this house stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at 2.30 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 5, 1968