1968-03-01

FINANCE, TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS NINTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the ninth report of the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs prepared, as usual, in English and French.

In this report we return to the house the text of the resolution on customs tariff.
[Editor's note: For report referred, to above, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]



LABOUR RELATIONS


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table copies in English and French of the order which I, as Minister of Labour, have made appointing Hon. Arthur I. Smith of the Superior Court of Quebec as an industrial inquiry commission to inquire into conditions of labour unrest in the three St. Lawrence ports.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table this document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-203, to amend the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs Act.


Mr. Knowles:: Explain.


Barry Mather: The purpose of this bill is to amend the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs Act to provide, so far as parliament may do so, that manufacturers
and marketers be required to indicate the life expectancy of their products. Many manufacturers now have a good idea how long a toaster or a light bulb will last, for example. If this bill is approved the consumer will also have that knowledge.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lee Grills (Hastings South):: Mr. Speaker, I intended directing my question to the Minister of Agriculture or his parliamentary assistant. In their absence I shall direct it to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. I am sure the minister is aware of the implications of the sale of artificial dairy products in Canada. Can he advise the house whether his department has any plan at this time to safeguard the interests of the Canadian dairy industry?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minisier of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Canadian Dairy Commission has already been notified of the problem and the Minister of Agriculture will be in a position to report on that matter later on next week.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In its search for revenues to make up for the loss under the late Bill C-193, is the government giving consideration to proposing a capital gains tax?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: The government is looking at all sources of revenue. Of course a capital gains tax would not produce very much revenue immediately even if it were to be introduced.
March 1. 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Saini-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Revenue.
Following a recommendation of the Carter report, will the minister agree to grant tax exemptions to working mothers for the care of their children?


Mr. Speaker:: I think this question could easily be put on the order paper.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: My question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Considering the leading role Canada has played in Rhodesian affairs, particularly with regard to sanctions, is the hon. gentleman's department arranging a face to face consultation with Sir Alec Douglas-Home subsequent to his talks today with Prime Minister Harold Wilson?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I shall have to wait until a report of those talks is given to the Canadian government.


Howard Earl Johnston: A supplementary question. Could the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicate whether there will be an October commonwealth conference, and whether it will be held in Ottawa?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot add to what has already been said on this subject. No decision has been taken. The Canadian government is in consultation with other commonwealth governments, and when a decision on this matter has been reached the house will be advised.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Now that the
[Mr. Sharp.)
government has apparently reached a definite decision on the future of medicare, will the hon. gentleman soon announce on motions or on another suitable occasion the government's plans to increase the number of trained medical personnel?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The plans for that purpose have already been indicated to parliament.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Finance. Has the government reached a decision with regard to including fur farmers under the Farm Credit Corporation? If not, when may a decision be expected in this regard?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think the Farm Credit Corporation comes under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister of Agriculture.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Any amendments to the Farm Credit Corporation Act will be announced in the house in the normal fashion. At the present time no changes in the ambit of the act are contemplated.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister of Trade and Commerce stated an hour ago that he favours dealing with fiscal measures before there is any adjournment of the house. May I ask whether this represents government policy?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have not seen a text of what my colleague has said, but I am sure that whatever he did say would be fully consistent with government policy. When the hon. gentleman said the Minister of Trade and Commerce had made a statement he used the word "favours", and I thought he was going on to say he favoured a particular candidate. I still hope he does.
March 1, 1968



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has he received a resolution passed by the legislature of Prince Edward Island urging the federal government to define and establish a strategic military function for the Canadian forces base at Summerside, assuring its continuation at present or increased levels of usefulness and activity?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows it is not sufficient simply to ask whether a telegram or resolution has been received.


John Angus MacLean: Then may I rephrase my question and ask the minister if he would take this resolution under advisement in the hope that he might be able to give a reassuring statement to the house and to the people of Prince Edward Island in the near future.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I think I can give that reassuring statement right now. On Monday 1 had the privilege of meeting with the premier and a delegation from the province who came to present a brief on the use of the Summer-side base. I have declared, and I repeat, that the base is not going to be closed, that we are trying to maintain the highest possible level of military activity there, that we have received suggestions from the province which we are studying, and that we are going to meet in a couple of weeks' time to decide whether we can implement them.



INQUIRY AS TO REDUCTION IN STRENGTH OF ARMED FORCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of National Defence. I would like to ask the minister if it was an information leak that Canadian armed forces personnel will be reduced to 90,000, or is this a policy decision being considered by his department and the government?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: The way I understand it, Mr. Speaker, that is a speculative story. We have fixed the floor at 100,000 and I hope we can stay there. This is what I consider a minimum to meet the commitments that we have.
Inquiries of the Ministry SHIPPING



MONTREAL-INQUIRY AS TO ACTION TO CONTROL PILFERAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the serious dangers to the port of Montreal this coming shipping season-I believe the minister knows what those risks are-would he take into consideration the recommendations of the last eight inquiries into this situation and bring about some action before the shipping season opens in earnest next month?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, some action has already been taken. As my hon. friend might expect, the National Harbours Board has already acted in one of the most critical areas relating to pilferage. They have hired some of the most competent people available in the business to establish a police system to bring this abuse under control. They have confidence that the plans they have embarked on can cope, hopefully quite adequately, with what has been a very serious problem. Although an additional inquiry is being made I am sure that wherever action is possible, based on previous inquiries, it will not be held up just because another inquiry is under way.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister heard of any indications of an intention to hold lock-outs at the grain terminal plants in the port of Montreal this year?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: have heard some rumours but I have no definite information.


William Heward Grafftey: You will wait for the crisis to develop. This is government by crisis.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. In view of mounting criticism from many ports in Canada, including Montreal, is the government considering a major reorganization of finance and administration policies with respect to these ports, and if so when will it be implemented?

March 1, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is a very major policy question, Mr. Speaker, but a study is being done to review the present operations of all ports, the different administrations which apply to them, and the relative success of the different forms of administration. Once this study has been done we will be in a better position to know what changes, if any, should be recommended so far as port administration is concerned.


Thomas Miller Bell: As a supplementary question, can the minister say whether the government has in mind a method by which there would be a greater degree of local autonomy given to the ports?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Inevitably, Mr. Speaker, this is one of the questions which will be raised and hopefully answered, or at least dealt with in the inquiry. It is one of the things we would have to know before considering any alternative form of administration, whether it should be the same across the country or whether we need to have different forms to meet local conditions in different parts of the country.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. E. Nixon (Algoma West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Is the minister in a position to report on the threatened strike of the employees of Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company of Flin Flon, Manitoba, which was set for today?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. I might say that the strike deadline constituted a serious threat to the economy of Flin Flon. When I learned of it I dispatched a special mediator to the area about a week ago. I am happy to say I have just received a report that a tentative settlement was agreed upon yesterday and approved by a vote of the union members taken last night. It would seem that the threatened strike has been averted.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for

the minister of Indian affairs. Has he received any representations on behalf of John Stephen Marshall of the Eskasoni Indian reservation? I understand these representations were made by St. Francis Xavier University and the John Howard Society with regard to the charge of arson and subsequent severe sentence.
In view of the sad and regrettable circumstances surrounding the case would the minister please check with the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice to see whether a reassessment could be made of this case?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite certain the hon. member would not wish me to comment on the quality of justice dispensed by Canadian courts. Recourse is available, and I understand an appeal is being organized on behalf of the man. Some of my officials think there are some extenuating circumstances, in that a new house was being constructed for the man and there was some evidence that he was in a hurry to get into it.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pose a supplementary question with regard to John Stephen Marshall. In view of the fact that the minister did not indicate in his reply that he will institute an inquiry, may I direct my question to the Solicitor General. Is he aware that this man has suffered long term unemployment, which is rampant in his region; that he suffered from alcoholism, which is rampant across Canada; that he could not speak English, only Mic-Mac; and was not represented by defence counsel? Could he, in view of these extenuating circumstances, cause an inquiry to be held?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add anything to the answer given by my colleague the Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but I will discuss the matter with him.



ROUTE TO BE FOLLOWED BY EXPORTS TO JAPAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I apologize for not having given him notice, but there is a good deal of
March 1, 1968

interest in the west with regard to the shipping of Fernie coal to the coast. Has the minister anything further to report to the house with regard to the shipment of this coal to Canadian Pacific ports?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, there is not very much I can add to what has been said already. Negotiations with the company are continuing, and I am still hopeful that the coal will be carried by Canadian carriers to the lower mainland port. I still believe this is essential so far as Canadian interests are concerned, and we are assuming that this will be the case.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Industry.
In view of the fact that some industries would readily settle in Abitibi, an area which has been neglected for many years, does the hon. minister intend to include that area in the list of designated areas?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, the selection of designated areas is made after studying the unemployment statistics. There is no question of discretion or selection other than that based on the study of unemployment statistics.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware of the fact that several hundred people in Abitibi, particularly in La Sarre area, are forced to go and find work in the neighbouring province of Ontario? Is he also aware of the fact that this latter region is considered to be a designated area and that the industries which are now thinking of locating at La Sarre would consider going to Ontario, if Abitibi is not recognized as a designated area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, has the minister received representations by the organized bodies of the northwestern Quebec area asking him to include the area in the list of designated areas?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Not personally, Mr. Speaker, but I shall inquire into it, in order to find out if representations have been made to the department.
Inquiries of the Ministry



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Loney (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the serious implications of Bill S-34, to amend the dairy commission act, which was introduced in the Senate by his party's agricultural critic.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking for an expression of opinion, and I suggest the question is not in order.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marqueite):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether, in planning the work of this house for the remainder of this session, any consideration is being given to setting aside a day or two to discuss the constitutional questions the Prime Minister had in mind before the defeat of the government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the first thing I should like to say to the hon. gentleman is that I am sure all of us in this house are very glad to see him in his seat today after a long interval of serious illness.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister indicated, I think on Wednesday, that the government would have been happy to consider in this house last week the constitutional conference and its implications. However,, there was not a general disposition on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite to accommodate the government in that regard. We regard this as a very important matter, and we will have to consider this further manifestation of interest in this vital problem that faces the Canadian people at this time.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Speaker, would you request the Acting Prime Minister to give us several days advance notice of any plan to hold such a debate?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house will be acquainted with the program which faces parliament in its ensuing days.

March 1. 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES



INQUIRY AS TO ESTABLISHMENT OF FRESH WATER FISH MARKETING BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric Stefanson (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is reported to be leaving his present portfolio, can he give the house an up to date progress report in respect of the recommendations of the Mclvor commission on fresh water fish marketing?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we still have this under consideration, and we are in active consultation with the western provinces, particularly Manitoba. We are developing a program which will allow us to work together, federally and provincially, to evolve a plan which we hope will help the fresh water fishermen in the marketing of their fish.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a supplementary question. We realize it takes two tries to stay in. How many tries is it going to take to get out?



REPORTED HEAVY IMPORTS OF VEGETABLE OILS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, several days ago I asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he would look into the problem in relation to the heavy importation of vegetable oils in direct competition with domestic oils which are now in oversupply. Is the minister prepared to answer that question now?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the answer at the present time. I understand the supplementary estimates are to be considered today, including those of the Department of Agriculture. During our consideration of those estimates I will undertake to answer the question, if that is satisfactory.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. What is

the government's reaction to the request by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture for a minimum support price of $5 per hundredweight for manufacturing milk, and will some action be taken immediately in this area in order to assist Canada's dairy industry?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest the point made a moment ago by the Minister of Agriculture is valid. In a few minutes we are going to be considering the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, and this question might be asked at that time.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he is taking urgent steps to improve security at large Canadian airports, in view of the robbery that is reported to have taken place at the Montreal airport last night.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, it will be necessary to get more information than I now have in order to know just what happened and what measures may be required. There is always a cut-off point in respect of security as between the cost of providing it and the benefits resulting. This is something under constant consideration by the Department of National Defence, the Department of Transport and other departments.


John Angus MacLean: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister any reason to suspect that this robbery was carried out by a paramilitary organization?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, I think it was.


Thomas Miller Bell: In green uniforms?



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. For some reason unknown to me he appears to be in a fairly amiable mood today. I would like to ask the minister whether in view of the possible pending change in his status he can tell the house that he is prepared to tidy up and
March 1, 1968

complete a very important piece of unfinished business while he still occupies his present portfolio, namely the establishment of the base line co-ordinates from which our fishing zones will be measured.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I wish the rules of the game permitted me to comment on what my hon. friend has said.


Mr. Nielsen:: That has never stopped you
before.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps I can do that outside the chamber later. I would like to say that whatever be my status, the government will continue to make progress on that matter.



AVAILABILITY OF REPORT ON BAY OF FUNDY POTENTIAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forresiall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the submission of the report and the findings of the special committee which studied the Bay of Fundy tidal power potential, can the minister advise the house when this report will be available to members generally and the public?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I had the report yesterday but I have not yet had time to read it. I plan to do so over the week end, and I will answer the question on Monday.



ONTARIO-REQUEST FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Has the federal government received a request from the government of Ontario for assistance in providing relief to the people of southwestern Ontario who suffered severe flood damage in the early part of February? If so, what decision has been reached?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that any request has come from the government of the province of Ontario.
Inquiries of the Ministry MANPOWER



RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who was floating around the chamber a few moments ago.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: He is another loose fish. In view of the fact that the minister is not present at the moment I will put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. On February 19 I raised this matter with the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who was Acting Prime Minister on that occasion. In view of other events on that particular day he may not have passed on the question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Has the minister received the report from the Canadian Association for Adult Education on manpower policy? Also, has the government had an opportunity to consider changes in the present manpower policy to make it more effective in terms of dealing with manpower needs in the various provinces?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we
received, read and analysed the report, which contains suggestions, some well-founded, others less.
When this department was created two years ago, there were about 150,000 workers in training. Last year there were 242,000, which is a great improvement. There are much fewer drop-outs than before.
Anyhow, some criticisms are valid and we will take the association's recommendations which we consider right.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of these criticisms, and other criticisms that have since been expressed by various provincial departments, will there be an opportunity in the near future for provincial representatives to meet with the federal government to discuss possible changes in the program?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we meet quite regularly with the provincial authorities, and

March 1, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry we talk these problems over. We will continue to do so, but no radical change in our policy is contemplated.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders ot the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of Transport.
In view of the fact that a number of C.N.R. employees, and in particular French-speaking station agents working in the province of Quebec, are required to make their reports and receive their instructions in a language other than their mother tongue, will steps be taken without delay to correct this situation along the lines of the Laurendeau-Dunton report?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice and I shall answer it soon.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether he is in a position this morning to disclose to the house the status of the exchange fund reserves as of the end of February.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I made a statement this morning disclosing the position of the exchange fund. With the permission of the house I would be happy to read it now. It is very short. I do not know whether this would be in order.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: I announced today that Canada's holdings of gold and United States dollars, which are made up of holdings of the exchange fund account, the Minister of Finance and the Bank of Canada, were $2,490 million in terms of U.S. dollars on February 29, 1968. The corresponding figure for January 31, 1968, was $2,175.3 million. I recalled my press release of February 26 in which I announced that Canada had taken steps to draw the equivalent of United States $426
[Mr. Marchand.)
million from the International Monetary Fund.
This drawing has now taken place and the full amount is included in Canada's official reserves. The drawing included a sum of U.S. $241 million which represented Canada's creditor position in the International Monetary Fund at the time of the drawing. On January 31 Canada's creditor position was U.S. $243.1 million. Perhaps I can interpret this for the benefit of the house by saying-


Thomas Miller Bell: What is the net loss?


Mitchell William Sharp: -that the change, after taking into account the transfer, was a reduction in our reserves of $113,400,000.


Erik Nielsen: How much has the cost of living gone down?


Richard Albert Bell: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister says "after taking the transfer into consideration". Does he mean it is $113 million in addition to $426 million?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker; the other way around. What I meant was that after eliminating that transfer, if I had not made the transfer at all the change would have been a reduction of $113,400,000.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Minister of Finance whether the $426 million which has been transferred or withdrawn from the International Monetary Fund represents the total amount in dollars that Canada has on deposit with the International Monetary Fund.


Mitchell William Sharp: As I explained at the time, we were transferring assets of our own representing our creditor position with the International Monetary Fund and the equivalent of our gold deposits into our accounts, so they would be visible and would indicate to those who might otherwise be speculating in the Canadian dollar that we had these assets available now and they would be used. We still have intact all our borrowing rights under the International Monetary Fund.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether these adjustments in our reserve account involved the actual transfer of gold from the United States to Canada or vice versa.
March 1, 1968


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I speak without checking the facts precisely, but I do not think any of our reduction in reserves has been represented by a reduction in our gold stocks. I believe it has all been represented by a reduction in our holdings of United States dollars.



EXPO '67 METHOD OF DEALING WITH PROSPECTIVE DEFICIT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I have a related question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Minister of Finance whether he has yet made any decision as to when action will be taken to deal with the entries and adjustments that will have to be made to take into account the Expo deficit.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would expect that would be dealt with in the new session. As I explained to the hon. member for Northumberland, we do not have to raise money for that purpose; that money has already been raised. It is a matter of accounting. That will be taken into account in the next fiscal year.



CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN FORTHCOMING OLYMPIC GAMES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, whose department makes the fitness and amateur sports grants. Has the government been consulted by the Canadian Olympic committee concerning Canada's participation in the Olympic games, and has the government a view to express on this subject?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Health and Welfare has not been consulted with respect to the position taken by the Canadian representative on the international Olympic committee.


Howard Earl Johnston: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister could give us an assurance that Canada will follow the traditional Olympic pattern of keeping politics and the games separate.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



INQUIRY AS TO SIGNING OF INTERNATIONAL GRAINS AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Soulham (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the widespread concern in the prairie provinces with respect to the coming into effect of the new world wheat agreement on July 1, can the minister give us now a progress report on the signing of this agreement by the various signatory governments so it will become effective on that date?


Robert Henry Winters: There has been widespread signing of the protocol with the intention of signing the agreement on July 1. We are in the process of working to ensure confirmation from a number of countries.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question on the Rhodesian question to the Acting Prime Minister. It is prompted by the observation of the former British prime minister regarding the failure of sanctions. Can the minister advise us whether the government has the intention, or retains the intention, to take an initiative in the Security Council with regard to this matter?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have been taking an initiative in the Security Council, where we hope the report of the Secretary General will be discussed fairly soon. It will all depend on the conclusions reached with regard to the effectiveness of the sanctions. It would be wrong for anyone to say the sanctions have not been a success, and it would also be wrong to say they have succeeded to the extent that was anticipated. But undoubtedly they are being felt in Rhodesia.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his capacity as government house leader. In view

March 1, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry of the fact that the house lost a number of days in its business schedule due to the bungling of the government, would he accept the proposition that from now until the end of this session the house might sit on Saturdays?
Kon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare): This would be agreeable to me, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his capacity as house leader. Is it the intention of the government to call together the public accounts committee for an organization meeting and if so when does he intend to do this?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The motion to refer the public accounts to the committee was approved some time ago, and I assumed that the former chairman of the committee would bring the members of that committee together. However, if there is anything the house leader should do in this matter I would be glad to do it.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I must suggest to the minister that at present the committee has no chairman, and it is the responsibility of the government to call an organization meeting of the committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask
the minister whether he is not aware of the fact that the resolution referring the public accounts has not been carried but is still on the order paper? May I ask when it is intended to call the committee together for an organization meeting?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We can immediately call the organization meeting for the beginning of next week.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I wonder if the minister as house leader could tell us when the important work of the committee on privileges and elections may begin in order that it can complete its work in time for the next election.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Before we depart from the matter of public accounts, may I say that I

would be happy early next week to move the motion to refer the public accounts to the standing committee.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, if it is in order at this time I should like to rise on a matter of privilege. My point of privilege is a personal one, in that I think the government house leader implied that I should be responsible for calling the public accounts committee together for an organization meeting. I should like to make it perfectly clear that it is the responsibility of the government to call committees together for organization meetings, at which time the committees choose their chairmen.
The minister will recall that some three months ago he was asked by the house leader of the official opposition to call a meeting of this committee. Later the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister whether the government would call a meeting of the public accounts committee and he said he would look into the matter. A month ago I addressed a question to the minister on this matter and he too said he would look into it.
I wish it to be abundantly clear, Mr. Speaker, that it is not the responsibility of the former chairman of the committee to call an organization meeting.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker yesterday the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Mac-Innis) asked me a question which I would like to answer today.
Under the Income Tax Act, an individual must include, for income tax purposes, any amount received as superannuation or pension benefits.
In the case of an employer who has established a plan providing regular payments to retired employees, those payments represent superannuation or pension benefits, even if the employer is not compelled according to contractual clauses to make such payments.


Malcolm MacInnis: Approaching the matter from another point of view I should like to ask the Minister of
March 1, 1968

National Revenue the following question. In the event that retired miners in Cape Breton choose not to report the gratuities they receive, under what regulation can the government or anyone else consider them as pension payments?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Under the Income Tax Act, a taxpayer is required to declare the payments he receives during the year, and if he does not do it, we must act according to the law.


Malcolm MacInnis: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the minister to review the circumstances under which these payments are made in respect to old age security. He will then find that there is an opportunity for anyone receiving the gratuity not to report it in his income declaration.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Acting Prime Minister can inform the house when the flag on the peace tower will be flown at half mast, in memory of one democratic process which died in this chamber last week.
Kon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs): My hon. friend should recall that the government received a very large vote of confidence.


Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: 
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, as a member from Vancouver may I
Supply-Agriculture
direct a most urgent question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the recent statement by Premier Bennett in the British Columbia legislature that only discussions, not negotiations, are going on relative to a new port development in the lower mainland area of British Columbia, will the minister kindly inform us as to the present situation, in view of the importance of this matter? May I remind him that on a recent visit to Vancouver he made a commitment on behalf of the government with regard to port development in that area.
Is the minister not answering my question?
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

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


Mr. Danforth:: Mr. Chairman, may I inquire whether the minister wishes to make a statement at this time?


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, since we are discussing supplementary estimates rather than main estimates, at the end of our deliberations I will attempt to answer any questions hon. members may have, if this meets with the approval of the committee.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, for weeks the members of this party, many of whom either are now or in previous years have been actively engaged in the industry of agriculture in order to make a living, have been waiting impatiently for these supplementary estimates of the Department of Agriculture to be brought into this parliament. It is my personal opinion that no pestilence, plant disease, drought, flood or any other act of God has done more collective damage to agriculture on a national basis than this Liberal government. This statement would normally be considered one of partisan politics, but by documentation I shall show that unfortunately for this industry it is simply a statement of fact.

March 1, 1968
Supply-A griculture
This government and its spokesmen both inside and outside parliament have constantly assured Canadian farmers that all was well; that the gross national product of farms was rising; that efficiency of production was still increasing; that prices of farm products under their administration were constantly rising; in short, Mr. Chairman, that farmers had never had it so good. I know from experience that they can no doubt produce the necessary figures to support this fairy tale, but I should like in the next few moments to indicate to this committee the almost hopeless economic quagmire that the action or lack of action of these hon. members opposite has created for the farmers of Canada who are trying to earn a living.
It is my intention, Mr. Chairman, to deal with the subject in broad and general terms only, for I shall be followed by colleagues in my party who shall be most specific and detailed; and, commodity by commodity, we hope to place before the members of this house the grim realities of the economic chaos facing nearly every agricultural endeavour in Canada today. The government says the farmers have never had it so good. I wonder whether the government is absolutely blind to conditions as they exist in this country today. Never had it so good, Mr. Chairman? Within the last 12 months we have had the largest protest march in the history of Canada right here on parliament hill by thousands of angry farmers protesting the policy or lack of policy of this government.
Never had it so good, Mr. Chairman? We have witnessed tractor demonstrations, protest meetings, farmers on picket lines, threats of food boycotts, violence, petitions to governments, closing of cheese factories, food canneries, food processing plants, a sugar refinery and creameries on a scale never dreamed possible in this country. We have seen segments of the industry, such as early fruits and vegetables, wool production and the greenhouse industry driven to such low economic levels that in large areas of Canada they are being abandoned entirely.
Never had it so good, Mr. Chairman? Let me give you a few examples of headlines that have appeared in farm papers, market reports and newspapers across the country. These are a few gathered at random. The first one appeared in the Blenheim News Tribune for February 15: "Winter wheat export worst in ten years". That does not refer to western wheat, Mr. Chairman, but to the soft winter wheat produced in eastern Canada.

Another headline in the same publication reads "Artificial products threat to dairy industry". This headline is from the Kent Farmer for November 20: "Farm subsidies not the answer". Another one reads "Soya bean growers ask investigation". From the Western Producer, February 22, 1967, under the heading "Promoting and protecting wheat sales" there is the comment "Canadian wheat export sales drastically reduced". Another headline in the same publication reads "Export drop hits soya bean industry". Then from the Windsor Star for February 10: "Quota fight threatens dairy farmers". Another headline reads "Times are real rough down on the farm". Then this headline appeared in the Farm and Country, published in Toronto, January 23: "Death threatens Ontario greenhouse industry". Another headline from the same publication for February 27 reads "Ontario Federation of Agriculture suggests plant seizure". This was a reference to the unfortunate closure of the sugar refinery at Chatham, bringing with it hardship to all the local sugar beet growers. Then from The Grower for October, 1967: "Brief asks for action on Australian imports". Again The Grower for February, 1968: "Does the strawberry industry have a future in Ontario?". That publication also carried this headline: "Kingsville plant closed". This had reference to the food processing plant of Canadian Canners Limited, which for years had canned peaches, potatoes and tomatoes.
You can hardly pick up a trade paper today, Mr. Chairman, without being faced with similar headlines, such as "Grade A price of eggs to producer sags to 200". The same type of headline is found with regard to nearly every section of agriculture. One headline reads, "Grade A Price Of Eggs To Producer Sags To 200 Per Day". Another reads, "Hog Prices Continue To Decline". Still another reads, "Beef Prices Down J0 Pound". And so it goes on.
[DOT] (12 noon)
Never had it so good? Economic forecasts for agriculture predict that gross income for farmers in 1968 will equal that of 1967 but rising costs will cut millions from net returns in 1968.
Never had it so good? The farmers of this nation are $800 million deeper in debt today than they were just ten years ago.
March 1, 1968

Never had it so good? Ernie Bezaire, a veteran farm reporter for the Windsor Star, on Saturday, February 10 put it this way:
Farmers in southwestern Ontario would have to go back to the bitter 30's to find more troublesome times than they are now experiencing in agriculture.
In all fairness it must be said that world conditions and trade patterns directly affect our own industry. Other governments, however, immediately put into effect countermeasures to protect their own agricultural industries. But our government procrastinates, waffles, blunders and finally dashes into ill conceived action which has brought us almost to the point of economic annihilation.
The government may have meant well in its agricultural policy but may I, by citing some prime examples, show clearly that the government was either ill informed, ill advised, or just did not care. I shall deal first with administration. The government contended that in this modern day and age efficiency and decision were only possible by centralized departments and a chain of command. Hence it staked its political life on this policy and amalgamated the armed forces into a unified service. What about agriculture? In personnel the department is almost as big as the armed services. In this time of crisis in the agricultural industry the government went counter to its policy. It split responsibility for agriculture among the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
What has been the result of this action? The result is that we have the greatest possible confusion in this sector.
Second, the Minister of Agriculture races pell-mell on a course of action deliberately designed, as he has announced time and again, to move the small farmers of Canada-I believe he estimates them to be about 30 per cent of all farmers-off the land in order to make farms into sound, viable economic units and to create stability in agriculture. This is a popular argument but this policy collapses immediately when government action or inaction removes the profitable market for these so-called economic units. That is what happened when it allowed the deluge of imported canned fruits, meats, turkeys and, yes, eggs. Now we have the bankruptcy of the largest of these so-called stabilized farm units and have witnessed the recent
Supply-Agriculture
bankruptcies of three large greenhouse firms in a single week. The government should learn. In the United States over 50,000 of these large economic units have collapsed in the last few years.
Third, the governmen says, "Move the farmers off the farms and retrain them." But what does the government do? It starts this program and then cuts off grants to build and finance technical schools where such training should take place. Consequently farm families are left to migrate to the nearest urban centre and to compete as unskilled labour for second class jobs.
Fourth, the government has constantly encouraged commodity groups in agriculture to police their own industries. They are told, "Cut down production; tailor your production to meet the domestic market." That sounds good and reads well. Farmers have complied faithfully only to find that the limited domestic market has been swamped with cheap imports when they have been ready to supply it.
Fifth, by advocating efficiency of production and larger economic units and by making credit easy the government has encouraged Canadian farmers to borrow millions of dollars to enlarge their businesses and improve their efficiency. Now the government has the effrontery to say that under the Kennedy tariff round some farmers will have to go, that there may be a temporary period when they will have to be phased out and go into some other agricultural endeavour. Any government that thinks like this knows absolutely nothing about modern agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Warren Danforth: The capital investment
required and the vast technical knowledge and special equipment needed in farming make it virtually impossible these days for farmers to change their fields of endeavour. If they did, in most instances the result would be economic ruin. Some farmers who financed their farms knew that it would take at least a generation to pay off the debt. That was done deliberately. Therefore, to speak of phasing out now is absolute nonsense.
Sixth, I wish to speak of long-range plans. To create economic units, as the government has suggested should be done, requires a tremendous amount of capital, absolute business management and indispensable long-range planning. By its bungling the government has caused tremendous damage. Its long-range policies do well to last the test of one year.

March 1, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
As prime examples of my contention I cite the three different dairy policies we have had in three years and the government's on again, off again, turkey import quotas.
Seventh, the confusion in the dairy industry would be comic if it were not so tragic. Dairy farmers in Ontario today are placed in an untenable position. Federal policy is explicitly directed toward shutting down small producers and forcing large units to produce greater volumes more efficiently. At the same time a provincial policy places limited quotas on producers, thus making expansion into larger production units almost impossible. Who says farmers never had it so good? Through the Department of Agriculture the government spends the taxpayers' money to expand tobacco production; through the Department of National Health and Welfare it spends the taxpayers' money to curtail the domestic consumption of tobacco.
Never had it so good? Our young people and our old people are leaving the land by the thousands. Our best cattle are being dispersed all over the world. Our best farm land is being covered with concrete and buildings. Our domestic markets are fast shrinking under the constant pressure of cheap imports. Canadian agriculture, once great and world admired, has been reduced to a state of clawing frantically for survival.
The government constantly whines when it is confronted with these facts. It asks, "What did you do when you were in power? Where were your policies?" When we were in office our policy was designed to keep farmers on the farms if they wanted to stay.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Warren Danforth: We deliberately encouraged young people to choose farming as a way of life. Certainly we made mistakes, but much of our policy remains as a background to this government's policies. And our policy was tailored to meet the challenges of 1956, not of 1968.
As to our policy now, our leader will take part in this debate and he will put our ideas before the house. I must emphasize, however, that we believe there are three categories of farmers today and that all are absolutely essential to Canada. We have the part-time farmer, the family farmer and the corporate farmer, and no blanket policy can possibly meet all their needs.
Never had it so good? God help the Canadian farmer in this hour of his agony.
[Mr. Danforth.l
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)


Mr. Peters:: I am pleased to see the hon.
member for Kootenay East assisting the Minister of Agriculture today. This may be evidence of new thought within the government, particularly since Cominco has been interested in agriculture for some time-I am thinking of the fertilizer industry-and I am sure that in the days ahead the minister may have some use for the advice which Cominco can provide.
This is not the occasion for a major debate on agriculture and we do not intend to treat it as such. But these supplementary estimates, the tag ends of the main estimates, do ask for a further $33 million for the Department of Agriculture. As I see it, the major problems facing the industry are those which have been mentioned by the hon. member for Kent (Ont.), and some of them arise out of government legislation whose implications have still to be faced.
For a long time there has been a general desire that agriculture should become more efficient. Farmers have agreed with this concept and have improved their operations with the result that there is far greater efficiency today in the dairy industry, for example, than there was in the past. This is true with regard to many other crops and farming activities. Yet we are still troubled by the difficulties facing farmers who live on marginal land, cultivating it as agricultural holdings when it should probably be used for some other purpose under the ARDA program. This program was supported by most members of parliament; yet great anomalies are arising from its operation. Dairy farmers have encountered many difficulties. A market for milk at $5 f.o.b. factory has resulted in an improvement in the incomes of farmers engaged in milk production, but the government's action a year ago in discontinuing payments on secondary milk has had an adverse effect on many producers whose net incomes have been sharply reduced. The government will have to do something about this situation.
It is true that production of milk should, if it is to be economic, bear a close relation to consumption. But if in the past the price support system we used resulted in a surplus, the type of program now being followed is likely to result in a limited number of farmers receiving a much larger share of revenue from production. Using large blocks of land and capital they will be operating on a scale much bigger than any which normal farmers could expect to reach. Eventually this may
March 1, 1968

give rise to a situation in which Canadian consumers find themselves paying a great deal more for milk products because of their relative scarcity. This prospect has to be taken into consideration by the government when it is considering other aspects of policy with regard to the dairy industry.
Farmers will disagree, but it is my opinion that when a shortage of butter developed during the war the farm organizations should have asked the federal government to go into the production of margarine. Had this been done the farmers would have been able to control the relationship between margarine and butter. But they did not. In the event, the public outcry was so great that production and sale of margarine were allowed by law and since that time the product has been in direct competition with butter.
The market for margarine is a lucrative one. Those responsible for its production and marketing have been able to regulate the selling price with an eye to butter prices and have been able to parley the relatively small cost of production to a point where the return to the industry is a highly profitable one. In some cases, shrewd advertising has enabled the prices of oil substitutes to be raised until they are at a premium.
New products are being developed in agriculture, and their appearance should cause concern both to the department and to the farm organizations. It is surprising the number of things that can be done with our natural products. I am sure those who normally eat butter would find it difficult to be altogether certain today whether they were eating fresh butter or a substitute. Similarly, where there is a choice between fluid milk or reconstituted milk, or what is called multimilk, a condensed product, users would find it difficult to be sure which had been reconstituted and which had come from the farm in fluid form.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
I understand that milk can now be produced from an artificial cow, a machine into which no milk product goes. We have all heard of the ship called Hope which went to a number of countries to provide medical services and we probably recall the millions of quarts of milk which were produced on that ship for the children of those countries. We know that this milk was reconstituted by using skim milk and other additives and that it was a very palatable product. Since that time we have become much more sophisticated in developing substitutes for milk. Now we have 27053-452
Supply-Agriculture
filled milk which is a milk product with the addition of vegetable or animal oils. There is another substitute product made entirely by machinery and experiments have shown it to be no different in taste from milk. The Department of Agriculture should be concerned about these developments. It should take steps in conjunction with farm organizations not to stop these developments but to discover how they can be integrated with the present agricultural program. These developments will continue whether we like them or not. What we are interested in is that they cause the least dislocation possible.
When the minister is preparing his estimates for next year he should provide funds for legislation to make it easier for young people to establish themselves on economic agricultural units. A few years ago a young person had to find $25,000 to start farming. Now the amount required is probably double.
At the opening of the Saskatchewan dam, as I am interested in irrigation I was concerned to see the type of farmers who attended the ceremony. I think most of them present would have holes in their heads if they were to become interested in irrigation. They were the original pioneer farmers, ranging in age from 50 to 70, and at that age it is unthinkable that they would buy the necessary equipment to instal irrigation facilities. The generation following them will have to do that, but a great deal of capital will be required.
If young people are to be encouraged to enter farming the government will have to make some changes in succession duties on land. The one thing which has risen even faster than the cost of living is the price of land. It is safe to say that if a man bought a mountain top ten years ago he could get twice as much today as he paid for it, no matter whether it has a useful purpose or not.
The rise in the price of land has been caused to some extent by farms on the outskirts of cities being bought for subdivisions. They are bought for prices ranging from $400,000 to $500,000 and the result is that other farmers believe their farms have an equivalent value. This may be all very well if they can sell their land but if they die before doing so the valuation made of their property is so great that estate duties demand that their families liquidate their holdings. Often the money left over after paying succession duties is insufficient to establish a surviving son in farming.

allow us to enter world markets not only in respect of wheat, butter and cheese but in respect of a number of other agricultural products. With the technology available to farmers today and the assistance we hope can be provided to them I am sure we will have a viable agricultural economy which will be able to hold its own and meet competition in world markets. This can be done only if the agricultural department moves forward quickly to meet the challenge facing the new generation which is entering the farming field today under totally new conditions.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few words to say about those supplementary estimates since they are related to a matter which is quite important in my area, namely agriculture.
I would have liked the minister to give us an outline of his future agricultural policy, because it is always interesting for a member of this house and for the farmers of an area to know a few months in advance what can be expected from the authorities.
I know that the duty of the federal Minister of Agriculture is, in the first place, to inquire about every possible production throughout Canada and to provide markets. In order to reach that objective effectively, the department must discover new markets, and then protect and encourage them.
As concerns finding international markets which are of interest to Canada in general, I think that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) should get assistance from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) whose duty it is precisely to contact and visit other countries in order to assess trade possibilities.
I understand that the minister's duties are not very easy at this time. I have been a member of the committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development for six years and I had the opportunity to go and see for myself agricultural developments in other provinces. In fact, it is only since then that I really understand the minister's duties and all the difficluties he could come up against to guarantee markets to farmers because, in the final analysis, that is where success lies for the farmer. If we want production to be stable and profitable enough so that farmers can make a living, it is imperative to have a market that can absorb not only a part of production but the whole production. That is why I said earlier that the minister should insist on greater assistance from the Minister 27053-452J
Supply-Agriculture
of Trade and Commerce in his exacting work of finding markets.
I also said that the government had to protect those international markets. Well and good to enter into agreements; but they must be beneficial to Canada and to Canadian producers. As a matter of fact, I had the opportunity yesterday, when our party met with the representatives of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, to refer to the dairy industry and the egg market. But should only those two questions be dealt with?
We are told that United States sales of dairy products have reached about the same level as ours. In my opinion, in looking into the dairy problem, the minister should be able, with the help of all his technicians, to further promote the development of that industry, since it is a major one, especially in the eastern provinces and in Ontario. We claim that an agreement which allows the United States to sell 50 per cent of the products in a given industry is not really advantageous for the Canadian farmers.
For instance, with regard to the production of eggs, we are allowed a proportion of 65 per cent. I feel that if the federal government could guarantee the markets, the province of Quebec and the eastern provinces could produce far more than they do now under the present agreements.
Mr. Chairman, I am mentioning those examples only to give you an idea of the advantages certain agreements could bring. We are told that they are meant to protect international markets, the market between the United States and Canada. I understand that, but on studying those agreements, one realizes that they are always a bit more favourable to the United States and less so for the small countries or Canada. Therefore, I am calling the hon. minister's attention to this matter.
Now, I shall speak more specifically of the province of Quebec, because I am, of course, more interested in that province than the others, although all of them interest me. We have, in the province of Quebec, a highly diversified agricultural production. We are not placed in the same situation as the western provinces which are mainly concerned with grain production and beef.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
The agricultural production of Quebec and the eastern provinces is much more diversified. Although the main industry is the dairy industry and its products, potatoes, vegetables, maple syrup and various other

March 1, 1968
Supply-A griculture
commodities are also produced in those provinces. In my opinion, it is mainly at the level of those commodities that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) does not give enough attention to the market opportunities.
In view of the diversity of that production, I think that the hon. Minister of Agriculture is mainly concerned with the dairy industry. I am not blaming him for that, because I think that he noticed that the dairy industry prevailed in eastern Canada and he has concentrated his efforts to make it more economic. In my opinion, the problem faced by the dairy industry is that the production in the eastern areas and Quebec is so diversified and dissimilar that it is extremely difficult to come to an agreement when we talk about assistance to the dairy producers.
We had some experiences during the last few years-and we shall have some more- during discussions intended to promote the dairy industry when a price of $4.50 or $4.75 a hundredweight was suggested for manufacturing milk, while producers asked for $5 or more.
I think that the hon. Minister of Agriculture would be well advised to ask his experts to undertake a regional study, because as long as we talk about assistance to the eastern part of the country or even, on some occasions, at the provincial level, we shall notice that the established price which is appropriate to an area-namely the eastern townships or Montreal, for instance-will not be satisfactory in the Lake St. John area, in Chicoutimi or in the Abitibi area. In my opinion, these should be studied specifically.
I realize that this is another difficulty which confronts the hon. Minister of Agriculture but we are unable, in the field of dairy production, to consider an agreement which would suit Canada as a whole. In fact, we are not even able to consider an agreement which would be suitable only for the province of Quebec.
I think that, in coming days, we will have to try and find some formula that will satisfy the farmers in each area.
I think there will be much more justice in that, for having made a personal investigation, I find that production costs in our area, for instance, are 60 or 65 cents higher than in the Montreal area.
That is the difference to which I wish to draw the minister's attention, in order that justice may be done not only throughout

Canada, but first and foremost in each of the specific areas of the country.
Mr. Chairman, as I said a moment ago, we had the good fortune of meeting with the representatives of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, who presented us with a most interesting report.
We would invite the Minister of Agriculture-besides, he must have met the very able federation advisers-to receive the advice of these experts, for I think that these men, who are chosen by the people each in his own area, that is to say by the C.F.U. members and those of other agricultural organizations, are much closer to the farmers and can act more decisively, precisely because they live in their midst. I would not say that they are more competent than the federal experts, but I think it would be advantageous for the latter to meet regularly with these people who have been delegated by various groups in each area to come to Ottawa and offer suggestions.
I will not believe either that those groups go out of their way merely to come and visit Ottawa. I am convinced that the hon. Minister of Agriculture takes their brief seriously, but I feel he could encourage his personnel to follow their advice more closely, especially where they say, speaking of the dairy industry, and I quote:
Canada should support the proposals the international dairy committee of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers submitted to GATT, which won solid support, for the creation of an international council of dairy products of which producers as well as governments would be members.
Mr. Chairman, I shall not dwell on that brief, but I should like to point out the quotas. I think that, in our region today, the greatest concern is centred on this question of quotas. As you know, work has been done in this connection in the past few years, but we in the Lake St. John region are going through a period of transition: from spare-time farmers, so to speak, we are becoming real farmers, for agriculture in our region was formerly a rather marginal occupation, because of the proximity of lumber enterprises. We were a large family of farmers, 50 per cent of whom worked the land while 50 per cent worked in the forest.
One day, we woke up to find that only 18 per cent of our manpower was needed in the forest. Therefore, 90 per cent of the sons of farmers must come back to their farms.
March 1, 1968

I think that transition is very difficult to make in our areas. I should like the hon. Minister o f Agriculture to be aware of that state of affairs, when he deals with our people, because when the herd is not big enough, the quantity of milk is not sufficient, and so on.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture to take the necessary steps to increase all those small herds which tend to grow.
* (12:50 p.m.)
If the herds are to become economic, they must grow and multiply. These farmers must also be given the opportunity not to sell their herds but to increase them. I say this because, unfortunately, that was the advice given to farmers by some investigators. I have never met these investigators, or you may be sure I would have had a few words to say to them. Their advice to the farmer is: Your herd is too small; sell it and move to town.
I know that this is not the minister's idea, since he wants the small farmers to become more productive and even to produce at full capacity, which would allow them to live on their farm. I think we will have to proceed by stages, and not make a complete change in one year and then say: Those who produce less than 12,000 to 20,000 pounds of milk will no longer receive help. On the contrary, I feel that it is with farmers who produce 12,000, 20,000 and 40,000 pounds that we will eventually succeed in having farmers who produce 150,000, 200,000 and 300,000 pounds. I know a great many who are willing to go ahead, but they need a little help from the government.
I should like to deal briefly with the mechanization aspect, one of the greatest problems in my area. Too much mechanization is required to make the land more productive and the herd more profitable. There again, I feel the government should make an effort and take the advice of organizations so as to try and reduce the price of farm machinery. I have sold farm machinery myself for ten years, and I am astonished at the fantastically increased prices. This is ridiculous.
In my opinion, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce would be in the best position to inquire into that, so that farmers can get the machinery, not free of charge, but at a reasonable price, because that is now strictly necessary.
It is often said that farmers are extravagant in some ways, that they are completely mechanized and that they invest all their
Supply-Agriculture
money in machinery. What else can they do? We are no longer living in the horse and buggy age. We are in the age of mechanization. Formerly, a horse and carriage were a necessity for the farmers. Today, they need a motor car to go to town and do their shopping.
It is imperative that we help the farmer to adapt himself to modern times. The government must understand the farmer's predicament. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will carry on the good work he is doing.
Comparisons can be made when a man is doing his best. I would not want to be too critical. I believe the Minister of Agriculture is doing his best, but he is not able to do everything he wants. Therefore, I ask him to carry on his work and, above all, increase the amount of help given to these farmers, who ask nothing more than to lead a decent life on their farms.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Chairman, as I rise to speak in this debate on the supplementary estimates of the Department of Agriculture I have every sympathy for the minister who in this chamber must represent an industry that is beseiged with problems. The minister has just heard the Canadian Federation of Agriculture present a most comprehensive brief to the government and to all parties represented in this chamber, and he is aware of the problems that beset the industry on every side.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One o'clock.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Chairman, may I call it one o'clock.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Chairman, when I began my remarks earlier I referred to the agricultural industry as an industry under siege, encircled, beleaguered, bombarded by rising costs, by low prices and by foreign imports. The list of its difficulties is long. I am sure many branches of the industry see the Department of Agriculture and the policies of the government as being one more force with which to contend. I would not want to

the $5 million worth of raw sugar that Canada imported. The sugar industry is aware of this and has made repeated submissions to the government to do something to develop a national sugar policy which would allow the Canadian industry to survive. This policy will be needed sooner than we realize, Mr. Chairman.
In a recent speech the general manager of B.C. Tree Fruits Limited of the Okanagan valley dwelt on this topic. In the course of his remarks he said:
The government is continually asking industry to expand its export markets. Yet, at the same time, it does not seem to be interested in the fact that the Canadian industry is losing out to foreign government subsidized imports. If Canadian industry is going to compete for world markets, it must first be in a position to compete on the domestic market.
The present tariffs allow both the United States and Australia to undersell Canadian products. On June 12th, 1967, Australian peaches were being offered in Toronto for $7.62 per case compared to $8.63 for the Canadian and $8.31 for the American product. In addition, Australia was offering a 30 cent per case promotional allowance to the retailer. The Australian industry has established a policy whereby the price quoted in Canada is below any product on the market.
I am sure no one would challenge the proposition if this price differential came about solely as a result of the initiative, energy and vigour of the fruit industry in Australia. The speech continues:
The Australian industry's ability to sell at such low prices is due to Australian government policies. Export incentives are made up of payroll tax rebate, double income tax deduction (200 per cent) on all expenditures made on export promotion. Funds are also made available from an excise duty applied to the sale of domestic fruit in Australia. It is expected that $1,800,000 ($2,160,000 Can.) will be available from this excise duty for export promotion in 1967.
The cumulation of these tax benefits, rebates on tin plate and sugar gives Australian processors an advantage of $2 or more per case of fruit. This advantage is used to obtain shelf space in our Canadian supermarkets at the expense of Canada's domestic production.
It is very evident tht the Australian government works in very close co-operation with their fruit processing industry to develop programs of assistance. In comparison, the Canadian tender fruit industry feels that tariff protection has too often been sacrificed to obtain concessions for other Canadian products.
Then he points to some reasons why the processing industry is so important to the Canadian fruit industry. He says:
The fruit growing industry is dependent on the processing industry in two ways. During the last ten years the processing industry has purchased 43 per cent of the apricots, 45 per cent of the
Supply-Agriculture
peaches and 47 per cent of the pears produced in Canada. If the fruit growers lost this market for their product the impact on the fresh fruit market would be disastrous.
Then the following recommendations are made to the government:
1.	Immediately opening negotiations with the Australian government to renegotiate the 1960 Australian trade agreement act to rescind the concessions accorded tender fruit imports.
2.	Reviewing the Australian tax incentives applicable to their tender fruit industry. If considered a direct subsidy, appropriate action should be taken to reinstate our Canadian anti-dumping legislation with Australia. If not a direct subsidy, Canadian legislation should be implemented to remove inequities.
3.	Establishing import tariffs equal to those enjoyed by Canadian competitors.
4.	Establishing a quota system as a temporary measure.
5.	If it is not possible to remove the present inequities, the Canadian government was asked to establish a subsidy program similar to that offered sugar beet, poultry, dairy and other industries.
6.	In co-operation with the industry, establishing a promotional program for the domestic and international markets.
7.	In co-operation with the growers and processors, conducting an economic survey of the tender fruit growing and processing industry, with the objective of determining ways of making the industry more competitive.
These are some of the measures that can be taken and some of the problems that can be investigated so far as one aspect of Canadian agriculture is concerned which is important not just to my constituency but to several sections of the country. This is not the first time that these matters have been raised. The industry has raised them repeatedly for several years and is beginning to despair of any effective action being initiated by this government.
The dairy industry is also under attack. It too is moving to meet the opposition that confronts it. It is moving very rapidly to modernize the industry, as is the fruit industry. It will not do to say that Canadian production is inefficient or that it is low in quality because this is not the case. Quality in the fruit industry, particularly in the apple industry of British Columbia, is unmatched anywhere. The modernization of the entire industry also has no equal.
For example, this past year the highest price per box of apples ever obtained in history was achieved on the New York market, so this is an indication of the quality of the products of the industry and the vigour with which it has moved to meet its problems.

March 1, 1968
Supply-A griculture
However, more needs to be done. A coordinated national approach to agriculture by the federal government is required and it has not yet been made.
The dairy industry is moving toward such an approach. The brief of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture dwelt on its problems as well as on the problems of the poultry farmers, the grain producers and a vast number of other sections of the Canadian agricultural industry. When the brief came to my desk I read it with great interest. First of all I looked to see what were the recommendations of the industry in regard to the substitute products that are moving into the milk products market. When I talked to representatives of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture the other day I expressed disappointment that they had treated this subject so tentatively. I say this because they have not much time, and neither has the federal government, to decide what will be their approach toward this new threat to the dairy industry.
I am sure hon. members saw a short program on television the other evening about an enterprising manufacturer who is busy turning out a substitute for milk to be sold in plastic cartons. He did not call it milk but it is to be sold as suitable for many purposes for which milk has traditionally been used. He admitted that his product did not have the food value or quality of milk, and I imagine that many people listening to the program and learning of the constituents of the product said to themselves, "What stuff!" However, the manufacturer went on to say that there would be a 5 per cent price differential per quart compared with real milk. I suspect that it suddenly became tasty to many who viewed the program. But do people realize the basic importance of Canadian agriculture to this country?
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
If the word gets around that there is a substitute for milk which will sell for about 5 cents a quart less, the minister will have a battle on his hands and it will not only be with the Minister of Trade and Commerce but also with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. He knows that he cannot expect sympathy from housewives who are fighting soaring prices and he will not get much assistance from the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, since it was designed to look after the welfare of consumers.

I thought it was a mistake to alter the name of the department to consumer and corporate affairs. It should have been left alone.
The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs ought to investigate the relationships among the big international soap companies which operate in this country. The department should investigate how synthetics are being used to manufacture foods. These companies have the resources and raw materials to manufacture soap and they could easily diversify into the manufacture of synthetic and substitute foods. That is why the dairy industry hesitates; it is not sure what is happening and it wants to find means to counter this threat. Those means, I suspect, lie in the powers of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Department of Agriculture and in the trade policies of the government. We should stop using cheap labour, inadequate living conditions, starvation and the host of other problems that beset the undeveloped nations of the world to bring Canadian agriculture to its knees. It is time we came up with policies which will ensure that our commodities fetch a decent price in the markets of the world and that our industries compete on a fair basis with their competitors around the world.
In the time that remains to him as head of this department I trust the minister will take steps to set in motion studies aimed at developing this type of policy for Canadian agriculture. I trust that he and his officials will pay the closest attention to the brief that has been presented by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I commend to the minister paragraph 39. It suggests how the desperate problems facing Canadian agriculture can be overcome. The brief recommends a minimum income policy, something that is widely discussed today and has ramifications far beyond the agricultural field.
Yesterday a columnist in a Toronto newspaper described the Minister of Justice as the next Prime Minister of Canada, suggesting he was the William Aberhart of the present day. That is a startling statement, indeed, but we know that the government has finally had to consider policies that were put forward by social credit in 1935, having to do with distribution of income throughout the population. Though I do not particularly wish the Minister of Justice well, I hope, should he succeed in rising to the high office of prime minister, that he will live up to the billing he got yesterday in the Toronto papers.
March 1, 1968

The brief spoke of an early retirement policy for farmers and of retraining and re-establishment policies. These are absolutely vital to the dairy industry in view of the announcement of January 15 about the 196869 dairy subsidy quota policy. We know that the subsidy policy has been tightened considerably. This policy, which is approved by large sections of industry, is aimed at eliminating some of the small operators. The quotas are designed to assist the development of larger production units. I think this policy is wise, and the government must persist with it. At the same time it should realize that when it no longer gives a subsidy to one who has been subsidized but gives the money to another, something of value has been lost by a member of the community and he should receive some sort of compensation. I say this because the government has caused the Canadian dairy industry grave problems by the sudden shifts in dairy policy over the last couple of years.
It would be well for the government to consider, in conjunction with the Department of Forestry and Rural Development, whether an early retirement policy could be developed for farmers. Such a policy would not leave the farmer who is 60 out in the cold, with a devalued farm which he must sell in a hurry because he has no income. The government must establish retraining and re-establishment policies and policies of farm consolidation. It might well look into the question of capital grants for farm improvement. The government knows how successful direct grants have been to industries in designated areas.
It is time the government saw the agricultural industry as an industry that requires the same consideration and care as the general manufacturing or drug industries of Canada. The other day we moved delicately to take steps that may lower drug prices in Canada. The government would never stand for profits of several hundred per cent in the agricultural industry, though the drug industry has enjoyed such profits for generations.
The government can do much to ensure that our agricultural industry is competitive. Our agricultural industry is more valuable than the mere products it produces. It is valuable to this nation in ways different from any other industry. The tourist industry depends on the agricultural industry indirectly. If farms go to waste and lie fallow, if buildings collapse and become shabby, the beauty of the countryside is spoiled and the
Supply-Agriculture
beauty of our countryside, the beauty of rural Canada, is a great attraction to tourists.
Although he may not be able to clean up all of agriculture's problems immediately, I hope the minister can iron out some of the problems connected with the computer used in the distribution of dairy subsidy cheques. The department should ask whoever sold the computer to refund the money or provide a new model. On the other hand, if it is a question of personnel more should be hired to make the computer work properly, or perhaps we should train the people we have so they can operate the computer properly. I am tired of telling dairy producers in my constituency, as I am sure every member with dairy farmers in his constituency is, that the computer has broken down. I say, "It will be ready in another week. I know your creditors are at your door but the cheque will arrive next week." Next week, when nothing has happened, I have to send out a letter saying, "Sorry, but the computer konked out again. The cheque will come some time next month; it will arrive. All you have to do is hold on. Hold on and the cheque will get to you." I hope that in the near future we can be assured that the computer problems have been taken care of and that cheques will go out sufficiently regularly to raise the morale of those in one part of our dairy industry who badly need a boost.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Mr. Byrne:: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to range as far and wide as did the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke. I think it is significant that I should follow the hon. member because with the coming into effect of redistribution the ridings of Okanagan-Revelstoke and Kootenay East will become one. I have been telling the residents of both these constituencies that they are very fortunate to have two representatives in this chamber at least so long as this parliament lasts.
I find that the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke makes brief sorties into the east Kootenays. I, of course, have reciprocated, and during my brief visits I have been able to acquaint myself with some of the problems of the Okanagan. I might point out that the riding of Kootenay East, the riding of Okanagan-Revelstoke and, of course, the riding of Okanagan Boundary, from whose member I am sure hon. members will be hearing before this debate concludes, constitute the fruit basket of western Canada. Fruit is grown in western Canada as well as wheat. We hear a

March 1, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
great deal about wheat in this house and relatively little about fruit, though I am sure we shall be hearing more about it in the future. I might remind hon. members that the extremely tasty red Delicious apples which were presented to members of parliament late last fall came from Okanagan-Revelstoke, and a finer fruit has never been produced, as I am sure everyone will agree.


Mr. Roxburgh:: What about Ontario Northern Spies?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I was under the impression that only tobacco grew in Norfolk county. Now I stand corrected. It is interesting to note that Delicious apples have been fetching startling prices in the speciality markets of some of the main world centres such as New York-up to $10 and more per basket.
The hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke went to some length in criticizing the policies of the Department of Agriculture and of the government generally in respect of agriculture. I think that in all fairness the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke should give some credit to the government, as I am sure the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary will, for what it is doing to assist the development of industry in the Okanagan and perhaps to a lesser extent the development of agriculture.
I sent to my office for a list which I believe I have on file there setting out the ARDA programs that have been undertaken since the Liberal administration came to power back in 1963. Unfortunately there were no undertakings, according to my information, in the Okanagan prior to 1963; if there were any they were relatively small.


Mr. Pugh:: On a question of privilege, if the hon. member would refer to the Minister of Agriculture he would find that what he said so royally and regally about the assumption of power-


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order. This sounds to me like a point of debate rather than a question of privilege.


David Vaughan Pugh: I will come to the point. In the Okanagan 90 per cent of the ARDA projects carried out in my constituency were there prior to what the hon. member called the assumption of power.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: That is scarcely a question of privilege. However, I expect the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary will be taking part in

this debate and if I make any errors I am sure he will find time to correct me.


Howard Earl Johnston: Would the hon. member permit a question?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I prefer to defer questions until the end of my time.


Howard Earl Johnston: I shall not be here by the end of the hon. member's speech.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order. The hon. member for Kootenay East has the floor.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I am hopeful, as I said, that the list which I am sure is in my files will reach my desk before I conclude so I can check to determine whether or not what the hon. member says is correct. The list of projects is a long one. The program has provided for a large number of irrigation works, either refurbishing old and deteriorated schemes or constructing entirely new ones. Domestic water supplies have been improved and water has been provided for numerous orchards throughout the Okanagan. In addition, of course, there have been developments under the area development agency and, no matter what the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary may say, these did not take place under the former administration.
Many new industries directly related to agriculture have been introduced, not the least of which are the wineries. I believe that at least three wineries have been established in the Okanagan in a province where the government believes in temperance. In addition, a meat packing plant has been established, directly connected with agriculture. A sausage plant has been established in the area, again directly linked with the farming industry.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I am mentioning these projects only as projects that should be referred to in defence of government policy as opposed to the statement made by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke. We must be fair and give credit where credit is due. I am wondering, whether the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary has received his list or whether it is his Air Canada ticket he is looking at at the moment.
My original purpose in rising was to discuss the question brought to my attention within the last few days by the farm members from British Columbia who were delegated to attend the federation of agriculture
March 1. 1968

meeting here in Ottawa. The problem was referred to earlier by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke. I believe some elaboration may assist the minister and give emphasis to the problem.
In the fruit industry we must look forward to two methods of marketing. First, with the assistance of jet aircraft large consignments, up to two or three boxcars in one lift, will be carried from the Okanagan to London, Paris or New York. The second method is to sell fresh fruit to canning factories for processing when there is overproduction. When I mention canning it brings to my mind the fact that in Penticton a factory is being constructed to make tins. I believe it is being erected by American Can, again under the aegis of the area development agency, and it should result in reducing the cost of cans used by factories in the area.
Last fall, I believe in late November, the National Association of Fruit Producers and the Canadian Horticultural Council presented a brief to the cabinet concerning the importation of Australian peaches into Canada. These importations absorb quite a large share of the Canadian market and to some extent are displacing canned peaches imported from the United States. Processors in Canada, and in particular in British Columbia, complain that there is an element of subsidy in the export of canned peaches from the continent of Australia. I am not prepared to say whether the Australians are simply seeking to export sugar by increasing the density of the syrup, as was stated by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke. I was not under the impression that Australia is a net exporter of sugar. Be that as it may, there are a number of hidden subsidies inherent in the process.
I understand that the Australian treasury makes a rebate covering a portion of the cost of the sugar contained in the exported product. An excise tax is imposed on all canned fruits in Australia and the revenue is used for the purpose of promotion, advertising and market development in other continents. Further, the Australian treasury gives an income tax deduction to the industry for expenditures related to export development and these can reach 200 per cent. There is also a subsidy provided by way of payroll rebate related to the production of exported canned fruits.
This may or may not be a serious problem but it seems to me that Canada, and in particular the province of British Columbia, should not take a direct stand against the
Supply-Agriculture
importation of goods. However, products produced in other countries and sold here with the assistance of subsidies or rebates should be frowned upon. The economy of British Columbia is so dependent upon export markets that it ill behooves us to criticize the importation of goods into Canada.
I believe it can be safely said that 75 per cent of our lumber industry depends on the export market. Indeed, the east Kootenay region of my riding depends very much on export trade. Significantly, at present a pulp mill is being built there by Japanese interests at an ultimate expenditure of $65 million to produce pulp for Japan. This will have an extremely beneficial economic affect on the east Kootenay area. I might also refer to the startling announcement made recently of the sale of 45 million tons of coal to Japan at a return to Canada of something like three quarters of a billion dollars over the next 15 years. In light of potential sales and our dependence on export trade I believe we should tread carefully but wisely in recommending that the government take action in respect of import quotas, tariffs and so on. It must be acknowledged that quotas should be established, however, as a protection to our in-season fruits and vegetables, e (3:20 p.m.)


Howard Earl Johnston: Would the hon. member for Kootenay East permit a question? He made a rather remarkable statement about one area of the country being so fortunate as to have two representatives here. When he makes his forays into Okanagan-Revelstoke, as I make mine into the Kootenay area, I wonder whether it might not be better if he would tell the people there that he represents Kootenay East just as I tell the people of Kootenay East that I represent Okanagan-Revelstoke. Then the ultimate choice as to who will represent the combined area would be left to the wisdom of the voters.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to comprehend just what the question was but I should like to assure the hon. member that when I visit the Okanagan I never fail to tell the people of the attributes and high character of their representative and his most charming wife.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to return to the subject of agriculture. At the outset I should like to say that I hope the hon. member will continue to be a tourist in Okanagan Boundary. When he finished speaking on the subject I wish to discuss I was not

March 1. 1968
Supply-Agriculture
clear about his position on the matter. I think he has perhaps been brainwashed by other government members.
I attended a banquet sponsored by the Oliver Chamber of Commerce not long ago when the general manager of the British Columbia Tree Fruits Limited gave a most interesting address on the problems created by the unfair importation of Australian canned goods into Canada. It is interesting to note that although I had been involved in this problem for quite some time I did not take an official stand until the government had had an opportunity to examine the brief which was presented last October. Finally, however, I could not stand aside any longer and I asked for a copy of the brief which had been delivered. Copies were sent to the hon. member for Kootenay West, the hon. member for Kamloops, I believe the hon. member for Kootenay East or someone in his party in that constituency and also to the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke. They all had an opportunity to examine it before I did.
I should like to tell the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Finance who is not here, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce that Canadian processors of fruits and vegetables in western Canada do not mind fair competition. No Canadian objects to this no matter in what industry he is engaged. But we cannot continue to compete on the export market unless those countries which export to Canada practise fair trade and fair play. I wish to state immediately that the Australians are not doing this. The Minister of Agriculture and the other ministers must be aware of this because obviously the matter must have been discussed in cabinet. We are being treated unfairly. When I say this I am speaking not only on behalf of the processors in western Canada but also the processors across Canada.
Last October the Canadian fruit processors in conjunction with the Canadian Horticultural Council presented a brief to the federal government. When they came away they said they had been received very well but now they say they would like to hear further about the matter. No word has been received since that time. I venture to say that no government member would have dared to get up on his feet and say anything about this matter had he not been a member from a Kootenay riding.
Much has been made of the fact that the Australians are laying down canned peaches in Toronto at prices far below our price or the United States price. The Australian price

is $7.62 a case. The best price we can offer is $8.63 and the best price the United States processors can offer is $8.31. The Australians have a subsidy which enables their exporters to compete unfairly in this part of the world and elsewhere. There is an excise tax on sales in Australia which is reflected in the price paid by Australian consumers. This excise tax is applied in order to subsidize the canned goods which are exported into our market. A special income tax allowance of 200 per cent is allowed for export promotional schemes but not for promotion of sales within Australia. I am pretty sure of my figures because I obtained them from the fruit industry and they can be checked. After everything is considered, such as the rebate on tin plate and the rebate on sugar, the Australian processors have an advantage of $2 a case and in some instances more than that.
I should like to know whether the government has looked at the brief which was presented or whether it has been tossed in the ash can. Why has an interim report not been made to the industry? I might also ask whether the Australian government has been approached and whether this unfair practice has been pointed out to it.
In a few moments I intend to refer to the recommendations contained in the brief presented by the fruit industry. Before doing so, however, I should like to correct the hon. member for Kootenay East because I wish to be helpful to him. The processing business in Canada and the Okanagan area did not come about in order to take care of overproduction. It is an essential part of the soft fruit industry. To appreciate this fact one must understand how this industry was developed. We produce soft fruits in the Okanagan and we have access to processors. They are not in the business to sell these products to the Canadian people at an excessive profit. Over the years these processors have had to import soft fruits from other countries of the world in order to fill the cans they must put on the grocers' shelves. We produce a pretty good brand.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I am sure the minister knows how necessary this processing industry is. It was not developed by an outside company. Every dollar put into the industry was put in as a result of contributions made in one way or another by the growers. Many millions of dollars have been invested in plants and equipment in the Okanagan valley. These processing plants are necessary to the whole fruit
March 1. 1968

industry in Canada. If one part of the industry is lost, the whole industry will be jeopardized. The processing industry must operate on a 12 month basis. If it operates for any less than 12 months it will operate at a loss.
In view of present attitudes I cannot help but wonder whether the government and the minister have taken account of the recommendations of the industry. Seven recommendations were proposed in the brief presented by the industry and I should like to refer to them. The first recommendation is:
Immediately opening negotiations with the Australian government to renegotiate the 1960 Australian Trade Agreement Act to rescind the concessions accorded tender fruit imports.
Has the government taken any action in this regard? The second recommendation is: Reviewing the Australian tax incentives applicable to their tender fruit industry. If considered a direct subsidy, appropriate action should be taken to reinstate our Canadian anti-dumping legislation with Australia. If not a direct subsidy, Canadian legislation should be implemented to remove inequities.
The minister knows full well that there is a saving clause in that agreement to the effect that if damage is being done steps can be taken. Why has the government not done something in this regard? Why has the government not kept in touch with the fruit growers and fruit processors in Canada? Will the minister tell me what steps have been taken, and if any steps have been taken why has the department not informed the industry? Recommendation No. 3 is:
Establishing tariffs equal to those enjoyed by Canadian competitors.
I am not in favour of an increase in tariffs. As I said earlier, no Canadian industry minds fair competition but unfair competition is something else. Whether the industry involved is small or otherwise the Canadian government should look into the matter. If we do not want the fruit industry to continue we should say so, but we should waffle no longer in this regard. Recommendation No. 4 is: Establishing a quota system as a temporary measure.
One might as well ask for the moon because the government manifested its attitude when it removed the quota system on turkeys and practically ruined the market for Canadian producers. As the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) suggested, the government is not in step with agricultural requirements in Canada. One does not fix a policy and then let it remain forever and ever. One has to keep up to date, and if you do not keep up to date
Supply-A griculture
in this competitive world you might as well cease to exist. Let us not lose our home markets. Recommendation No. 5 is:
If it is not possible to remove the present inequities, the Canadian government was asked to establish a subsidy program similar to that offered sugar beet, poultry, dairy and other industries.
I am not in favour of this recommendation. We have a strong fruit industry in British Columbia and Ontario, and these are the areas vitally affected. I am not in favour of paying a subsidy because this is not necessary if the unfair competition is removed. Recommendation No. 6 is:
In co-operation with the industry, establishing a promotional program for the domestic and international markets.
This is much along the Australian idea. I am sure the minister has looked into this aspect and I would be interested to hear his comments. Recommendation No. 7 is:
In co-operation with the growers and processors, conducting an economic survey of the tender fruit growing and processing industy, with the objective of determining ways of making the industry more competitive.
This industry is competitive. I should like to know the circumstances surrounding the bellying up recently of a cannery which had been in existence for many years. I should like to know whether this is company policy and what effect it has had on that part of Ontario. We cannot do anything about killing competition but has the minister looked into the circumstances? What are the freight rates on fruit for Canadian producers compared with the freight rates for Australian producers who ship fruit in all-inclusive shipments from Australia to Toronto?
The member for Kootenay East suggests there may be difficulties facing this industry but that we should not take a stand. Perhaps this is the government's view but I was surprised when he said that in the house. It is a very irrational statement to make in respect of any Canadian industry.
The brief to which I have referred came to the attention of the minister and the department some time ago. I should like to know whether any representations were made before that time. I am sure officials of the Department of Agriculture have known for well over two years about the Australian fruit industry's influence in this country. One has only to look at what has happened since 1957 when Canada produced 103 million pounds of canned fruit goods and imported 72 million pounds. Only ten years later, in 1966, this

Maich 1, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
picture had been reversed. Canadian production dropped from 103 million pounds to 88 million pounds while imports increased from 72 million pounds to 132 million pounds. While ours is a growing economy and Canadians need more food, there should be some protection provided Canadian industry.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I think I have made my case, and I am glad to see that the hon. member for Kootenay West is in his seat as he has always been a champion on behalf of the fruit industry. I am glad that this agricultural debate has started off with everybody who has spoken demanding action. If I alone had made these requests of the minister I think he would have said to me that nobody else was bellyaching, but when the demand for action is so widespread I know the minister will stir himself a little and will get something done. He will probably start talking again to the Minister of Finance, if he has not done so already, and to the Minister of Trade and Commerce about these problems.
I say to the minister in all seriousness that if he knocks out the processors in my area he will knock out the fruit industry, probably including the apple industry, and I would point out that we produce apple juice as well. If the minister knocks out the processors in Canada the whole of the soft fruit industry and possibly the whole of the fruit industry will suffer irreparable loss in dollars and cents and perhaps the extermination of the whole fruit industry. The situation is as bad as that.
Even though the government knows about this situation, small beginnings and lack of control could lead to the extermination of this industry. People in the industry may find that in the end they will get nothing out of it. I ask the minister not to let the people engaged in the fruit industry feel that because it is a smaller industry than those concerned with huge coal sales to Japan, exports to the United States or wheat sales to places around the world, they are forgotten by the government. The minister should remember that the fruit industry is a very vital and important part of the economy of Canada and must be maintained.
I now wish to speak briefly about the people who presented a brief to the government. The minister knows what the Canadian Fruit Processors Association is; he knows what the Canadian Horticultural Council is. Every growers' association, every shipper, every wholesaler and everybody connected with the

fruit and vegetable industry in Canada is behind the brief of the Canadian Horticultural Council. I should now like to refer to an illustrious former holder of the portfolio of minister of agriculture, one of the same political ilk as this minister. I refer to Hon. James Gardiner, or Jimmy Gardiner. Hon. members should refer to Hansard of his day to see what he thought about the Canadian Horticultural Council.
That organization does not cry wolf with regard to matters that are not important. Its members examine every request put forward to the government and if it does not have merit and is not completely worth-while it does not bear the hallmark of the Canadian Horticultural Council. The minister knows that the council met here last week. He knows that its deliberations are for the benefit of all growers throughout Canada. The council aims at helping the whole of the industry from the producer down to the consumer. I shall not deal with the position taken by the fruit processors because it might be felt there was bias, but obviously they had to present a brief.
There are many other things with which I could have dealt today. I think this subject has been very fully covered but a short recapitulation of the situation would not hurt. Australian canned peaches, pears, fruit cocktail, etc., are being sold in Canada at prices with which we cannot compete. We cannot produce these fruits at the price for which the Australian product sells here. The reason the Australians can do this is that they are receiving a direct form of subsidy from their government. The minister has heard what I have said about rebates and all the other factors involved in this question. In other words, the Australian government helps the canned goods industry of that country. Australian canned fruits are sold at a lower price on the shelves of stores in Toronto than are Canadian products. They are sold at a lower price despite the freight rates and everything else involved in their shipment to this country. The price of the Australian product beats ours by $1.01 a case.
I say this is unfair competition. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture who is here, the Minister of Finance who is away, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce who is in a state of transition, will get together, forget the leadership race for a short while and take strong and immediate action to solve this problem. I hope they will get in touch with the Canadian Horticultural Council and the
March 1, 1968

Canadian Food Processors Association and say: Gentlemen, these are the steps we have taken; these are the steps we propose to take; this is an interim report only but we will keep in touch with you. The fruit industry cannot afford to wait any longer for government action to solve its problems.


Mr. Honey:: Mr. Chairman, it is with some temerity that I enter this debate which seems to have polarized into a Kootenay-Okanagan discussion. Nevertheless, I think the debate has been very helpful. The three speakers who preceded me pointed out-I see that my hon. friend from Kootenay West is in the chamber and will no doubt be entering the debate-their concern with respect to the agricultural industry in another area of Canada but I am concerned particularly with Ontario.
The remarks of hon. members have general application in this debate and I wish to associate myself with the concern expressed by hon. members from British Columbia. At the same time, I think all hon. members are aware of the very difficult problem the government faces in this respect, bearing in mind that Canada is one of the world's great trading nations and that when we make decisions in these matters we must do so responsibly, keeping in mind all the many ramifications that flow from decisions made with respect to international trade. I say no more on that subject, other than to point out what my colleagues on this side of the chamber and hon. members opposite have already said, namely, that we are aware of the very intricate and difficult problem of international trade.
I wish to deal with a few matters this afternoon. I believe this is a particularly appropriate time to deal with them because we are concerned with a debate on agriculture and this week a brief was received from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I only regret that it was not possible to have before us the brief of the National Farmers' Union. I expect it will be presenting its brief next week. I hope that before this debate concludes we will have the benefit of the views of the National Farmers' Union.
Having mentioned those two national agricultural organizations I wish to say to them through the medium of Hansard that I think it is an unfortunate situation that in Canada we do not have one voice speaking for the agricultural industry.
Supply-A griculture
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I think hon. members on all sides of the house will join me in that sentiment. I know the difficulties which the minister and his officials face sometimes when, for example, it is not certain who has the authority to speak for the dairy industry. That of course applies to other segments of the agricultural industry. Perhaps I could leave the thought with our farm groups in Canada-and I know attempts have been made to do so, negotiations are in progress and studies are being initiated-that it would be helpful for the industry, and certainly for the government and parliament if a grouping in the federation, or a union, could be formed after preliminary discussions have taken place on this matter. We would then know that we had one organization speaking with authority for agriculture in Canada.
I am sure the minister would want to know which of the many groups of people who see him and his officials, and who see members of parliament from time to time, speak with authority in the various areas of agriculture. It seems to me that this situation must cause the minister some difficulty. I should like to say with reference to the minister-and I shall try to do so with tact, because of the situation we have with respect to the choosing of a new leader for our party-that I think the minister is doing a good job in his portfolio. It has been my experience from meeting agricultural groups in Ontario that the departmental officials and the minister, by and large and with some exceptions, which is always the case, are considered to have been acting responsibly and constructively in the interests of the agricultural industry.
The task force, the establishment of which was announced last year by the minister, which is now busily engaged in the performance of its duties and which I hope will report some time this year, is a constructive and useful body. I was pleased to see the support which the Canadian Federation of Agriculture gave to the idea of the establishment of the task force, in the brief which it presented this week. I wish to support the suggestion made by the federation in paragraph 7 of its brief, that the task force approach its job and structure its report in such a way that it could most effectively serve as basic documentation for a national conference on agricultural policy, such a conference to be jointly sponsored by the federal and provincial governments, and planned with the participation of farm organizations. I

March 1. 1968
Supply-Agriculture
hope this will be one of the many results which would flow from the report of the task committee on agriculture.
I wish to spend a few minutes dealing with the dairy policy, which was referred to extensively in the federation's brief. I think it might be helpful if I quoted from paragraph 19 on page 6 of the brief, where the federation puts forward the following constructive opinion:
It is a source of considerable satisfaction to dairy farmers of Canada and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture that we now appear to be moving, grdually but constructively, toward a well conceived and carefully developed and integrated framework of dairy policy. In co-operation with the federal government, and with supporting provincial policy, we believe that we are beginning to achieve in the industry a prospect of some security of reasonable returns for the farmer's productive effort, in a known and understood framework of policy respecting prices, quotas, marketing organization, quality requirements. There is increasing recognition too, we believe, of the need for adjustment policies for the improvement of the income and earning opportunities of the less favourably situated producers.
I concur in that statement of the federation. I think that Canada's dairy policy under the present minister has been a good one. May I say also that in my opinion both the chairman and the members of the Canadian Dairy Commission have approached their job with a great deal of knowledge and understanding of all the problems of the dairy industry, in so far as it comes within the jurisdiction of the federal government.
I should like to comment on two aspects of the policy which might reasonably be considered both by the minister and by the commission. One is an old chestnut which the federation has brought up in previous years. To my knowledge no action has been taken on it, but I hope the minister and the commission are giving some consideration to the recommendation of the federation that adjustment payments be made to cream producers. At present no differentiation is made between the payments to cream shippers and those to shippers of manufacturing milk, such as milk sent to cheese factories. This seems to be rather unfair to cream shippers, and we might reasonably consider the suggestion or the recommendation of the federation that, in addition to the present subsidy, a special assistance payment be made to cream shippers. I think the federation suggests 7 cents per pound of butterfat, which they say would give the producers of farm separated cream a more adequate return, one more

comparable to that of the producers of industrial milk, after taking into consideration the value of the skim milk retained on the farm of the cream shipper. This is one suggestion which I asked the minister and his officials to consider seriously.
The second suggestion is with reference to quotas for the shippers of industrial milk in the 1968-69 dairy year, and in the following dairy years as the policy of the commission evolves. I am pleased-and I know this was of considerable concern to the hon. members on both sides of the house-that the originally suggested policy of the dairy commission with respect to the 1968-69 quotas has been considerably modified. It was suggested that it might be the policy of the commission not to grant quotas to producers who in the dairy year 1967-68 produced less than 50,000 pounds of industrial milk or 1,750 pounds of butter-fat. I think it is good that the policy was changed. I understand that the stated policy of the commission now is that the production of 12,000 pounds of industrial milk or 420 pounds of butterfat in the 1967-68 dairy year will enable those producers to qualify for a quota in the 1968-69 dairy year.
Having said that, I want to say that the principle enunciated by the commission, of gradually increasing production so that the moneys available to the commission from parliament may be used increasingly for the bona fide dairy producer who is making an effort to operate a viable and economic dairy production unit, is a good one.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
However, Mr. Chairman, in encouraging increased production in the dairy industry I think the commission should keep in mind that there are going to be some dislocations. The principle is good, as I have said, but I think it should be applied in a reasonable and rather leisurely fashion so that all producers are given ample opportunity to increase their production. With regard to those unable to do so, the federation recommended that serious consideration be given to making adjustment grants to assist producers who find it advisable to turn to some other form of production.
I am sorry that the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke is not in his seat, but he referred in rather descriptive terms and a little dramatically to computer breakdowns which sometimes delayed cheques sent to producers by the dairy commission. My experience with the commission has been that they
March 1, 1968

are extremely co-operative and helpful. In view of the number of dairy producers who receive cheques from the dairy commission, one can only marvel that the system has functioned as efficiently as it has. I think my hon. friend from Okanagan-Revelstoke was a little too critical because I have found that wherever there was delay in sending out cheques the officials of the commission were more than anxious to make a special effort to find the source of delay. In the great majority of cases it was at the local level, usually because the purchaser had not sent in his return to the commission; the fault was not with the commission itself. I think I should say that in fairness to the commission because they are doing an extremely competent and efficient job.
Reference was also made to the concern of the dairy industry regarding filled and synthetic dairy products. Driving to Ottawa a week or two ago I stopped at a roadside restaurant situated in a dairy area. I was served synthetic cream with my coffee, and to me this was warning of the sort of concern the dairy industry should be showing. Some aspects of the problem are the responsibility of this government, though some fall to the provincial governments.
If I may give some gratuitous advice to the dairy industry, it seems to me that the industry should be mounting a campaign, whether by means of public relations or some other means, to impress on the Canadian consumer the importance of avoiding filled and synthetic dairy products. I appreciate that the packaging and labelling of such products may very well be the responsibility of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and I hope the minister of that department is concerned about protecting purchasers of dairy products who may be unaware that they are actually purchasing a synthetic product.
I am not trying to interfere with the right and freedom of Canadian consumers to purchase whatever they wish to purchase. I also think that if restrictions are to be placed upon these products this is a matter for the provinces. However, I think it is the responsibility of this parliament to ensure that the description of these articles printed on the labels is properly regulated and supervised, in the interest of the Canadian consumer as well as in the interest of the dairy producers.
There are just two further matters I want to mention, Mr. Chairman, before I close. I want to leave the dairy industry and to talk for a moment about farm credit. I appreciate,
Supp ly-A griculture
as I am sure all hon. members appreciate, the problems and considerations that may have led to what has been suggested will be a cutback or decrease in the amount of funds available to the Farm Credit Corporation. If this is the case, then I hope that the government will look once more at this question. If the operations of our Canadian farmers are to be viable, so they can make a reasonable margin of profit, then it is important that an adequate amount of long term credit at a reasonable interest rate should be available to them through the Farm Credit Corporation.
Another aspect of farm credit is the improvement loan arranged through the chartered banks. The maximum limit of $15,000 seems to be pretty badly out of line with the realities of our present day agricultural society. I should like to endorse the recommendation of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture that the government increase the maximum limit to $30,000. I appreciate that this matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance, but I know that his colleague the Minister of Agriculture is also concerned with this question.
I also think we should take a look at the policy of the chartered banks in connection with these loans. The information I have from farmers in Ontario today is that the Farm Improvement Loans Act is gradually becoming a pretty academic measure. I am advised that this is because the chartered banks take the position that they do not have funds available for this kind of loan. If this legislation is to mean anything at all and is to be helpful to Canadian farmers, I think the Minister of Finance and the government should review with the chartered banks their policy relating to loans made pursuant to the legislation. The legislation will be of no particular benefit to the agricultural community if the bankers ignore it. I suggest that the government ought to indicate clearly to the bankers that it is in the national interest, in the agricultural community's interest and in the interest of the chartered banks of Canada that full and adequate operative force be given to this legislation. a (4:10 p.m.)
I wish to mention another item, and this will bring me full cycle, because in my introductory remarks I spoke of international trade. For a moment I want to talk about the tobacco industry in Ontario and in Canada. Mainly, I want to talk about flue cured tobacco, about 96 or 97 per cent of which is produced in Ontario. I wish to emphasize the

March 1, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
concern which has been expressed by the Ontario Flue Cured Tobacco Growers Marketing Board to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Agriculture about the importation to Canada of South African tobacco.
Though not much tobacco has been imported to date, an important principle is at stake. It has nothing to do with another principle to which some speakers referred, having to do with the importation of fruit. With respect to tobacco the suggestion has been made, and I do not assess its accuracy, that tobacco imports to Canada from South Africa are being made possible because Rhodesian produced flue cured tobacco is available to South Africa. Under present government policies there is an embargo against importing to Canada, direct, tobacco and other goods that are being produced in Rhodesia. I only make this observation, that because of trade between Rhodesia and South Africa it may be possible that Rhodesian tobacco has become available in Canada. If so, I hope our officials will look into the matter-and I think they are doing that. I hope that the Minister of National Revenue is considering the application of the dumping legislation with respect to this importation.
No one will quarrel with this government's decision that it is in the national and international interest for us not to trade with Rhodesia. If that decision is being circumvented by tobacco companies in Canada which purchase tobacco from South Africa, the matter should be looked into and the practice stopped. It is a matter of concern to Canadian producers and to all Canadians. I will leave it at that. I know the minister has noted my remarks and I know that the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of National Revenue, with whom this matter has been discussed, are concerned about the situation.
That is about all I want to say. May I mention the concern that is being felt by those in Canadian agriculture about the government's moving away from-if I may use that term-the system of subsidizing agricultural products. It is not possible to stop all subsidies at this time because in some areas the government must help. I spoke of the task force, and I hope its report will be carefully considered. I also hope that the various farm groupes will amalgamate into one authoritative farm group with which we can consult. Armed with the report and in consultation

with this group we shall be better able to move away from subsidizing some areas of agriculture. Until then we must shoulder our responsibilities. We must maintain those producers who could not produce economically without government assistance. We must be realistic and we must make the best possible use of the funds allocated by parliament, so that the agricultural industry in Canada may maintain and increase its contribution to the Canadian economy.


Mr. Jorgenson:: Mr. Chairman, the speakers who preceded me in this debate, including those from the government side, have shown that there are serious defects in our agricultural industry. The hon. member for Durham who directly preceded me chided the government gently for failing to bring some measure of relief to the industry. That industry today is suffering-for lack of a better term-from the weaknesses of a government that vacillates and never has time to settle down and do what is necessary to make sure that the industry is treated fairly.
I recall that in the three past election campaigns members of the government went from one end of the country to the other loudly proclaiming they had all the answers. It turns out that not only do they not have the answers; they do not know the questions.


Mr. Fane:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: They had to set up a task force to look into the matter. I do not oppose the appointment of the task force; I know some of those who are on it. I can say to the minister that on that task force are some of Canada's best agriculturists. I only hope, if they bring down recommendations during the life of this government, that those recommendations will be acted upon.
I was interested to hear the hon. member for Kootenay East, who hoped that we on this side would be fair, and give the government credit for what it has done for or to agriculture. I am not sure which term he used. I am inclined to think that "to" is what he meant, though he used the other term.


Frank John William Fane: Hear, hear.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: We have not sufficiently debated the present state of our agricultural industry. Outside of mentioning it in budget debates and in throne speech debates, this is the first time during this session that we have had an opportunity to discuss agriculture. The
March 1, 1968

main estimates of the department went through somewhat hurriedly, though they had been considered earlier in the committee. I always thought that the practice was to allow hon. members an opportunity to say a few words in the House of Commons and I hope, because of this, and because of the number of people who are planning to take part in this debate, government spokesmen will not go about the country saying the opposition is holding up the business of the house. I cannot think of anything more important to the house than paying attention to solving the problems of agriculture.
As previously mentioned, there is ample evidence throughout the country that serious difficulties have arisen. The number of demonstrations, protest marches and briefs since the minister assumed office should have convinced the hon. gentleman that he has a formidable task before him. I do not suggest for a moment that the minister is not interested or that he does not care: I think he is concerned. But I believe some of his cabinet colleagues are much less concerned, and that he has not been able to exercise the degree of authority within the cabinet necessary to enable him to do the things we feel need to be done.
I recall one of the promises made in the speech from the throne a year ago-that legislation would be introduced to provide assistance to agricultural societies across this country by way of grants or loans. This subject has been raised on several occasions and questions have been asked in this house, but we have never been told that the minister is likely to be able to get his legislation on the order paper, let alone on the statute books, in this current session.
When he sums up the debate the minister may, with some justification, point to figures which indicate an increase in farm income and say: Well, we are not doing too badly. If those figures told the entire story, if they gave a real indication how agriculture is faring, perhaps we would believe that agriculture was not doing too badly. But they do not tell the whole story, and all of us know it. Those in this house who are actively engaged in farming are deeply concerned about the position in which farmers find themselves as a result of the tremendous increase which has taken place in production costs. If there has been any increase in farm income it has been exceeded out of all proportion by the increase in the cost of the things farmers have to buy.
Supply-Agriculture
This increase in cost is to a large extent a result of actions taken by this government -higher taxation, higher costs due to taxes placed upon taxes, higher interest rates and so on. The kind of prosperity which farmers are enjoying today makes them wonder whether they should not have saved their money during the depression, so they could enjoy it. Talking about increased cost, these seems to be a creed, a solemn promise among those who supply farmers, that they will exact every last nickel out of his pockets so that there may be nothing left for him at all. As a result, the farmer finds himself having to run faster than ever in order to stay in the same place.
The commission which was set up to study the increase in farm machinery prices is one which should be supported by every member of this house. My experience is that if farmers do enjoy a good year-and there have been some good years in the past-there never seems anything left over after increased costs of production have been met. Farmers continually find themselves in this position and I am beginning to wonder whether it does not have something to do with the fact that a Liberal government is in power.
We recall the attitude of the party opposite toward the Canadian Wheat Board in the early years; when they took office in 1935 it was one of opposition to that agency. They only began to embrace this concept of marketing after the war had ended and the dangers of inflation were apparent. The signing of the wheat agreement with Britain at that time seemed to be nothing more than an effort to keep prices down and to use the farmer as a scapegoat in order to combat inflation. This pattern has returned and again we see a reduction of wheat prices, despite the contribution the farmers of this country have made toward solving the balance of payments difficulties experienced by this government a few years ago.


An hon. Member:: By your government.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: One would have thought the government would finally have recognized the importance to this country of agriculture and of the wheat farmer. Nevertheless we once more find ourselves in the position where despite rising costs of production prices of practically every agricultural commodity are falling. Is this because the government intends once again to use the farmer as a scapegoat to combat the inflation which their own actions have so largely brought about?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I listened very carefully to the remarks made by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson). He is right in saying that the farmer is quite neglected and forgotten by the government. However, the hon. member should realize that the present situation in the field of agriculture does not date from today nor yesterday but that it did exist in all its seriousness when his party was in office, that is from 1957 to 1962.
Agricultural associations have been making representations to the government for a great many years. I was here from 1946 to 1949 and, at that time, farmers were asking to be recognized, better treated and better understood by government authorities.
I notice in the supplementary estimates (C), that the Department of Agriculture is asking for an additional sum of $33,383,166. Therefore, it means that at the time the officials prepared the estimates for the year ending on March 31, 1968, they underestimated their expenditures by $33,383,166.
Let us compare the estimates of the Department of Agriculture to those of the Department of Finance, which amounts to $2,122,694,590, and to those of the Department of National Defence which will cost us, this year, the sum of $1,747,269,001. Let us also compare them to those of Department of National Health and Welfare, a department that would deserve to get more so as to increase pensions and allowances, and we will see that the Department of Agriculture takes about one tenth of the amount required by the Department of Finance. Yet, all the members, all the political parties, all the citizens, easily recognize that agriculture is the very basis of the whole economic and social structure of our country. We know full well that if Canadians could not be fed, they would cease to exist within the space of a few days. We are all subordinated to the prime need for life, we must eat to live, and agriculture enables us to survive.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Yet, the farmers are treated in this fashion, by being granted a budget of $282 million for the year, that is one tenth of the expenses incurred to serve the dollars in Canada, to feed the population and to help the farmer. One really does not know what to make of it.
Mr. Chairman, we, of the Ralliement Creditiste, have asked repeatedly in the last six years for greater help to be extended dairy producers. The government waited; it
Supply-Agriculture
took its time, there was no hurry. Promises made before an election are soon forgotten. Everybody knows that a dairy farmer must now spend five or six times more than a few years ago, merely to keep his farm going, to feed his herd, to buy machinery and to operate his farm.
For instance, a tractor which cost $1,500 not so long ago, now costs $4,000 and it is the farmer who must pay for it. In western Canada, a combine could be bought for $6,000 not so very long ago. Today, it is selling at $15,000 or $16,000. The same holds true in respect of spreaders, milking machines, in short all farm machinery. Prices have doubled, tripled, they have increased fourfold and even fivefold, and it is always the farmer who must foot the bill.
There are no longer any limits. The farmer works just to buy farm machinery. Yet there is no lack of work on the land. Farmers work hard, from four or half past four in the morning to nine thirty or ten at night, seven days a week, 365 days a year. The farmer cannot go on strike; he must stay on his land. He cannot dream of having a 36, 40 or 45-hour working week; he must work 98 and even 100 hours a week. In fact, he never stops.
Yet we are asked to vote the fantastic sum of one-tenth of the budget of the finance minister for agriculture.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take up any more of the time of the house, but one thing is sure, and that is, that the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) is now asking us to pass supplementary estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968, that is, thirty days from now.
I would only like the Minister of Agriculture, in his next budget, to suggest to his cabinet colleagues that subsidies to the dairy industry should be substantially increased, in order to aid the farmers-and not oppress them-allow them to live on a par with all Canadians and be recognized in Canadian life as other classes of workers.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw this minister's attention to vote 5-C, which reads:
-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 towards the construction of a road.
Kapuskasing is a little bit in our area. I wonder where the road will be built and for what purpose. Would it be to give access to new land in this area?

March 1, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
If so, Mr. Chairman, I shall ask the Minister of Agriculture to grant us an equal subsidy for the construction of a road from La Sarre to James Bay, where there are vast economic and agricultural possibilities.
It is a good thing to contribute $10,000 to Kapuskasing, which is a little bit in our area, towards the construction of a road? In my opinion, the minister should consider granting a similar subsidy to the town of La Sarre or the economic organization of La Sarre area, towards the construction of a road to James Bay. Otherwise, I would be inclined to think that the contribution of $10,000, paid to the city of Kapuskasing, was some sort of a political gift. Political considerations must not enter into the granting of subsidies, even if in the past there was political patronage in granting contributions or subsidies to cities, counties or regions.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture to consider the possibility of granting a subsidy to the region of La Sarre for the construction of a road to James Bay.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I always enjoy discussion of these estimates because I come from a long line of pirates, poachers, preachers, politicians and plowmen. In fact I never get away from the land. Even now I wake up at six o'clock in the morning ready to milk the cows that are not there.
First of all I should like to bring to the attention of the minister that the ridings of the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke, the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary and the hon. member for Kootenay East are all within the county of Kootenay. I should like to support the recommendations made by these hon. members. I know the fruit industry very well, having attended the first convention of the British Columbia Fruit Growers Association in 1919. I am aware of their problems.
Before being elected to the House of Commons I was a rancher and lived on an income slightly above the social welfare level. Since then my standard of living has continued to improve. In respect of the importance of agriculture as an industry, and with regard to the development of agricultural policy, I think we must move into new fields. We should consider the need for an incentive income policy and the retraining of our younger people. I represent a riding which includes a large number of small farmers who are quite happy to live the type of life they

are leading. Some of the younger people, however, because of the lower income which can be derived from agriculture are lured away from the farm into employment in industry or into jobs in the city. I do not believe they would leave the field of agriculture if they were assured of a fairly reasonable income on the farms, and if they had a bent in that direction, e (4:50 p.m.)
I should like to quote briefly from the Agricultural Institute Review for March and April of 1967 at page 24. The article written by David Suderman, is headed "We must review our agricultural policies'', and it says:
The agriculture industry is reaching the point where the policies governing it and guiding it can no longer be left to the few in governments and farm organizations. The challenge of the next two decades will demand that the industry make maximum use of its resources; the combined brainpower of agrologists, no matter what field they are in, will be needed to enable farmers to put the best technological know-how to use.
It's all very well to say that known technology is already well ahead of practice. It's equally as valid to claim that productivity in agriculture is already increasing much more rapidly than in other fields of endeavour.
That has been proven by experience in the last 20 years. The article then states:
Technological developments have helped the farmer do his job better, but they haven't helped much to improve the farmer's net income relative to the rest of society.
The article then continues under the subheading "Gordian knot":
The three, use of technology, productivity and income, are entwined in a Gordian knot. As long as returns in agriculture are insufficient to attract significant amounts of new investment, technological improvements will not be adopted as rapidly as they should. And as long as farm incomes remain uncompetitive with wages and salaries elsewhere, migration off farms will continue. In cold economic terms, this isn't necessarily bad since the economies of scale point to the need of fewer farms. But one sad feature in this movement is that it reflects the traditional misconception that "book learnin' " is for those leaving the farm. Few of the young leaving home to pursue their educations ever return to the farm. How much longer can the farm industry afford such a "brain drain"?
I agree with those sentiments. Later in the article Mr. Suderman states:
Some sort of a forum must be established to allow the agriculture industry to draw from the combined brain power of everyone in agriculture, whether he be the plant scientist, the economist, the educator or practical farmer, to develop policies which will make agriculture in this country more intensive, more productive and more profitable to those engaged in it. There is little time left. In
March 1. 1S68

fact, if F.A.O. predictions on population growths are to be believed, agriculture is the only industry in this country worth worrying about.
This is one industry we should worry about, because it those in many other occupations were to die tomorrow we could carry on with very little difficulty, doing the things we wish to do. This article continues at some length, and I heartily agree with Mr. Suder-man's contention in respect of the need for a review of our agricultural policies.
Another article appeared in the same issue written by B. H. Kristjanson entitled "Incentive-Incomes Policy for Canada", and states in part:
In the absence of facts and figures, I will make some heroic assumptions:
(1)	The typical efficient family farm operator has as his primary goal the good life. He is not farming because he wants to become rich, but rather because this is what he wants to do and because he can do it better than anything else.
The article then continues:
(2)	There is no clear evidence that an efficient family farm operation is a stable community well-served by aggressive co-operative organizations of all types cannot produce food at a price acceptable to consumers.
(3)	There would be real value in a national policy designed to keep food production at maximum levels, allowing prices to reflect domestic and international market forces. In other words, a low-cost food policy to contain inflationary forces in the economy and to maximize our competitive advantages in international markets.
(4)	Cost of public services could be stabilized and the services could be rendered with increased efficiency since the many functions provided in a rural region could be rationalized within a stabilized system.
(5)	Most heroic of all, the general public could be brought to the view that income transfers of this type of agriculture are in the individual consumer's interest.
The mechanics are easy to state, but unfortunately resist easy application.
I think there is an opportunity for farmers and consumers to co-operate, so everyone in Canadian society could have the benefits of the agricultural industry. This could work to the benefit of the food needing populations of the world in general.
I have a few references I wish to make regarding the need for training in agriculture. I am very keen on this and I should like to quote again from the Agricultural Institute Review for January and February, 1968. It contains an article by E. H. Lange entitled "Technical and Vocational Training for Agriculture", which says in part:
The overall goal of agricultural training must be the optimum, broad development of the manpower in the agricultural industry, the development of
Control of Air Pollution all those people who require agricultural knowledge and those who have positions of influence and leadership in the industry. Some of this training must be at the professional level. At the technical and vocational levels, the specific purpose of the total program should be:	(1) to train farmers,
farm managers and farm leaders; (2) to train competent manpower for farm-related business in occupations where a knowledge of agriculture is essential; (3) to train technicians to assist agrolo-gists (and veterinarians) in their programs and (4) to train skilled workers for farming and farm-related business.
Broadly speaking, there are two areas of employment, and therefore of training, on the technical and vocational levels:	(1) employment and selfemployment in agricultural business, on and off the farm and (2) employment as technicians or technologists to assist agrologists.
There is excellent work being done in this respect by the university at Guelph. This is considered as a provincial problem, but I hope our federal Department of Agriculture will do more in co-operation with provincial governments to provide the training required.
In concluding my few brief remarks let me say that governments, the people and farm organizations should co-operate in the development of policy and income incentives, as well as in the development of training facilities for future farmers.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. McCutcheon:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks are brief but I cannot finish them in the time remaining. May I call it five o'clock.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills and private bills.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)



AIR POLLUTION


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-25, to control air pollution.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for this occasion since May 11, 1967, when the House of Commons gave the proposals in Bill C-25, an act to control air pollution, the privilege of first reading. At this period of our national development air pollution is one of the most vital and urgent problems confronting Canada. Pollutants in the air are steadily

March 1, 1968
Control of Air Pollution causing injury to people, animals, vegetation and physical property.
The progressive results of air pollution brought upon us by greater urbanization, growing industrialization and the increasing number of fuel-driven vehicles call for vigorous national leadership and intensified efforts to ensure clean air for our citizens. Clean air is a most precious and vital national resource. Within the limits of federal jurisdiction I think this bill provides for action to assist recognized provincial, regional, municipal and private agencies, as well as citizens, to abate air pollution.
Both as a physician in a dense urban and highly industrialized centre, and as the member of parliament for Parkdale, an area with many manufacturing plants, I am very concerned about the ill effects of air pollution. In my medical practice I have been alarmed at the increasing number of cases of emphysema, bronchitis and lung cancer. I welcome the assistance of many experts in this field who have helped me to make some proposals which I have included in this bill. I welcome also with great joy the assurance of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) who in this house has told us that the occupational and environmental branch of his department is preparing a clean air act for Canada.
In this bill I am proposing that parliament grant the Minister of National Health and Welfare immediately, or as soon as possible, duties and powers to deal specifically with certain aspects of air pollution. In my study of this problem of air pollution I had meetings with Mr. W. B. Drowley of the Ontario pollution control branch, Mr. H. A. Belyea, director of the air pollution control division of metropolitan Toronto, Alderman O'Donohue of Toronto, Dr. Norman Delarue and other experts in air pollution matters.
This bill states that air pollution means the detectable presence in the outdoor atmosphere of any air contaminant or contaminants in amounts that may cause damage or discomfort to the health of persons, may cause damage to animal life, may produce injury to vegetation, may damage physical property, or may interfere with visibility or the normal conduct of transportation, occupation or business.
Many factors have contributed and are increasingly contributing to the pollution of our air. Most of the air contaminants are in man's atmosphere because of his own activity. An extensive bibliography, readily available,

reviews epidemiological, clinical and laboratory data which pertain to the health hazards of community air pollution. Also, the present trend to longevity may mean that a segment of our citizens are very susceptible to the aggravating effects of air pollution that now exist in polluted Canadian urban areas.
In clause 3 of this bill I have suggested that the minister consider the expediency of encouraging co-operative activities of municipal, provincial, interprovincial, federal and international governments for the investigation, prevention and abatement of air pollution. Also in this clause I have suggested that the minister consider the expediency of initiating and conducting appropriate research across Canada in the field of air pollution and, in particular, undertaking studies in air quality, weather conditions and monitoring programs in order to determine ambient air quality national guides and criteria of the known air pollutants.
I have also suggested that in the federal field the minister consider the expediency of controlling air pollution from vessels in Canadian waters by effective investigation and enforcement of the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act, from interprovincial railway operations by means of the railway board of commissioners, through the Atomic Energy Commission the air pollution caused by ionizing radiation, air pollution which may be caused by contaminating our soil when it is treated with pesticides and, above all, I suggest that the federal government take initiative in controlling air pollution being emitted from federal buildings, equipment and vehicles used by federal authorities.
I also suggest in this bill that the minister encourage regular federal-provincial meetings and seminars to set air quality standards, and establish a special federal air pollution control division with adequate central and regional personnel and laboratory facilities in the Department of National Health and Welfare to collect data and information on air pollution, to determine criteria and guides helpful in setting ambient air quality standards in accordance with the principles of the report of the World Health Organization on air pollution.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I have proposed the establishment of a federal anti-air pollution agency to co-ordinate this program and also the establishment of a national anti-air pollution agency and advisory council to assist in fighting air pollution.
March 1, 1968

In clause 4 of the bill I propose that the governor in council make regulations requiring motor vehicles or engines to have installed thereon or incorporated therein one or more devices to prevent or lessen the emission into the outdoor atmosphere of any air contaminant or contaminants, prescribing the specifications and standards of any such device; classifying motor vehicles and engines for the purpose of any regulations and exempting any class or type of motor vehicle or engine from any regulation; classifying the quality of equipment and fuels for use in industrial processes, steam and electric generation, and domestic heating.
Many factors contribute to air pollution, but during our study of this problem we were told that they emanate from two major forms, namely a reducing form which consists largely of soot and sulphur dioxide, and an oxidizing form which consists of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and photochemical decomposition products such as oxides of nitrogen, ozone, and many others. Air pollution is also influenced by the topography of the area and weather conditions such as humidity, brilliant sunshine, air stagnation and atmospheric inversion. The health hazards of air pollutants are also influenced by age, cigarette smoking and pre-existent diseases.
At a public meeting and panel discussion in which I participated at the University of Toronto last December, Dr. Alfred Bernhart, a civil engineer, described how much air pollution there is in the city of Toronto and how much damage it produces. He estimated that in one year Torontonians, by burning 8.8 million tons of coal, oil, heating gas, garbage, and also 3 million tons of gasoline and diesel oil, emit 5.2 trillion cubic feet of polluted exhaust gases into our air. In addition, 65,300 tons of dust is blown into Toronto every year. He stated also that 47 per cent of this pollution is caused by cars, buses and trucks; 20 per cent by power plants; 20 per cent by heating, 10 per cent by manufacturing plants; and 3 per cent by garbage incinerators. This pollution, he also stated, causes material and health damage amounting to approximately $120 million annually in Toronto alone.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Health authorities have stated that the intensity of urbanization and industrialization producing air pollution may have a residual influence on lung cancer mortality. Some medical specialists are of the opinion that lung cancer deaths among cigarette smokers 27053-453
Control of Air Pollution are more frequent in large industrialized cities than in rural areas.
Studies have also shown that there is a reduction in visibility when air pollution is at its peak. In several studies of deaths during severe urban pollution, air and train crashes accounted for some of the peak mortality. Highway safety crusaders should note, therefore, that the effect of air pollution may be augmented by smoking cigarettes and inhaling carbon monoxide-a combination which increases the risk of automobile accidents.
What is alarming is that on the one hand there is an increasing air pollution hazard to humans, animals, vegetation, and physical property, and on the other hand there is an inadequate nationally co-ordinated research, a lack of ambient air quality standards, ineffective regulations, and inefficient enforcement agencies, all of which is steadily contributing to the air pollution problem in Canada.
To date I know of no authority in Canada which deals with interprovincial air pollution problems. That is why there is a wide variation in air pollution legislation and enforcement across the country. To date, Ontario has the most comprehensive air pollution program, as contained in the air pollution control act of 1967. The other provinces are said by experts to have inadequate air pollution control measures. Countries like the United States, the U.S.S.R., West Germany and Poland are far advanced in the task of setting ambient air quality standards, control regulations and other means of enforcement.
As, to date, we in Canada do not have the financial and scientific personnel to set national ambient air quality standards, we should try to learn from these countries and try to determine whether it is practical to adopt some of their measures. For general guidance in this matter, the World Health Organization's expert report on atmospheric pollutants has been available since 1964. Mr. W. B. Drowley, chairman of the Canadian Standards Association committee on air pollution, stated in an address at a conference in Montreal in 1966 that the government of Canada should place a co-ordinated policy in the hands of one agency or department to avoid duplication and fragmentation of effort.
I believe that the proposals I outlined in Bill No. C-25 meet the immediate needs which are urgently required. The Minister of National Health and Welfare will be able to fight air pollution in Canada more effectively

March 1, 1968
Control of Air Pollution by accepting the proposals outlined in clauses 3 and 4 of the bill. I also hope that he will prevail upon his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), to grant tax incentives to private citizens who would instal anti-air pollution devices and use clean fuels.
It is most urgent to attack vigorously the problem of air pollution in Canada. I believe this bill will assist in abating air pollution in our country and help to ensure better health and a higher quality of life for our citizens. Therefore I express the hope that the members of this house will either pass this bill, or at least refer its subject matter to the appropriate committee of the house for further study.


Frank Howard: I wonder if the hon. member would permit me to ask him a question before he concludes his remarks. In view of the fact that he is the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Laing), or a kind of junior cabinet minister, I wonder whether, in the light of the importance of this subject which he so ably outlined and the urgency of dealing with it, he has had any intimations from the government as to whether or not it accepts the concept contained in the bill.


Stanley Haidasz: May I say in answer to the hon. member's question that I have received no assurance either from the Minister of National Health and Welfare or from any other minister that they will accept anything in the bill, but I have asked them whether they think that some of the ideas I have put forward in it would be acceptable. I did not receive any answers, but I have canvassed my colleagues on both sides of the house and have been told that they think these proposed measures are worthy of consideration. I would not be surprised if some of the clauses in the bill were used in a clean air act for Canada.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I was favourably impressed by the fact that my colleagues on this side of the house who took part in the agricultural debate made brief and direct speeches. I hope to follow their example in commenting on this bill, which I understand an hon. member may move to have referred to the standing committee, if it passes on second reading today.
In my view the control of pollution in Canada is one of the most urgent and serious matters we now face. It consists not only of

having clean air and clean water, because there is a more fundamental problem involved in it. Until pollution is under control, our industrial production cannot continue at an accelerating rate because as production increases, so does pollution. Not only must we reduce the pollution which exists at present, but we must control any pollution in the future. Production by large industries inevitably brings about pollution of air and water, sometimes at the same time and by the same factory. This must be controlled before new industry starts. So we cannot accelerate production until this problem is controlled, and regulations for new industry are introduced all across Canada.
Second, we cannot hope to attract an increasing number of visitors to Canada if our reputation for clean air and clean water is not maintained; and it is well known that we intend to maintain our reputation, so as to encourage the flow of visitors. Finally, our quality of life will suffer if pollution is not controlled; and, after all, quality of life is our ultimate objective.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
However, even if the bill were adopted, Mr. Speaker, I think it is far from being an outright assault on the problem of air pollution, which in itself is only one segment of the whole area of pollution. Some people feel you really cannot separate air pollution from soil or water pollution, from the administrative point of view. Many industries pollute air, soil and water simultaneously. However I would not want to niggle about division of responsibility, because the main problem in Canada now in connection with pollution control is division of responsibility. There are so many commissions, organizations and levels of government involved that from the action point of view we have almost reached an impasse.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I intend to deal solely with the bill before us, which concerns itself with air pollution control. As I said before, I think the bill is quite inadequate as a piece of legislation. It is nothing more than a vehicle for discussion, and on that basis I give it my approval. It makes no provision whatever for the enforcement of pollution control; in fact, there is nothing new in the bill, because such control as it does provide is already in effect. Nor does it make provision for federal financial involvement, except in a very indirect way. I think there must be
March 1, 1968

financial involvement on the part of the federal government, and for several reasons, one of which is that other jurisdictions have been unable to take action to control pollution, owing to lack of funds.
The bill makes provision for the establishment of a national anti-war pollution agency and a national anti-air pollution advisory council. I do not think we need two bodies where one would do, Mr. Speaker. Second, I do not think that this bill gives the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Mac-Eachen) any powers additional to those he already has. I am not sure that I like the setting up of another agency for air pollution control only. Neither do I like the setting up of an agency that has no powers of enforcement and no financial resources. The central pivot of the bill is clause 3, which merely sets out the duties of the minister, permitting him to consider certain expediencies but giving him no additional powers.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, I would not support the bill as a legislative measure. It has no real strength in the areas I have mentioned, and as a legislative measure is no answer to the serious pollution problems we are now facing. However, as I say, as a vehicle for discussion in this house, and in committee if the bill should be sent there, the bill does have some validity in that it talks about air pollution control. But that is about all it does do. The need for pollution control in this country is so great that, even in its present state, I would not want to oppose the bill. If it does anything at all to meet the situation, then to that extent I support it, just to get some discussion under way.


Mr. Bud Germa (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on Bill C-25, which deals with the control of air pollution. My thoughts are similar to those of the speaker who just preceded me. While the bill is perhaps a good avenue for discussion, it certainly will not go very far in solving pollution problems in this country as we know them today.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that when we talk about air pollution we must also consider other areas of pollution, such as those affecting soil and water. Pollution in the air eventually finds its way to our foliage, then into the soil and into our streams, lakes and rivers, where it tends to become concentrated. Therefore I do not think we can separate these three areas; they must all be considered together. If they are separated, the legislation will suffer by oversimplifying the problem.
Control of Air Pollution
It is my belief that this bill will generate some discussion and to that extent it has some validity. I support it on the ground that it will engender debate across the country by various committees, agencies and groups of people, who would at least be talking about pollution.
I also believe that the problem of pollution has to be tackled on a national scale. Jurisdiction over pollution control is now vested mainly in the provinces, which in turn pass on the responsibility to the various municipalities. The municipalities are reluctant to enforce any legislation that may be detrimental to their economic health. That is to say, they are not anxious to legislate against industry. It is well known that, if they do so, industries move to other areas that allow them to continue to pollute the air their production processes. Therefore it is very rarely that a municipality passes legislation to rigidly control pollution, or even if it does pass legislation, that it enforces that legislation, because the municipality does not want to drive industry out of one community and into a more receptive neighbouring municipality.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, by attacking the problem on a national scale you avoid this sort of competition between municipalities. This concept could also be projected into the provincial field, so that one province does not have more rigid pollution control than its neighbour province, thus inviting industries to jump the provincial border to escape the cost of controlling pollution. I think it is only proper to discuss pollution on a national scale, and I suggest the federal government should assert its authority so that the matter can be attacked nationally. There should be a national law to cover pollution. It ought not to be left to the provinces, since standards of enforcement and legislation are different as between provinces.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Pollution will not be tackled adequately until the general public becomes aware of the menace. There is a growing trend for those working with the press, radio and television to give wide exposure to the dangers of pollution. I recall a program the C.B.C. carried, I believe on February 12, in which the camera and camera crew had been smuggled into the International Nickel plant at Sudbury. Pictures of pollution in the making were taken, pictures which had never been taken before. The president of the company had said that

March 1, 1968
Control of Air Pollution the camera crew would not be allowed in the plant, because it was against company policy, but the photographs had been taken by the time the permission to take them was sought.
Full marks must be given to the C.B.C. This matter might have been discussed during the broadcasting bill discussions. A private station, I think, would never have taken the risk of offending such a large advertiser. It would not have taken such pictures, showing pollution in the making. The C.B.C. crew deserve a medal for bringing this problem to the attention of the public in such a dramatic way.
I also understand that one of the camera crew, after coming out of the smelter, had to receive medical attention on account of the large quantity of sulphur dioxide he had inhaled. In this connection I should put on the record that pollution within the smelter reaches 200 parts of sulphur dioxide per million. That is almost a lethal limit. The medical profession believes that we cannot survive for more than four hours if we breathe a mixture of 200 sulphur dioxide parts per million parts of air. This pollution level exists almost daily in the plant. I must also point out that thousands of men are exposed daily to even higher concentrations of sulphur dioxide, and to ammonia and carbon dioxide.
You can breathe in up to four parts per million of sulphur dioxide without knowing you are breathing pulluted air. Only when the level rises from five to six parts per million does one begin to suffer any discomfort; but it is too late then, because already you have been exposed too much. So, polluted air may be damaging you, and you may not know it. That is the insidious part of pollution, because often you do not know you are exposed to it.


William Arnold Peters: You can't say that for E.B. Eddy, across the river.


Melville Carlyle Germa: The smell is obnoxious, but whether it is dangerous I do not know. It may be damaging to our sense of smell only.
I have been concerned about the problem of pollution for a number of years. I come from Sudbury, which often takes a drubbing from correspondents who pass through but seldom stay. Invariably you hear statements such as, "It looks like the far side of the moon." One man actually said, "Where did the bomb fall?" There are no forests in our area; they were stripped away many years ago. Without their protection our soil has

eroded and black, barren rocks are exposed. Many wonder why anybody lives there. But we do produce wealth. When that wealth is produced, sulphur dioxide is discharged into the air, and the fumes have ruined one of the most beautiful parts of Canada. One of the best stands of white pine in this country stood in our part of northern Ontario. Now it has been devastated. The topsoil is washed away. Nothing is left except eroded, clay gul-lys and black, barren rocks.
We have a high incidence of lung disease. Though there has been no investigation, I suspect that long term exposure to sulphur dioxide fumes is the cause of it.
Father Hod Marshall of St. Charles College in Sudbury, which is run by the Basilian Fathers, asks in a letter:
Please keep me informed on what progress is being made in that direction. Who was responsible for clearing up a like problem in Trail, B.C.?
The reverend father was referring to our pollution problem. It will be recalled that Trail, in British Columbia, had a problem similar to that of Sudbury. A smelter was refining lead and zinc, and S02 was being exhausted in the process. The provincial government took no action; no government in this country took action. All the same, the fumes were finding their way down into the United States and were damaging the fruit orchards in the state of Washington. The United States government saw fit to bring action against Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, with the result that the company was forced to clean up its operation. The exhaust which polluted the air was turned into fertilizer. So the company turned a waste product into a product that brought it profits.
If a foreign government could bring a punitive action which forced an industry to clean up its manufacturing process, why cannot this government take punitive measures just as effectively to force other industries to clean up their operations.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Some time ago I saw fit to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Mac-Eachen) the following question about pollution in Sudbury:
Will the Minister of National Health and Welfare undertake a survey to determine the effects on workers of long-term exposure to high concentrations of sulphur dioxide fumes at the International Nickel Company plant in the Sudbury district?
March 1, 1968

To this, the minister replied:
The Department of National Health and Welfare would assist the provincial government, if requested, in conducting a survey of this type.
So you see, Mr. Speaker, there is a problem about determining who has jurisdiction over air pollution control measures. In this instance I was referred to the provincial government. I followed the matter up and referred my question, together with the minister's reply, to Dr. Dymond, minister of health for Ontario, who replied to me as follows:
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of January 11th. It will also advise you that a study of possible long term effects of exposure to sulphur dioxide in smelter workers and others has already commenced at the Sudbury plant.
I was pleased to hear that this survey had begun. I had been in contact with the local union which was watching this situation closely and I advised the international representative of the United Steel Workers of America, Mr. Valentine, of the information I had been given. He went to the International Nickel Company at whose plant in Sudbury this survey was supposedly taking place, and he afterwards wrote to me in this vein:
I made it a point to contact Mr. Seli, manager of industrial relations for Inco in Sudbury, and asked him if he knew of any studies regarding the possible long term effects of exposure to sulphur dioxide of smelter workers or others in the Sudbury area. To say the least, I was very surprised when he told me he knew nothing about this.
So you see, Mr. Speaker, there is confusion here. The manager of industrial relations in the plant supposedly under study does not even know that the province of Ontario is conducting a survey, if indeed a survey is going forward. The union representative does not know about it, and neither do I, though I am convinced such a survey should be carried out because insufficient information is available as to the effect of sulphur dioxide upon people who are exposed to it; and if ever there was a group of guinea pigs it is this group of five or six thousand workers, some of whom have been exposed for as long as thirty years. A comparison could be made between the condition of their lungs and those of the newer workers, so as to document forever the type of damage which sulphur dioxide does. I think that sulphur dioxide is the main cause of pollution at the present time.
Control of Air Pollution
With regard to this survey in the Sudbury district, on February 2 the Ontario department of mines issued a press release which stated:
The Ontario Department of Health in co-operation with the Ontario Department of Mines has been engaged in a study of the possible health effects of long-term exposure to sulphur dioxide among workers in the Sudbury area. This study is being carried out to determine whether there has been any relationship between work exposure to sulphur dioxide and the occurrence of certain chronic diseases such as respiratory or heart disease.
This is the statement made by the Ontario department of mines and the Ontario department of health. Yet the company does not know about it, the union does not know about it and I do not know about it. It seems strange that a survey could be going on without anyone concerned knowing about it.
There are other people who are concerned about pollution. I have been in contact with Dr. W. Y. Watson, chairman of the biology department at Laurentian University in the city of Sudbury, whose ideas on the subject of pollution are in some respects at variance with my own, and apparently at variance with those of the hon. member who is sponsoring the bill before us. Dr. Watson did attend the conference on pollution held in November, and he writes as follows:
One impression I got from being there was that there was sufficient legislation to begin pollution control.
This professor feels there is sufficient legislation on the books. I shall not quibble with him. I do not believe we have sufficient legislation to enable us to enforce the measures we believe should be taken. If it is the case that there is already sufficient legislation, we do not need Bill C-25, which is a new bill dealing with pollution, though I believe it is a good bill as far as it goes. Dr. Watson goes on to say that the laws and regulations may have to be modified as further research indicates weaknesses.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make a few comments on Bill No. C-25 introduced by my colleague for Toronto-Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz).
It is now recognized that air pollution is a problem with which our modern world will

March 1, 1963
Control of Air Pollution have to cope and which is liable to upset the economy of all countries.
This pollution is so obvious in urban centres that there is no doubt about it, since buildings are altered, metals are corroded by air acidity or vegetables are dying or are unable to reach maturity. How can men, in turn, avoid the effects of such pollution?
One can say that very few countries do not feel the ill effects of this progressive intoxication caused by air pollution which, contrary to the classic social calamities, affect the countries with the highest standard of living. Therefore, it is in the most developed or industrialized countries, where there is the greatest number of motor vehicles, that the air is increasingly polluted and becomes less and less respirable. When pollution reaches a certain critical stage, unfavorable atmospheric conditions may cause serious diseases and even, in some cases, death.
The Montreal Dimanche Matin, in its last Sunday issue, has denounced the danger of poisonous carbon monoxide emanations in downtown Montreal. Mr. Jean Marier, director of the Air Pollution Division of the Montreal Health Department said in that article that tests have been made in this regard. One of their inspectors spent several days cruising around the downtown section of Montreal as a passenger in a car. The ventilation system of the car was working perfectly and the windows were down. Here are the results of these tests:
The tests have shown a proportion of 12 per cent of carbon monoxide, originating from the exhaust system of various vehicles, in the blood stream of the inspector. This means that 12 per cent of the red corpuscles could not function and absorb the oxygen.
"When there is more than 10 per cent carbon monoxide, there are slight poisoning symptoms, nausea, general discomfort. Between 15 and 20 per cent, there is dizziness and the judgment and faculties become unbalanced. Between 50 and 60 per cent, death strikes rapidly.''
The world has already witnessed similar tragedies and no one can deny that a large city, where such conditions prevail, suffers similar consequences.
In the last few years, we have noticed a considerable decrease in the sunlight and a progressive increase in the fog in industrial areas. The reputation of the notorious "smog" (smoke and fog together), which affects London is universally recognized.
Among the cities which have suffered the most from air pollution, one can single out the city of London, England, where it caused a great number of deaths and disabilities.

During the winter of 1952, everybody remembers that due to a persistent smog which spread all kinds of air impurities, 4,000 persons died and hospitals were filled with the victims of that scourge.
It will also be recalled that as the smog-a combination of smoke and fog-increased, hospitals and other medical centres had to admit only the more severely affected patients. Most of the sick had acute respiratory ailments.
However, humans were not the only ones to be affected, as I said earlier. Some animals, taking part in a show at that time, died or had to be destroyed, due to acute respiratory trouble. All animals were affected, and those who survived required intensive care.
This is the worst disaster of its kind, although London has registered losses from this scourge before and since 1952. The death registers show that already in 1874 there was a number of deaths due to air pollution. The same happened in other parts of the world.
In 1930, in the industrial regions of the Meuse valley, in Belgium, 60 people died and several others were gravely ill during a rather long period of fog which polluted the area. A number of domestic animals died on that occasion.
Closer to home, in Donora, in Pennsylvania, 20 persons died and half the people became ill in similar circumstances in 1948. More recently, New York has started to feel the fatal effects of air pollution.
This proves beyond a doubt that air pollution can cause death or illness which can leave people disabled. The most striking fact in the above examples, is that before people began to suffer from the harmful effects mentioned, pollution seemed to be a normal and harmless phenomenon.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
In London, for instance, the day fog appeared, visibility was good in the morning but at a certain time, when the velocity of the wind came to nearly nothing, pollution started to cover the city. The next day, smog became so dense that some transportation companies had to stop all activities. Traffic practically stopped and many drivers left their cars in the streets. So the city of London became virtually crippled during four days because of fog.
What will happen if similar conditions occur again? One can wonder to what extent people living in a city where air is polluted
March 1, 1968



are affected in a normal day. There is always in the air this mixture of smoke, sulphur dioxide and possibly other noxious substances, but those substances do not present as much danger as when the atmosphere is calm.
Medical authorities are not unanimous on this point, but it is getting more obvious that some illnesses, like bronchitis, emphysema and other respiratory ailments are aggravated, if not caused, by daily exposure to an atmosphere considered as normal, but containing a certain degree of pollution. It is also suspected that lung cancer is caused by air pollution, but to a lower degree than by cigaret smoke.
It has been proved that people living in cities where the pollution danger is more pronounced are more subject to lung cancer than those who live in rural areas. It is not necessary to have been subjected to air pollution all our life to pay the consequences, because it has been clearly demonstrated that people who have emigrated from the United Kingdom to Australia or South Africa are more subject to lung cancer than those who were born and had always lived in those countries.
In addition to the human deaths which result from air pollution, there is also a considerable loss of human resources. Vegetation is hampered, livestock suffer from almost incurable diseases, houses and buildings are blackened and man is even deprived of the pleasure of admiring the beauties of nature. Estimates have been made of the losses incurred, and it is generally accepted that air pollution costs urban dwellers between $30 and $40 a year per capita.
In Canada, it means that air pollution can cost billions of dollars annually. We could subsidize several programs, in order to control that problem with a small percentage of those funds. All citizens should contribute to those expenditures incurred for the control of pollution which is permeating our towns and cities.
Sources of pollution are various and I will simply summarize them. We have just completed some investigations and the knowledge gained on the subject throughout the country should be efficiently conveyed. We know that Bill No. C-25 includes provisions to that effect. The bill asks the minister to recognize the urgent necessity of encouraging research at the municipal, provincial and federal levels, in order to determine the nature of air pollution and the means to control it.
The bill is also concerned with research on atmospheric conditions and air quality in
Public Accounts
order to establish criteria and national standards. Special appropriations are also contained in this bill in order to promote research at the university level and to facilitate the exchange of knowledge between various intermediary bodies which the department intends to establish.
Mr. Speaker, those points are among the most important and they are conformable to my earlier remarks. We must be informed on that matter. We cannot be satisfied to pass legislation in the hope that the problem will be solved in that way. We must also be sure that the course of action which we shall follow will meet adequately and in all respects, the interest of the country.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Roxburgh):
That the bill be referred to the standing committee on health and welfare.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is moved by Mr. Isabelle, seconded by Mr. Roxburgh, that the subject matter of this bill be sent to the standing committee on health and welfare. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt this amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Isabelle) agreed to.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could get consent to revert to motions for the purpose of passing the resolution to send the public accounts to the standing committee?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) have leave to proceed with order No. 67?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the Public Accounts volumes I, II and III for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1967, laid before the house on January 22, 1968, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.

March 1, 1968
Business of the House


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, we in this group are quite content under the circumstances to pass this without debate, if it is agreeable to the house generally.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So are we, Mr. Speaker, but we would like the report of the Auditor General to be referred as well. I believe that that report has been tabled since this motion was drafted, and I wonder if by consent it could be included.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker; perhaps that could be added to my motion.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether we may assume that the committee will be called immediately to appoint a new chairman and vice chairman.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By leave, the motion would now read:
That the Public Accounts, volumes I, II and III for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1967, laid before the house on January 22, 1968, and the report of the Auditor General, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, would the government house leader place on the record the order of business for the first couple of days of next week, so far as he is in a position to do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us have it for the whole week.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on Monday we intend to continue with the supplementary estimates of the Department of Agriculture. Then we intend to proceed with the estimates of the Departments of Finance, External Affairs and National Defence.


Frank Howard: Before we adjourn, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister relative to next week's activities whether the government plans to bring any particular crisis before the house and, if so, would he tell us what it might be.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock the house stands adjourned until 2.30 p.m. Monday next.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 4, 1968