1968-03-05

Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting every member of this house and the use of the facilities provided by parliament for the members; and more particularly, as you are the guardian of our privileges, to bring to your attention a serious abuse of parliamentary privileges.
My question of privilege concerns the use of these facilities by a minister of the crown who is engaged in the campaign for leadership of the Liberal party. Mr. Speaker, last week there came to my attention a document which had been reproduced on the copying facilities provided for members of this house in the carrying out of their parliamentary duties. I feel that I must bring this matter to your attention in this way, Mr. Speaker, in order that these facilities shall not be used for business unconnected with the business of parliament, especially at this time.
I hold that document in my hand. It was produced on the machines in the photocopy room, utilizing House of Commons stationery, staff and facilities. The heading is "Agenda Ontario for Trudeau Committee." I feel, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a proper use of our facilities. The document has reference to the leadership campaign being waged by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau).
I am bringing this matter to your attention, Mr. Speaker, in order that you may take the necessary steps to prevent the use of parliamentary facilities in this unauthorized fashion and in order that the minister concerned and any others whose supporters may be acting in this way, may take notice and govern themselves accordingly.
I wish to make it clear at this time that it is not my intention to implicate the House of Commons duplicating staff in this matter in any way.


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire about that without delay.
I must add, however, that many things are done on my behalf without my knowing; I will find out whether that is true and if it is, I shall take immediate steps to correct the situation.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South) presented the first report of the standing committee on public accounts, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
First report of standing committee on national defence-Mr. Laniel.
[Note: Text of foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO FURTHER FISCAL PROPOSALS On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the minister was unable to implement the main budgetary proposal of November 30 last, is it now his intention to present a budget to the house and, if so, when?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the results of the adverse vote on Bill No. C-193 are still under consideration by the government, and I expect to be in a position to make an announcement very soon.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I wonder if at that time the minister would also announce whether he will bring forward a white paper along with his budgetary measure.

March 5. 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when the government does make its decision it is the intention to lay before the house a whole series of proposals designed to deal with the present situation facing the country.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the difficulties the government is experiencing in the economic and financial areas, is it the intention of the government to recess parliament for the leadership convention?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there is parliamentary business that must be completed before we can even consider that.



STEPS TO PROTECT LEVEL OF CANADIAN DOLLAR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the rather disturbing reports yesterday and this morning concerning our currency, is the Minister of Finance in a position to advise the house what steps Canada may be taking to protect the level of the Canadian dollar?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that as far as the government are concerned, we have every intention to maintain the present parity position of the Canadian dollar. We believe this is appropriate in respect of the essential value of the Canadian dollar. We have plenty of resources, and I hope parliament will support this government in its endeavour to raise the necessary revenues which are part of the pattern to give confidence to foreigners and Canadians that the Canadian dollar is worth its present parity position.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiflam):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs with regard to the report of the commission which was appointed by the governments of the three prairie provinces to look into the matter of grocery retailing on the prairies. In view of the fact that the report of this commission indicates the dominant position of Canada Safeway Ltd. and the George Weston
[Mr. Monteith.)
Ltd. groups of companies, and states that there has been excessive profiteering in the grocery industry in the area studied, does the government intend to accede to the recommendation of this commission that there be an immediate investigation by the federal government? If so, what form will this investigation take?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the press reports indicate that the report mentioned by the hon. member is a very comprehensive document. Neither the government nor our department has received a copy. This morning we were in touch with the Queen's Printer at Regina to request a number of copies. When the report is received it will of course receive study by the department and by the director of investigation and research. Among the subjects to be studied of course will be the allegations just recited by the hon. member.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
minister how soon he anticipates he will be able to acquaint the house with what steps he proposes to take in the light of the recommendations of this commission.


John Napier Turner: It may be, Mr. Speaker, that we will judge it opportune to make a statement to the house after receiving and reviewing the report.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether, after receiving and taking a close look at the report, it might be advisable to submit it to the special committee on consumer affairs in order that members of this house may take it under study.


John Napier Turner: That suggestion will, of course, be considered.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Koolenay West):: Mr. Speaker, when the minister is investigating these allegations will he also look into the policies of these and related companies in respect of the purchase of British Columbia fruit and the terms laid down in this instance?



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I directed a
March 5, 1968

question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, asking him whether he had anything to report on the talks which had proceeded between Sir Alec Douglas-Home and Prime Minister Wilson regarding Rhodesia. At that time he said his reply would have to await a report on these talks. Has he received such a report, and is he able to give any indication of any improvement in the situation there?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, these talks did take place, but they were private and there is therefore nothing to report.



ASSISTANCE FOR PERSONS OF ASIATIC ORIGIN IN KENYA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he can now give the reply he indicated he would make to the two questions I put to him yesterday relating to the plight of Asian refugees in Kenya.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Commonwealth secretariat has not initiated the negotiations which were implied in my hon. friend's question yesterday. I know of no suggestion that there should be such negotiations.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Is it the intention of the government to try to promote such negotiations through the Commonwealth secretariat?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the government considers this is essentially a matter between the governments of Britain and Kenya and the persons concerned.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Does the minister then consider that Canada, as a member of the Commonwealth, has no responsibility whatsoever in this regard?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is argumentative.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could ask what might be called a double supplementary question in that it relates to two earlier questions. Is the government seriously considering or exploring with other governments the possibility of calling immediately for a top level consultation of Commonwealth leaders to consider the problems in respect of Rhodesia and the more immediate ones which have developed in Kenya?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: In regard to Rhodesia, I think the most effective action that can be taken is action by the Security Council. I have already replied in respect of the question of Kenya.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Prosper Boulanger (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, in view of certain recommendations in the Picard report, and in view of the recent visit by the Minister without Portfolio, is it the intention of the Minister of Transport to commence building rest rooms or waiting rooms to improve the facilities for longshoremen on the Montreal waterfront?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Speaker@: Order, please. I fail to see the urgency of the question.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-Grace):: My question is supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Mercier regarding the waiting rooms and rest rooms at the Montreal docks. I think this question is urgent, and the Minister of Transport was ready to answer it. The answer could do a lot to avoid another dispute at the Montreal docks. I believe the minister was ready to answer the hon. member for Mercier.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members must realize it is not always easy for me to determine whether a question is urgent. If in this case the matter is important and urgent, I have no objection to an answer.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have already taken up this question with the chairman of the National Harbours Board. He has assured me of immediate consideration, and I am optimistic that it will be possible to start construction of the first of these rest rooms almost at once.


Michael Starr: May I ask a
supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: I must say I am still doubtful whether the question was in order. The hon. member for Ontario.


Michael Starr: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. I should like to

March 5, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry ask the minister, outside of attending to this trivia of supplying rest rooms and waiting rooms, what is the government doing toward alleviating the situation and bring about a settlement?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the government has done everything that is permissible under the act. We are still waiting, and have been for days, the answer of the two parties to the dispute as to whom they want as chairman of the board that they asked be set up. I have intimated that if they cannot agree I will be glad to appoint one. They hope to be able to agree on a chairman. I await word from them.


Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: I wonder if the Minister of Labour can give us information concerning the meeting that was held yesterday with the port council?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I would refer that question to the Minister of Transport. Arrangements for the meeting were made with him, and the meeting took place in his office.


James Russell Keays: I repeat the question to the Minister of Transport. Can he give us the information?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We did have a meeting with the port council. They came to meet with the minister, as is customary when a new minister of transport is appointed. They raised a number of questions which are current in respect of the port of Montreal and the longer range question of possible participation of some kind in management. I assured them that this was one of the questions being studied by the department at the present time, as well as various other alternatives now evident and any others which might emerge for the best possible management of our port facilities in the years to come. We discussed the current labour situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if the minister wants to return to motions?


Michael Starr: He does not have anything to say; that is why he is taking so long.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport.
Is he contemplating handing over to the Montreal authorities the jurisdiction over the port of Montreal?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not at this moment, Mr. Speaker; it would be premature to consider this. We had a good discussion and agreed to keep communication active as we work out some of the problems of mutual interest.


James Russell Keays: May I ask the minister whether any action has been taken toward encouraging those companies that had decided not to visit Montreal to come back to Montreal?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think every effort is being made to improve the situation at the port so it will attract the kind of commercial support it has been used to in the past, and really deserves because of its central location.



PRIVY COUNCIL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Poriage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the President of the Privy Council. In view of the rather salutary work being done by the special planning secretariat of the Privy Council, I wonder whether it is true, as stated in a recent press report, that this special planning secretariat is to be discontinued or disbanded.


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would refer this question to the Prime Minister.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think that question was answered some time ago in the house. The special planning secretariat is being disbanded to cut down expenses, and its force is being distributed among the departments immediately concerned.


Siegfried John Enns: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker; I did not quite hear the last part of the Prime Minister's answer. Is the coordinating function respecting the overlapping of departments being continued? This is so important.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, the functions will be carried on. When we get to the estimates I hope to make a statement on that point.



WHEAT-MAINTENANCE OF PRICE RANGE UNDER INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence Watson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question
March 5. 1968

to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Does the statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce about the United States and Canada stabilizing wheat prices, to be found in Hansard for March 1, mean that the government is restoring the quarterly meetings between the two nations set up by the Conservative party when they were in power; and what steps are the government taking to make sure that the I.G.A. will be implemented and that wheat will sell within the agreed price range?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think the question as asked is not in order.


Lawrence E. Watson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rephrase my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and ask him what steps the government is taking to make sure that the I.G.A. will be implemented, and that wheat will sell within the agreed price range.


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: We have had a considerable number of meetings with our colleagues in the exporting countries, and recently we had one in Washington which was quite productive. There have been discussions, and understandings were reached. These understandings will be communicated later this month to other wheat importing and exporting countries which are signatories of the international grains agreement and discussed with them. Until this discussion takes place it would not be appropriate in the present context to reveal the nature of these understandings.
However, I may say in general that good progress has been made at this meeting in working out the steps necessary for implementing the price range of the new international grains agreement which is scheduled to come into effect on July 1.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance which has been asked on a number of occasions, regarding the inquiry into the increase in the price of fuel oil and gasoline. Yesterday, in reply to a question by my colleague the hon. member for Sudbury, the Minister of Finance stated that he had
Inquiries of the Ministry received a report that morning but since he was at a cabinet meeting he had not had time to review it. Perhaps he has been at a continuous cabinet meeting since, but I wonder whether the minister has had a chance to see it since then.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member ask the question.


David Lewis: My question is, has the minister had a chance to review the report, and would he tell the house what it says?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the house will understand that the Minister of Finance has been very much occupied either in cabinet or preparing for it in the last number of hours.
[Translation\



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Since Canada has just broken off her diplomatic relations with Gabon, can he tell us if we intend also to break off our diplomatic relations with Quebec by recalling our representative in Quebec, that is the lieutenant governor?



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State, but in her absence I will direct it to her parliamentary secretary. Would the parliamentary secretary ascertain whether his minister will table the directive dealing with alleged separatist exposure on Radio-Canada sent by M. Marcel Ouimet to M. Grand-Landau?



WINTER WORKS

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO CONTINUATION OF PROGRAM On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. On February 1 the minister said he was discussing with

March 5, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry the provinces the winter works program. Has the discussion been completed, and has the minister made a decision?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: No, Mr. Speaker, the discussion is not completed and no decision has yet been made.


George Louis Chatterton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that most municipalities are now preparing their budgets, can the minister indicate when he proposes to bring forward some amendment to the program?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be in a position to advise the house of the decisions of the government in the very near future.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Last week I asked the minister whether he would be prepared to make a fairly comprehensive statement in the house with regard to the monetary situation internationally, particularly with regard to the Canadian dollar. I realize, of course, that he answered a rather simple question from the hon. member for Edmonton West today, but I wonder whether in view of the continual-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Colin Cameron: I did not mean it in an insulting way. It was not a complex question.
I was wondering whether the minister would not think it advisable to give the house a more comprehensive statement of the various measures the government is preparing to take to protect the Canadian dollar or to protect the Canadian economy in the face of the speculation, in both senses of the word, which seems to be mounting daily. Perhaps, beyond a mere statement, he could-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the house will recall that it had been my intention when the estimates of the Department of Finance were called to give a comprehensive statement on the economic situation, in which I would have dealt with the international as well as the national aspects. That is still my intention, and I believe at that time I can give a description of the situation as I see it. I hope there will be a debate in the house on this very important matter.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether in making that statement he could, for the information of dullards like me and others, specify the advantages or disadvantages of a fixed or floating exchange rate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I gave notice of the question I wish to put to the hon. Minister of Transport.
Further to the representations made by the chamber of commerce of Alma, main centre of my riding, can the hon. minister tell us what steps he intends to take to improve the relay of C.B.C. programs by the station CKRS-TV of Jonquieres-Kenogami?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will admit that the question could easily be put on the order paper. If there is any urgency, which I fail to see, the hon. member may give notice that the question will be discussed on adjournment.


Joseph Alcide Simard: At ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker. [English]



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the
March 5, 1968

Minister of Transport. A month ago, on February 5, he advised the house that negotiations concerning the Digby-Saint John ferry were accelerating, and there was rising expectation that an announcement would be made. I should like the minister to say whether he could define what he means by "expectation", and when we might have an announcement on the Digby-Saint John ferry.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Reasonably soon, Mr. Speaker. I am even more optimistic than I was the last time my hon. friend asked the question.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the approaching tourist season, and in view of the delay in the transport committee report, will the minister make a definite statement on this matter before we recess?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I cannot assure my hon. friend that this will be possible, but every effort will be made to make an announcement at the earliest possible date.


Thomas Miller Bell: Does the minister not realize he would improve his chances of getting votes from the maritimes?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



REPORTED BANKRUPTCIES IN CONSTRUCTION OF RAILWAY TO GREAT SLAVE LAKE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It has to do with the construction of the Great Slave Lake railway and the bankruptcy of a number of construction firms engaged in the building of the railway. I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he has received any communication, either from members of the house or members of the other place, asking for an investigation into the matter of bankruptcies involved in the construction of that railway. I should like also to ask the minister why he has refused to answer his mail.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: That question is not in order; therefore it cannot be debated at ten o'clock.
Inquiries of the Ministry
[Later.i


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister say whether he has come to any decision in relation to the requests of some hon. members and some senators for an investigation into the construction of the Great Slave Lake railway and the bankruptcy of some construction firms engaged thereupon?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not yet, Mr. Speaker. I am reading the file, but it is very lengthy and complicated and I have not yet had a chance to come to any conclusion.



ONTARIO-REQUEST FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: have a question for the Prime Minister. I am repeating a question I asked several days ago, in reply to which the Prime Minister promised to make inquiries. Has the Prime Minister received a request on behalf of the province of Ontario for assistance in providing relief to the flood victims in southwestern Ontario who suffered severe damage early in February? If so, what decision has been reached?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I did receive a communication from a minister in the government of Ontario, presumably on behalf of the government although usually these requests for assistance come from the head of the government, asking for that kind of assistance. I replied to it this morning.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Could the Prime Minister say whether his answer to the government of the province of Ontario was in the affirmative or in the negative?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not yet received the letter, so I am not sure whether I should disclose its contents before he receives it. However, perhaps he will forgive me if I tell my hon. friend that the answer was that the circumstances did not warrant the kind of assistance from the federal government that is given to provinces when a disaster occurs which is beyond their ability to meet.
7278	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry SPORTS



NANCY GREENE-SUGGESTED RECOGNITION OF OLYMPIC VICTORY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, and I apologize for invading the preserve of the hon. member for Kootenay West. In the interests of national achievement is the government considering some suitable national honour for Olympic skier Nancy Greene?


Lester Bowles Pearson: She is already the recipient of the Order of Canada, which is a very distinguished national honour.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is also a member of the cabinet committee on the steel problem at Sydney. Is the minister in agreement with the leader of the Liberal party in Nova Scotia, who says the premier of that province should have approached the federal government for an outright grant rather than a loan to purchase the Sydney steel plant?
Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member will recognize that the question as asked is not in order. He is asking if the minister is in agreement with a statement made, and this is not permitted.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if the government will consider an outright grant for the purchase of the Sydney steel plant rather than a loan?


Mr. Speaker:: It is not clear to me how the Minister of Trade and Commerce has administrative responsibility for the matter raised by the hon. member.


Robert Muir: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. May I direct my question to the Prime Minister and ask him if the government, in its deliberations, will consider an outright grant to the province of Nova Scotia to purchase the Sydney steel plant, rather than a loan?

DEBATES	March 5, 1968


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, a reply to the letter received from the premier of Nova Scotia a short time ago has now been agreed upon and will be going to him, I would hope, tomorrow. Perhaps this reply could be tabled in the house after it has been received by the premier.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: My question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and arises from a statement by the Minister of Justice regarding diplomatic recognition of China. I wonder if the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in his anxiety not to be outdistanced in future events, is giving serious consideration to his own stand on this particular matter?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: I am not afraid of being outdistanced by anyone, including my hon. friend. What the Minister of Justice said the other day was said by me in announcing government policy several months ago.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the leader of the New Democratic party asked me whether I had received any complaints from the Cumberland railway employees with regard to the stockpiling of coal by truck from No. 20 colliery.
I got in touch with the Cape Breton Development Corporation in that respect. That corporation does not yet have jurisdiction in this matter, because it has not taken possession of the mines and it has not been consulted about the means of transportation involved here.
However, I am told that the coal is moved from the shaft head to the stockpiling area, that is a distance of a few hundred yards only.
There is no doubt that, in such a case, transportation by truck is much easier than by railway. At any rate, the corporation has undertaken to call a meeting of all the parties concerned in the coming week.
March 5, 1968


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister, when the Cape Breton Development Corporation takes over full responsibility is it expected that coal shipments will be restored to the railways?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am told that April 1 is the date set. However, as I explained in my previous answer, it seems to me that it will always be easier to transport coal from the shaft head to the stockpile by truck rather than by rail, since the distance involved is only a few hundred yards.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Cape Breton Development Corporation undertaking, as provided in the legislation passed by this house, going to do anything on behalf of the men who are being displaced as a result of this transfer from rail to truck for the shipment of coal?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, that is certainly the sort of responsibility which has been assigned to the Cape Breton Development Corporation.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure whether I should rise on a supplementary question or a question of privilege, but I should like to ask the minister this question. Will he please do some homework so he will not confuse the issue and make the job of the Cape Breton Development Corporation any more difficult than it is? The information he has just given the house is certainly far from the facts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is more a question of privilege than a question.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, on February 29 last I asked the Acting Prime Minister the following question, as reported at page 7100 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, in view of the very proper action by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in resigning his portfolio before becoming a leadership candidate, I should like to request the Acting Prime Minister to ask the Prime Minister whether he is going to take the proper action of calling on other candidates to do the same.
Inquiries of the Ministry
I wonder whether the minister has spoken to him, and what the reply was.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, I did not.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



STEEL-SUGGESTED IMPOSITION OF DUMPING DUTY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, on February 29 last the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria asked what steps had been taken to protect the steel industry.
The Department of National Revenue is carrying out a study on steel imports in the light of the antidumping clauses of the legislation. The department is investigating abroad the actual market value of steel in certain countries exporting to Canada. So far, our investigations have in several cases resulted in price increases. In others, we have been unable up to date to obtain any evidence of dumping. However, those investigations are going on and all imports are carefully examined. When corrective measures are warranted, they will continue to be applied.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for his reply. May I ask him when he will be in a position to provide us with further information along the lines he has suggested?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are not in the habit of giving out the details of each one of our investigations. I have made a general report. We are continuing to analyse each shipment of steel imported and the regulations are enforced when there is proof of dumping. So far, we are satisfied with the positive results of our investigations. In some cases, exporters have been forced to raise their prices.



RURAL DEVELOPMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister

March 5, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry ot Forestry and Rural Development who seems bored at the tar end of the house.
Could he tell us whether discussions are still going on with the Quebec government about a federal-provincial agreement relating to the rural and economic development program, and when that agreement will be ratified?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker,
negotiations are in full swing.


James Russell Keays: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister now in a position to inform us whether any cutbacks of a financial nature are being considered?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I have already stated in the house that the budgetary cutbacks would not affect ARDA or the economic and rural development fund approved by the house last year.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture. I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture, in relation to the requests of western Canadian potato growers for a value for duty imposition, if he has determined whether importation of United States potatoes into the western zone constitutes dumping.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would remind the hon. member that in a few minutes the house will be in committee to consider the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, which would be an appropriate time to ask the question just raised.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Industry whether he can reply to the question I asked yesterday respecting employment at the Polymer Corporation at Sault Ste. Marie.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I assume the hon. gentleman is referring to the Polymer Corporation plant at Sarnia.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am sorry; Sarnia.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: There were two questions asked yesterday. One was whether I had received representations regarding employment practices of the Polymer Corporation. I stated yesterday that I personally had received none, though indirectly some representations have been made. I have asked that it be ascertained whether these properly form part of current labour negotiations or are the result of direct representations.
Second, I do not have much to add to my reply in connection with government intentions in relation to the ownership of Polymer.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the latter part of the minister's reply, all the minister said yesterday was-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member ask a question rather than repeat what was said yesterday?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the minister said yesterday that I was aware of the government's approach to the ownership of Polymer. Since I am not aware, and I doubt whether many members are, may I ask him whether the government has any intention of disposing of the Polymer Corporation to private interests?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I assumed an awareness that apparently was lacking. The government from time to time has given consideration to the desirability of continuing as sole owner of the Polymer Corporation and a number of alternatives have been considered. To date no decision has been taken on any new form of ownership.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In view of the fact that the French government recently invited the premier of Quebec to visit France, over the head of the federal government, does the secretariat for external affairs now intend to sever diplomatic relations with France?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
March 5, 19S8



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Oh-I thought that was the minister.


Mr. Macaluso:: I will take off my glasses.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ou est le ministre?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member direct his question to the Prime Minister?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to embarrass the minister. I see that he is back in his seat, but apparently he has a double whom I mistook for him.
On several occasions the hon. member for Ontario and I, and perhaps others, have asked a question relating to old age pensioners on the guaranteed income supplement whose other income drops or disappears yet are denied their claim to have their income brought up to the guaranteed level either in the current or the subsequent calendar year. The minister said that he would look into this matter. Has he yet found a way to correct this unfairness?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, certain amendments to this particular program are under consideration but it will not be possible to bring them forward in the foreseeable future.


Michael Starr: I am sure the minister will agree that this situation is most unfair to the elderly citizens concerned. Will he say now that if and when these amendments are brought forward by way of legislation, payments will be retroactive to the date at which these supplementary benefits were started?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. It would not be possible to anticipate the terms of the legislation.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I wonder whether the Prime Minister is now in a position to answer the question I put to him on
Supply-Agriculture
February 9 in relation to the conflict between the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Indian treaties.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I apologize to the hon. gentleman for the delay in dealing with this. I will look into it right away.

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


Mr. Southam:: Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to make a few comments on the supplementary estimates of the Department of Agriculture which are now before the committee. My first words must be words of congratulation to my hon. friend the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition who last evening in his speech on these estimates gave a most comprehensive and factual review of the problems facing agriculture today. His intervention in our discussion very ably demonstrated his wide knowledge of one of Canada's most basic industries.
On the other hand, I am sorry to say, the Minister of Agriculture, in a reply which was both bombastic and political, left the very opposite impression on the committee. It would appear to me that through lack of knowledge, indifference and in some cases sheer stupidity, the government opposite has been responsible for placing agriculture in its worst financial position in years. This is the government which talked about 60 days of decision, the government which set out to challenge the weak and excite the daring. What has happened instead? They have stumbled from indecision to indiscretion and from crisis to crisis.
The minister's speech last evening was a replica of the one he made on October 31 last as reported in Hansard on pages 3725 to 3728, in which in effect he spent all his time telling the farmers of this country that they never had it so good. He reminded me of the shades of the late Right Hon. C. D. Howe at that fateful meeting in Morris, Manitoba, in 1957. I suggest to the minister that after last night's speech he will now be running well behind Mayor Lloyd Henderson of Portage la Prairie in the leadership race.

March 5, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
The hon. gentleman spent a great deal of time last night quoting statistics of wheat sales from 1961 to 1967. But he forgot to tell the committee that these sales were based on policies developed by the former government. I well recall that from 1957 to 1962 members of that government paid special attention to the development of stronger wheat marketing policies. The prime minister at that time, together with officials of the Departments of Trade and Commerce and Agriculture, made a tour round the world inviting trade groups to visit Canada and arrange trade deals. This resulted in a visit by a Japanese trade mission the following year, and after negotiations involving the transfer and exchange of textiles Canada was able to double wheat sales to Japan.
Later a great deal of time was spent in the house debating amendments to the export credit insurance policy. A brand new policy emerged in consequence of which we were able to treble our sales of wheat abroad. In particular, sales of wheat to China on credit were approved despite strong opposition from hon. members now sitting on the other side of the chamber. I well remember one of them telling us that in his opinion it was close to treason to sell to our friends for cash and to our enemies for credit.
The hon. member who represented As-siniboia at that time waved his arms and said it was all a hoax, it was preposterous, we would never get our money. Events proved these people to be wrong. As a result of our perseverance and the hard work of our committee at that time we developed the sales policy which this government inherited. This is why the minister was able to spend most of his time last night praising the record of his party though, in fact, he cannot not take credit for it at all. If anything the shoe is on the other foot, bearing in mind what has happened in 1967 and 1968.
I do not propose to cover the whole spectrum of agricultural problems. In passing, however, I should like to say that looking at the headlines today one finds nothing but trouble. Wheat prices are down, hog prices are down, egg prices are down, poultry prices are lower, turkey prices are down, rapeseed prices are down, soybean prices have declined, potato prices are down, farm improvement loans have dried up, wheat exports are falling farther below the 1967 level, and so on.

Here is a headline reading: "Wheat Exports Sharply Under Year Ago Total". The article begins:
Export clearances of Canadian wheat for the first three months of the current crop year at 64,487,000 bushels were down almost 60 per cent from last year's comparative total of 163,249,000 bushels.
Another headline in the Globe and Mail reads: "Higher Costs Expected To Offset Increase In Foreign Production". On the same page we read a headline, "Wheat Trade Expected To Toughen". Another headline, this one in the Western Producer of December 7, asks: "What About PFRA?" The writer states that one of the great pieces of legislation introduced in parliament years ago is being neglected. A headline in the Manitoba CoOperator states: "ARDA and PFRA Are Not Effective Says Report". The reason given is Liberal inefficiency. The report of a special study commissioned by the Economic Council of Canada is dealt with in Farm and Country under the headline: "Blast ARDA Waste". In the Western Producer of December 14, Mr. Roy Atkinson, president of the Saskatchewan Farmers' Union, is reported as calling for greater farmer unity. Mr. Atkinson is quoted as saying:
It is clear in the light of sharp reduction in quota opportunity, that the defence of the minimum will prove inadequate in maintaining farm income in light of continuing lower quotas due to loss of export sales and increases in the cost of production.
In other words, he is saying it does not matter whether or not the price per bushel is fixed at $1.95 if the wheat cannot be sold. In the Western Producer of December 14, 1967, there was an article headed. "Wheat-A Time for Reassessment," being the report of an address by Charles W. Gibbings, president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. In the Manitoba Co-operator of February 29, 1966, there was a report headed "National Meeting Asked On Agricultural Policy" in which the following appeared:
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
J. M. Bentley of Edmonton, president of the C.F.A., in presenting the brief was critical of the eventual success of the agricultural task force appointed by Ottawa last year.
So the story goes, Mr. Chairman. Getting back to wheat marketing I point out that last night the minister referred at great length to sales statistics, but I think his argument was hollow inasmuch as I gave facts a few moments ago to show that these sales were based on policies that we developed and were not due to anything this government has been able to do.
March 5, 1968

The problem in wheat marketing today is a direct result of the lapsing of the international wheat agreement. What has happened is a replica of what happened under previous Liberal governments. In 1935 the government of the late R. B. Bennett brought in legislation setting up the Canadian Wheat Board. The first thing the succeeding Liberal government did was to throw it out, but because of the protests from farm organizations in western Canada that important piece of legislation was replaced on the statute books and ever since the Canadian Wheat Board has been a most effective agency in assisting farmers to market their crops.
To emphasize the lack of policy and the indifference of the Liberal party to agriculture I bring the story up to the war years. With their policy of trying to show love for their mother country the Liberals, encouraged by co-operation from farm organizations, introduced the British preferential wheat agreement under which farmers in western Canada were forced to sell wheat at $1 per bushel under the world market price. It is estimated that this cost western agriculture some $600 million. In other words, our agricultural industry and farm community were asked to sacrifice that amount of money in the interests of Liberal policy.
In February, 1965, the Minister of Finance, who then had the Canadian Wheat Board under his wing, involved the board in a price war with the United States which lasted several months and cost Canadian farmers well over $100 million. This came about owing to the fact that our friends across the line were trying to dispose of some of their large wheat surplus and were testing this government to see what its stability was and how concerned it was about agricultural policies.
One morning we woke up to the fact that the Americans had dumped quite a large amount of grain into our markets at six cents per bushel below the wheat agreement price. Instead of the Minister of Finance going to the United States and pointing out to our friends that they were breaking the rules he went to the Canadian Wheat Board and said, "We will compete with them; we will cut the price too." This is exactly what our friends in the United States wanted. Next day they cut six cents a bushel off the price of No. 3 and No. 4 wheat and within a week the price dropped a further four cents. Over all, within ten days the price of Canadian wheat was allowed to drop 18 cents per bushel, which
Supply-Agriculture
cost the Canadian farmers between $90 million and $100 million. This amply demonstrates the indifference of the government to wheat policy and to the western farmers. Then we come to the fiasco of 1967 in allowing the international wheat agreement to lapse for 11 months, and the indications are that we will have to wait years for a renewal of that agreement.
This afternoon the hon. member for As-siniboia questioned the Minister of Trade and Commerce about the international wheat agreement. He has been questioned about it many times previously. I have questioned him on many occasions about why it was allowed to lapse and we have never received a logical answer. Despite the protestations of the minister we are still very concerned that the new agreement will not come into effect this year because the latest reports indicate that even those countries which signed the protocol to show they were in accord with the principle of the agreement have not yet ratified it. The new wheat agreement was supposed to come into effect on July 1. It is high time the government took strong and definite action to undo the damage it did in allowing the old agreement to lapse. As I say, the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been questioned many times about this and he has tried to assure us that everything is well. In fact he tried to defend himself by stating that farm organizations in western Canada were in agreement with the action taken. This statement is absolutely contrary to the facts.
Only last Wednesday morning, with 40 members of the house present at the meeting at which the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Canada's largest farm organization, presented its brief, Mr. James Bentley, president of that organization, flatly stated that they never had any warning or knowledge of Canada's intention to agree to the lapsing of the international wheat agreement, and that this was basically the cause of Canada's wheat marketing problem today. This is similar to the surprise expressed by the leaders of western wheat pools, farm unions, and other farm spokesmen.
Why should the minister try to kid our Canadian farmers in this way? The meat packers have a word for that-boloney. We find American sales going up day by day while our sales are going down. We have sold only a small amount of wheat to Japan this year while the United States has entered that market on a big scale. We have turned back the clock 20 years and are now back to the

March 5. 1968
Supply-Agriculture
law of the jungle so far as wheat sales are concerned. With the price cutting that is going on it is simply dog eat dog.
I would like to refer to some notes, Mr. Chairman. I do not want to bore the chamber with a long address on this matter because I know that most members of this party are well aware of the problem, and if the minister is not already aware of it I hope that as a result of what I say he will become aware. The United States price-cutting tactic became effective following the announcement by secretary of agriculture, Orville Freeman, that he had set the national wheat export target for this year at 750 million bushels, with a smaller proportion of exports to be devoted to food give-away programs. The Minister of Trade and Commerce went to Washington. There he pleaded with Mr. Freeman that the United States and other wheat exporting countries were bound by a gentleman's agreement to hold the agreed price floor. Mr. Freeman was courteous but pointed out that no legal requirements bound the United States to observe any price but that dictated by supply and demand and, further, he had far less control over or impact upon the wheat exporting business in the United States than did the Canadian government through the Canadian Wheat Board. This again points out the indifference and, as I said a while ago, the stupidity of the government in allowing this situation to develop.
To give a brief review of the energy and time which went into bringing about the first international wheat agreement I point out that for 12 years prior to 1947 western farm organizations were very interested in accomplishing such a development and worked very hard with their counterparts in other countries to establish the agreement. That agreement has now been in effect for about 18 years. When you have a formula that works so effectively I just cannot understand why the government participated in the Kennedy round of talks at Geneva and agreed to the lapsing of the agreement, turning back the clock as it were and allowing the agreement to lapse for 11 months. It should not have been allowed to lapse for even one month. Had there been continuity of the agreement we would not be in the trouble we are in today.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce returned to Ottawa from Washington without any assurance that the price-cutting method of moving the large United States wheat surplus would stop. The seller's market that
[Mr. Southam.l
existed at the time the international wheat agreement lapsed changed during the summer of 1967 to a buyer's market under the impact of bumper wheat crops in many areas of the world. This fact emphasizes more than ever the need for an international wheat agreement. And so the story goes.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Before concluding my remarks I should like to touch briefly on one other matter of serious consequence to my riding and several neighbouring areas. I refer to the question put to the Minister of Agriculture in the house yesterday, which appears on page 7233 of Hansard. I put the following question to the minister:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister aware of the possible collapse of the new and expanding P.M.U. estrogen drug industry in western Canada because of the terms of Bill C-190? If so, has the minister consulted with his cabinet colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs with a view to saving this new agricultural industry?
The answer from the Minister of Agriculture was:
Mr. Speaker, I have not specifically considered it with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but I shall be glad to take the hon. member's suggestion and consult my colleague.
This would indicate to me that the minister was not even aware of this new industry and had not been on top of this new problem which has developed over the past month or two. If so, he would have already conferred with his colleague on the matter. Here is a new industry in western Canada and in other parts of Canada which is just two years old but in which millions of dollars have already been invested by Canadian farmers. This industry is about to collapse unless something is done about it at once. This is another indication of the serious predicament of agriculture today and particularly the western wheat farmer. This is again a result of the lack of policy on the part of the government. There would seem to be a lack of knowledge in this regard and in some cases sheer stupidity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I too welcome the opportunity to speak on these supplementary estimates of the Department of Agriculture for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that the horticultural council along with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture last week presented recommendations to the government and tomorrow I understand the National Farmers Union
March 5. 1968

intends to place recommendations before the government concerning what it and other farm organizations consider should be the policies of the government. I welcome the opportunity to speak in view of the fact that these agencies are presenting their views, but if this had not been sufficient incentive certainly the minister's speech last night was enough to persuade any member on this side, and I would hope even on the other side, to make some comments in respect of this problem and the minister's remarks.
I know it will come as a tremendous surprise to the farmers in eastern Canada, certainly in Nova Scotia, to learn that farmers' net income increased by over 30 per cent. This is one figure the minister threw around last night. In fact the tenor of his remarks seemed to be that the farmers in Canada never had it so good. This was the attitude of the minister last fall when he spoke on the estimates and quoted many gross figures. When I say "gross" I do not mean in the sense that they were repugnant to us on this side of the house but in the sense that they were total figures without taking costs into consideration.
He repeated this performance last night when he jumped into the debate after the Leader of the Opposition had spoken in fairly calm, cool and even tones. This minister, perhaps seeking some political hay because there is a question of his ability to make hay, decided to risk his reputation and that of the government merely to get some desk-thumping. If rose-coloured glasses are worn by the candidates on April 4 the Minister of Agriculture will be well up in the pack because he was certainly wearing rose-coloured glasses last night. In a situation of reality a minister should sometimes take off his rose-coloured glasses. When this minister takes his off, if he ever does, I am afraid he will be as glum and disappointed as the agricultural industry in Canada is with the lack of initiative, concern and leadership on his part. I do not wish to be too dogmatic in that statement because it would not have surprised me, although it might have surprised some members on this side of the house, if the minister had admitted that there are some fundamental problems affecting different areas of Canada which cannot be solved by any one minister. It takes time and the efforts of a number of ministers to solve certain problems.
We all appreciate that quiet revolutions are taking place and we see the problems that the quiet revolutions cause. We have had much
Supply-Agriculture
discussion in this house about the quiet revolution in Quebec. We hear about the quiet revolution in society with people moving from the country to the city and we know the problems this causes. We have seen something resembling a fundamental change in parliament right in this chamber not too long ago. When there are fundamental changes there are fundamental problems. Much is left to be desired when a minister stands in his place, with agriculture engaged in a quiet revolution, and attempts to make short-term political capital out of long-term economic problems.
There is a quiet revolution taking place in the field of agriculture. The members on this side of the house who represent the majority of the farm areas of this country from coast to coast are the first to admit this fact. The livelihood of many of these members is influenced by this quiet revolution which involves a change from manpower to machine power and from family farms to commercial farms. There are problems involved in these changes on the farm but there are some problems which differ between east and west.
Sometimes when I sit here with my fellow colleagues from the west I shake my head because I would love to be in their position of having to deal with only one basic crop which brings some cash to the producer in a matter of several months while the farmers in my area have a variety of crops, a 12-month work program and still have difficulty in obtaining any cash. The minister could not have endeared himself to members on this side of the house but his remarks would have been received more warmly had he taken off his rose-coloured glasses and admitted that there are problems which all ministers inherit and said that he at least was attempting to do something about them rather than pretend that the farmers across Canada never had it so good.
While there is a quiet revolution in agriculture, some aspects of it are not so quiet. Any member of this house who was on the front lawn of parliament hill when the farmers gathered there will understand what I mean. When there are parades of tractors on highways this must be a symptom that something is wrong somewhere even though the minister says that the farmers never had it so good. The hon. member for Moose Mountain in his comments said that part of the fundamental problem with regard to agriculture in this country is that the industry is sick. It is

March 5, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
affected by a cost-price sickness. The unfortunate thing is that the doctor, the Minister of Agriculture, does not even know that the patient is sick.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I cannot give figures in respect of agriculture in the west but I certainly can give them for the Annapolis valley, the basic agricultural area of Nova Scotia. Perhaps later in the debate the minister will give statistics regarding agriculture in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and the eastern part of Quebec to show that the statistics I intend to quote in respect of Nova Scotia do not apply to eastern agriculture generally. I hope the minister or some member opposite will be able to stand in this house and quote statistics in relation to eastern agriculture showing that the situation is generally better than I suggest it is in Nova Scotia.
I suggest agriculture is suffering from a cost-price sickness. Last night and on previous occasions the minister has presented a symptom of that sickness. He made a lot of noise about higher prices, but what does not cost more today than a year ago? These higher prices can be likened to a high temperature. I suggest that our agricultural industry is suffering from high blood pressure, which should give the doctor, the Minister of Agriculture, some concern. I suggest this high blood pressure symptom is even more serious than the high temperature symptom or the high prices.
It is very important when examining a patient to find out whether he has a pulse or a heartbeat. I am not suggesting the minister does not have a heart. Many amazing things have been done in the world, including heart transplants. So far as agriculture is concerned I suggest that the pulse, which indicates the strength of the heart, is as low as it has been for many years. It is low because there is a low net return. Regardless of whether prices are high, the fundamental factor to a farmer is his net return. Agriculture in Nova Scotia ;has hit bottom, and we are looking to the Minister of Agriculture to make some diagnosis and prescribe some treatment in order to rehabilitate this industry.
I should like to quote some statistics in relation to agriculture in Nova Scotia. There are fewer farms, but that is not surprising in view of the consolidation of farms on the basis of efficiency. This may also be the result of increased technology and more efficient farm machinery. It may also account for the .decrease in the number of farmers. However,
[Mr. Nowlan.l
the most important statistics are those which show a decrease in the amount of land under cultivation. This fact should give any minister a great deal of concern.
Last night the minister suggested that we should recite the facts and that the Leader of the Opposition had spoken in platitudes and generalities. He said that figures do not lie. While that may be true, I suggest they often smoke out the prevaricators. The statistics for the period from 1951 to 1961 show a decrease in the number of farms from 23,815 to 12,518 or a drop of 47.4 per cent. During that period there was a change in the D.B.S. classification of farms. Even taking that change into consideration there was a decrease during that period in the number of farms from 23,815 to 18,264 or 19.1 per cent.
During the same period there was a tremendous decrease in the number of farmers. We have heard a great deal about school dropouts and what the government is attempting to do to rehabilitate workers in view of technological change. What is the government attempting to do about farm dropouts? According to D.B.S. figures the decrease in the number of farmers in that ten-year period was from 115,414 to 58,000. In terms of total farm population this represents a decrease from 18 per cent in 1951 to 7.9 per cent in 1961.
Last night the minister referred to the ratio of Canadians engaged in farming compared with the total population. He suggested it was around 8 per cent. Perhaps that figure is not significant, but we must also consider the decrease in land under cultivation during the same period. The statistics I have indicate there was a decrease from 661,975 acres to 497,521 acres. This is important even though with improved technology fewer men can work larger farms. The average size of a farm in Nova Scotia is 40 acres. These statistics should give the minister some concern about the general state of agriculture in this country.
The agricultural situation in Nova Scotia can be fairly summarized by quoting from an independent survey produced in July of 1966 by the Nova Scotia voluntary planning board. At page 5 the following is stated:
Generally, then, the statistical evidence gathered in the 1961 census indicates the transition taking place in the structure of primary farming in Nova Scotia since 1951; the number of farms decreasing along with a declining number of acres farmed, some improvement in improved land acreages, a dramatic increase in the use of machinery and other equipment, and corresponding increases in total
March 5, 1968

value of products sold. Even though on the basis of this last statistic it is apparent that Nova Scotia farmers are improving their relative position, it is also evident that the low value of products sold per farm in the other farms category is one of the main problem areas in provincial agriculture in the sixties. In fact, if the value of products sold was given in "real" terms, that is discounting price movements, and if this group in 1961 was on the same 1951 definitional base, average cash income per farm would be at a lower level than that recorded in 1950.
I do not know where the minister got his figures regarding the general picture across the country, but certainly the statistics I have indicate a grave picture for agriculture in Nova Scotia and in the eastern part of Canada generally. To illustrate this grave situation further let me refer to table A-3 at the back of this report. It indicates an increase in gross income from 1960 to 1964 from $43 million to $44 million but a drop in net income in the same period. In 1960 net income was $15 million, in 1961 it was $14 million, in 1962 it was $12 million, in 1963 it was $11 million, and in 1964 it was $8 million. This indicates there was a drop in net income between 1960 and 1964 of 54 per cent, with more than a 30 per cent drop between 1963 and 1964. Yet the minister says that the farmer is 30 per cent better off with respect to his net income. I do not know where the minister got his figures because in the area of Nova Scotia I represent, which is a farming region, the drop in net income according to D.B.S. figures is over 30 per cent.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I suggest that this situation should be a matter of concern and consideration rather than one of short term, political advantage because of the personal or political problems which face the Minister of Agriculture. The per capita income of Nova Scotia farmers was $871 in 1951. There was a slight increase by 1961, but the per capita income of the Nova Scotia farmer in that year was only $1,184. I do not know where the Nova Scotia farmer is going to obtain relief and improve his abnormally low net income figure.
In spite of these figures the minister rose in the house last night and outlined a new ground rule for economic success on the farm. Just a few days ago we had the Pearson precedent so far as parliamentary problems are concerned-I will not debate that matter right now-and last night we had Greene's ground rule for farm success. If we accept the argument put forward by the minister last night, farmers are better off because they are borrowing more money. One can see the 27053-459
Supply-Agriculture
corollary of that theory by looking at the D.B.S. figures I have quoted. Farmers are borrowing more and receiving less. I seriously question the suggestion that farmers in this country are better off because they are borrowing more money. I suggest that one of the reasons they are borrowing more is that the income they derive from their operations does not provide them with enough funds with which to purchase the equipment necessary for soil development. Soil development is very necessary if our farmers are to compete in international markets.
I should now like to deal with the question of farm capital. In this area there should be a new look and an emancipation of thought as to what type of policy should be developed. We appreciate, as I think the minister does, that the farm improvement loans program is not working out in these days of high interest rates because there is a fixed interest rate of 5 per cent. It is perhaps not surprising that banks will not lend money at an interest rate of 5 per cent. I think it is time the government reconsidered the fixed rate of interest and decided upon a floating or flexible rate something like the interest rate in respect of housing. I think this would be more appropriate. Then our farmers could obtain capital. It would not be frozen and the banks would not be reluctant to lend money.
In this brief period I have shown my concern about the minister's attitude that the farmers have never had it so good. I do not understand how the minister can apply that statement to my area. It does not work that way down east. Farmers in my area have had better times and their net income has never been lower.
There is another area in which the government might reconsider its agricultural policy. I refer to feed grains. This is a provocative and sensitive question that all of us in the house appreciate. I will not debate the matter today, but the government pays a subsidy in order to move feed grains into the eastern part of Canada. I wonder whether it is not time to reconsider this policy. I believe it would help the Canadian taxpayer and the farmer if there were some flexibility in the program whereby if a farmer wanted to produce feed grains locally he could receive the benefit of the grant which the government is now paying in order to bring feed grains from western Canada to the east.

March 5, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
Western Canada is not too happy about the feed grains problem. Ontario is rightly concerned about the premiums paid on western feed grains. That province has produced more corn and would like to develop its feed grains market. There are areas in eastern Canada where feed grains could be developed if the soil were cultivated and farmers had the money to invest for this purpose. If they had the money I think they would be prepared to take a chance on developing feed grains.
There should be a change in the policy of the department to allow a farmer to develop feed grains if he so desires. The situation is that farmers are in effect being subsidized to the extent of $12 a ton to bring in western feed grains. This $12 a ton subsidy could be used to build a grain drying and storing plant over a three-year period. I know one farmer who has developed a grain drying and storing plant with a capacity of 600 tons, at a cost of $16,000. With the subsidy of $12 a ton, which is a federal expenditure, on 500 tons the amount involved is $6,000. In three years that $6,000 multiplied by three would produce $18,000 which could be used for building a grain drying and storing plant. There would be an incentive for the farmer to develop his own feed grains and he would not have to rely upon the Canadian taxpayer to subsidize a program which has caused a good deal of comment and division in agricultural and political circles across Canada.
We could use the subsidy in another way, namely, to improve productivity in local areas. The subsidy could be applied as an incentive to the farmer to develop feed grains and it could also be used to improve the productivity of the land. Very few farmers have the money to apply to the development and improvement of land. If they were able to obtain a subsidy and use it in a fixed direction for two or three years, this would be all that would be required to improve the productivity of the land in order to produce their own feed grains. Again, Mr. Chairman, money would not have to come out of the Canadian taxpayers' pockets to bring feed grains from the west. This is an area in which the government is spending money and I suggest that there should be some flexibility in the policy in order to allow eastern farmers to develop, if they so desire, their own feed grains. This could be done if they were able to benefit from the subsidy now being paid by the Canadian government to bring feed grains to the east from the west.
[Mr. Nowlan.l
At long last a task force is studying the different problems of agriculture. I hope that the task force leads in time to a national conference on agriculture. All farm organizations have been calling for such a conference. But a task force or even a conference is no substitute for policy. I believe that the concern of people in the east and all across Canada is that unless the government is prepared to develop a national policy for regional development there will continue to be regional disparity in agriculture.
So far as agriculture is concerned the east needs massive capital assistance. It is a strange anomaly that in so many fields capital aid can be obtained. Such assistance is provided to industry in my province and all across Canada. If someone wants to build a boat he can obtain capital assistance but if he wants to build a barn he cannot obtain a capital grant. The directors of the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture have calculated that grants and subsidies to industry and fishing in that province alone totalled over $200 million from 1961 to 1966 but in the same period agriculture in the province received only $20 million.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I think the outgoing president of the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture, Mr. Harvey, in his presidential address to the annual meeting of the federation, as reported in the Chronicle-Herald of December 28, 1967 summarized fairly succinctly the problem of massive aid to the east in the following words:
Commenting on governments' place in the picture. Mr. Harvey said in the past it has often entered too little or too late. All farmers can ask of government is an equal opportunity, and this they have not had in the past. In too many cases farmers have to sell on an open market and buy on a protected one. During the past seven years, he said, agriculture in Nova Scotia has received $14 million in freight assistance, while coal has been assisted by $120 million.
According to the figures given by the directors of the federation of agriculture, the sum is close to $200 million compared with $20 million. The report continues:
For years farmers have been paying more than their share of municipal taxes. When a fish company desires to build a boat, a large federal grant is available, but when a farmer builds a barn he pays the federal government 11 per cent on the materials.
All the farmers are asking for is equal opportunity, a chance to participate and a chance to produce. Unless this government develops a policy for regional areas, some areas will not be able to contribute to the
March 5. 1968

mainstream of society. Such a policy is long overdue. Perhaps it would have a better chance if the Minister of Agriculture would recognize the problem as did the president of the United States in the 1930's with respect to southern agriculture. From reading reports of those times I understand he considered that while it was a regional problem it had national implications and a national significance. Thus the Tennessee valley authority was created, and other policies were evolved to help resolve agricultural and other problems in the south. So far as eastern Canada is concerned it will take not just a broad, general, universal policy across the land but a regional policy to help this area.
Not only because of the area I come from but because I have travelled through and worked in different parts of Canada I believe that if we have a healthy farm situation we are bound to have a fairly healthy Canada. This may be a cliche but it is true. I believe that all the problems we have in the country today and the symptoms of unrest, disillusionment and disenchantment start right back at the beginning, that is, on the land. I think it is a legitimate concern of the people on the land to wonder what type of deal they will get and what type of policy this government has. I suggest that the minister should not be satisfied with the short-term political plaudits of his fellow supporters but rather should develop policies for a healthy farm situation which will produce a healthy Canada.


Mr. Loney:: Mr. Chairman, for the past two days this house has heard criticism levelled at the politically inept and ineffective agricultural policies of the present administration. The Minister of Agriculture, one of the aspirants to the Liberal leadership, rose in his place last evening and again, contrary to opinion in rural Canada, told the farmers of this country that in fact they never had it so good. I challenge the minister to deliver that speech word for word to the National Farmers Union when they submit their brief on March 7. If the Minister of Agriculture were truly to emulate his political hero he would be better served to quote to the farmers of Canada those words of Lincoln which he has used on other occasions, namely:
Ii we could first know where we are. and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it.
In reply to the leader of the official opposition the minister opposite, in mocking tones, 27053-459J
Supply-Agriculture
decried humility. May I point out that humility has long been considered one of the outstanding qualities of truly great men. We on this side of the house do not subscribe to the minister's conclusion with regard to the advice of Christopher Hollis on political ambition. I refer to the minister's words when speaking of the Liberal leadership, namely:
I can only thus conclude that those who would be prime minister, must be those who claim they are the most vain and most vulgar among their confreres.
The minister of Agriculture, when addressing the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in Victoria on January 25, concluded his remarks by quoting in part the famous devotions of John Donne: "No man is an island, entire of itself". The minister expressed these words at the conclusion of a text which proved, contrary to Donne's words, the exact opposite. In matters pertaining to agriculture the minister has proven in his recent speeches that in fact he has isolated himself from the problems which are the prime responsibility of his portfolio. Perhaps the hon. member for Renfrew South is preoccupied with thoughts of other prime responsibilities. This is also evident in his remarks at the C.F.A. meeting.
In the first two paragraphs of his text he repeats the words "prime minister" five times. If repetition has the power of suggestion, then the delegates representing Canada's farming community were left in a state of mind that they would think the Minister of Agriculture wished to vacate his position in search of other goals. I submit that on hearing the conclusion of the minister's address they might have been right. With this I tend to agree.
There is ample evidence that the minister could better serve his party in another capacity, and before the minister smiles I hasten to say that judging from the text of his speeches, which are excellent in content, well-documented with facts according to Liberal thought, and flowing with quotations, he might be a candidate for the post of poet laureate of the Liberal party. That the minister is not conscious of the problems which are his responsibility is evidenced by his flagrant misunderstanding of what is expected of him as Minister of Agriculture.
On February 12 the minister spoke to the Agricultural Institute of Canada. In his address-and I must emphasize that it was an excellent presentation-the minister, an

March 5, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
experienced practising counsellor who evidently considered himself on trial, presented an expansive catalogue of his considerations of the problems of national unity and constitutional reform. This was a speech which should have been delivered in the House of Commons. It was a speech which I suggest should be tested by delivery in Trois Rivieres in the English language and in Victoria in the French language. In fact, it is a speech on which I compliment the author. But let us examine the forum. These words, covering 28 pages, were directed to the Agricultural Institute of Canada, an assembly of the professional elite of agricultural business, a select group dedicated, among other purposes, to providing advice respecting legislative matters common to professional agricultural bodies throughout Canada.
A moment ago I used the word "flagrant". In his address to those most concerned with the administration of his department the Minister of Agriculture did not once use the word "agriculture". He did not once use the word "farmer". It appears that the learned counsellor, while presenting an excellent case, failed to realize he was in the wrong courtroom.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The minister has displayed numerous examples of misunderstanding and a lack of comprehension of agriculture. I do not wish to fault him personally but he has either been ill informed, ill advised or is such a tyrant in his office that those who are conversant with the situation as described by my colleagues have been reluctant to give constructive criticism and proper direction.
What is the minister conveying to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. He is again speaking in the same style, employing quotations and cliches to impress his audience. But what of that audience, what of the intent and purpose of that audience of practising farmers from across Canada? These delegates are determined to bring about, through consultation, some relief, some alleviation of the problems of Canadian agriculture. These problems were created mainly by government bumbling, by lack of policy, by lack of foresight, lack of direction and lack of a minister who understands the workings of his department.
Speaking to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture the minister referred to the pressing issues of the Liberal future. It is the minister's Liberal future which is of concern to him. The farmers of Canada have had enough Liberal present and they cannot

afford a Liberal future. The minister spoke about housing, pollution, education, research, all of which are most deserving of our consideration, I agree. However, how seriously can we take the minister when, according to page 5 of his text, in referring to our gross national product he stated:
To the best of my knowledge we, as a nation, do not have even a goal, only the solemn hopes of the economic council.
This is the statement of a minister who would be the leader of the government. For about 17 pages, or the first half of the text of this speech, no mention is made of farmers, farming or farm problems. Suggestions are made, however, as to how the administration of the departments of his fellow candidates could be improved. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is said about his own department. The minister has certain suggestions to achieve more beneficial planning of productive capacity. His suggestions cover business and government and, second, government and business.
When we go over this speech we ask ourselves, where does the farmer come in? After all, this is the Minister of Agriculture speaking. It is stated that the Liberal philosophy is predicated on social services which place an economic floor under each citizen. Well, the minister should hear what has been said about some of these social services. Ask the farmers about the Canada Pension Plan, the unemployment insurance scheme and so on. Ask the farmers about the dairy commission. Now there is an example of Liberalism. This dairy policy was shoved down the throats of dairymen and regurgitated by the senator for socialism, who introduced an amendment in the Senate to correct deficiencies in the government policy.
Speaking of deficiencies, I draw attention to the fact that no mention is made of farm improvement loans or of the inability of farmers to arrange such loans. The minister, however, did find time to comment upon the inadequacies of small business loans and the Industrial Development Bank. Surely the Minister of Agriculture could be expected to devote some time to farm problems. It is not enough to slough off the difficult problems, as he did on January 25 when he spoke in Victoria. At that time he asked:
And what of the farmers of Canada? They represent a very substantial proportion of our population. They make a great contribution to Canada's economy.
March 5, 1968

This is the statement the minister made when speaking to a farm organization. He does not say, you represent a very substantial proportion of our population. He does not say, you make an important contribution. However, the minister did say:
The main reason we enjoy so high a standard of living-have money for skidoos, outboard motors, a car in every garage, and all the other goodies, is because the efficiency and productivity of our farmers is the highest in the world.
Then the minister continues:
Hence, we have cheap food,-
When he says "we", does he mean the government of today?
-as compared with other lands and the vast proportion of our incomes is left for the so-called good things of life.
Does the minister compliment the farmer? Does the minister congratulate the farmer? Does the minister even acknowledge the farmer's contribution? He does not. He does say that the right to food, and food at cheap prices, we take for granted. He stops right there. The minister did say, however, that we are very proud of our accomplishments in the industrial sector. Again I ask, when he refers to "we" does he mean the government of today? Far from being constructive in his remarks the minister stated three times what the farmer already knows, that it is the farmer who is at the mercy of the marketplace over which he has virtually no control. In addition, he stated that the prices the farmer receives have gone up at a slower pace than the prices of the things he must buy.
Now, what about farm organizations? The minister has said absolutely nothing about his department's reaction to the agricultural dilemma of 1968. What methods should be adopted in order that the farmer may gain a greater degree of control over the marketplace? I quote what the minister had to say about methods of farm organization:
The first method would be for the farmer to gain a greater degree of control over the marketplace. This might be accomplished through farmer organization, and the realization of one strong and unified voice to speak for farmers.
I wonder whether the minister will say the same thing to the farmers union when their delegation is here on March 7?
Such an organ could readily achieve the right to negotiate an adequate price structure. The plenitude of marketing boards in various jurisdictions is evidence of the effort by farmers to obtain a degree of control over the marketplace.
The alternative road to a more equitable income pattern is direct government intervention, whereby
Supply-Agriculture
the farmer would be recompensed for his production through some form of governmental income policy. I think most would agree that measures to achieve equity through a more effective control of the marketplace should be explored to the full before resorting to the second expedient.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
In an incomes policy lie the inherent dangers of government control-the waste of an expanding bureaucracy to administer the programs, and the inevitable loss of freedom and individual flexibility.
I honestly do not believe that the minister would seriously consider the second method. He stated when he announced his bid for the leadership in Regina that he did not believe in a national farm policy that would tell farmers what to plant, when to sell their crops and how much they would receive for them. That socialist concept has fallen flat on its face in socialist countries.
These methods might be adopted by the member who considers himself the successor to the present minister, but I suspect they would never be implemented by the minister who considers himself a reform Liberal and on one occasion he said that things are better done if the people do them for themselves.
But what happens when people do things for themselves, Mr. Chairman? An example was provided last May 24. The minister speaks of one unified voice for agriculture. On May 24 last there were 20,000 unified voices on parliament hill and to date their demands have not been met. Last night the minister spoke of sums of money running into millions and billions. Therefore I ask, why the shifting and evasive reaction to the dairymen's request for $5 milk? The minister talks of millions while in effect failing to act over 25 cents.
What did the farmers ask for last May? These 20,000 farmers asked for $5 a hundredweight milk. No action has been taken on this request. They asked for a coherent, comprehensive, long-range program for all segments of agriculture. They asked for a publicly stated policy for agriculture, including a set of goals, for the institution of government programs to achieve those goals, for forward planning by the government that would let farmers plan their own business. Yet no action has been taken.
No action has been taken on a realistic minimum level of income for those engaged in agriculture. Neither has action been taken on commencing specific food export programs, or on a standard of living for farmers equal to comparable operations in industry, or on making adequate provision for those

March 5, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
moving from farms as well as those remaining.
No action has been taken to bring about a stronger policy to prevent corporate encroachment into agriculture or on the government plan to pay the cost of cheap food. We need a clear government policy on land use and tighter regulations to stop food dumping in Canada by other countries. In this respect the situation today is worse than it was last May.
These 20,000 farmers also asked for more public discussion on farm policy, and this they have achieved. However, from the sound of the discussion the minister can expect another march in May. The C.F.A. once more has requested that action be taken on these matters. I ask the minister what action he is going to take.
On March 7, the National Farmers Union will be submitting their brief on the future of farming. I have challenged the Minister of Agriculture to deliver his speech of last evening to the National Farmers Union. Let the minister ask them about farming. Let him ask the farmers of Canada. If the minister has the courage of his convictions, as he appeared to have last night, then he might ask them about the prices of wheat, barley, sugar beets, hogs, cattle and sheep. Let the minister ask them what they think of his dairy policy. It is the farmers who must live on the returns of their enterprises, and they have the answers, Mr. Chairman.
Let the minister tell the farmers of Canada how good things are, how rosy their future looks. The minister has made two speeches in the House of Commons on the estimates of his department. What he said on October 31, 1967, in effect, was that the farmers have never had it so good, that they were actually looking a gift horse in the mouth. The minister repeated that performance last night. The farmers of Canada today know that it is no gift horse they are looking in the mouth; it is the other end of the horse.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, yesterday and today the committee of supply has been spending some time discussing the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, and I think it is extremely appropriate that they should be so discussed. For many decades, not just during the period the government has been in office but for decades, agriculture has been the Cinderella of our economy. While other parts of the economy enjoyed a certain measure of affluence, agriculture has always been

the industry that has been the last to enjoy the benefits of a period of advance and the first to feel the effects of a period of economic contraction.
I am not interested in debating whether conditions in agriculture were worse when the Progressive Conservatives were in office or worse now that the Liberal party is in office. What concerns me is that agriculture has not been getting its fair share of the national income but is rapidly becoming a depressed industry in Canada. I am convinced that parliament needs to thrash out agricultural programs that will make it possible for farmers to stay on their farms and to make a living somewhat commensurate with that enjoyed by people engaged upon other endeavours.
Last night I listened with great interest to the minister who I noticed spent a good deal of his time pointing to the improvement in farm income and in the sale and export of farm commodities from 1962 to 1966. The minister, of course, was replying to the Leader of the Opposition and seeking to point out that under the present administration farmers were better off than they were under the previous administration.
The minister was very careful, I should point out, to deal with farm income and farm sales up to the end of 1966. However, we are now in 1968 and must deal with the crisis facing agriculture today. If the minister wants to take credit, as he did last night, for the improvement in farm income and farm sales from 1962 to 1966, then he must now accept the blame and the responsibility for the fact that farm income and farm sales have been falling off since 1966.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Let me point out to the committee what is happening with respect to farm income as far as we have statistics available. The D.B.S. figures show that net income received from farm production, seasonally adjusted at annual rates for the first three quarters of 1967 compared with the first three quarters of 1966, works out as follows: The net cash income in 1966 was $2,060 million; for the first three quarters of 1967 it was $1,864 million, a decline of $196 million. This, of course, is what is causing concern in farm circles because the decline in the first nine months of 1967 was continued in the last quarter of that year and is being continued at the present time. Furthermore, if we take the trouble to
March 5, 1968

look at the index of prices received by farmers we find that in 1962 the index stood at 272.2 while in 1966 it was 297.2. So there has been an increase of 25.2 points or 9.26 per cent. But if we look at what happened in the first ten months of 1967 we find that the index of prices received by farmers for the commodities they sell declined to 290.1, a reduction of 7.1 points or 2.4 per cent. Whatever the minister may say about the situation from 1962 to 1966, the fact remains that in 1967-and I am sure the same will be found true for 1968-farm income has declined. The index of farm prices is declining.
It should be noted that while the index of the prices which farmers receive for their products is declining the index of the prices farmers have to pay for the things they require in order to produce has been rising steadily. The reports show that the composite figure for prices paid by farmers for everything they buy, except their actual living costs, was 290.7 in 1962. In 1966 it was 343.2, an increase of 52.5 points or 18 per cent. But in 1967, when, as I have just shown, the farm index for the prices the farmers received was going down the index for the prices they have to pay for the things they buy went up to 362, an increase from 1966 of 18.8 points or 5.4 per cent.
May I pause to ask the committee to look at that figure? The statistics we have from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics show that the cost of living for all Canadians went up by 4J per cent. But the prices which the farmer has had to pay for the goods he requires went up by 5.48 per cent, almost a whole percentage point more. So the picture for the past 12 or 14 months is crystal clear. At a time when the index of the prices of the things the farmer has to sell has gone down by 2.4 per cent the prices he has to pay for the things he requires have gone up by almost 5J per cent.
This cost-price squeeze is not something which has just come about recently. The whole story of agriculture is told in the D.B.S. figures. The publication I have in my hands is, I think, the most recent. It gives index figures for both the prices which the farmer receives and for the things he must buy. A base period from 1935 to 1939 is taken as being 100. By August, 1967, the index price for the commodities and services used by farmers had risen from 100 to 367.1. On the other hand, the price index for the materials used by farmers had gone up to 302.1. Here we have a spread of some 65 points. The
Supply-A griculture
price index of the commodities and services used in farm living had increased by August, 1967, to 264.6.
The whole story of agriculture is summed up in these indices. Over a period of years, taking 1935-39 as the base period, a gap of some 20 per cent has arisen between the prices the farmer has been receiving and the prices he is compelled to pay, even assuming that in the base period they were comparable, which they were not.
One of the major factors in the increase in the farmers' cost of living has, of course, been farm implement prices. I remember that when the minister was appointed to his present portfolio following the last election in 1965 he made a trip through western Canada. The farmers welcomed him. It was the first time they had had an eastern Minister of Agriculture for a long time, and I must say the minister made a very good impression. And he made some excellent speeches. No one could deny the minister's ability to make very eloquent and impressive speeches.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The minister told the farmers what they already knew, namely, that their farm prices were much too high, and he said he was going to do something about them. Well, the interesting thing is that the index for farm machinery prices issued by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics shows that in 1965 it was 284.9 and in 1967 302.5, an increase of some 17.6 percentage points or almost 6 per cent.
It is true that the minister has appointed a royal commission. I am never sure whether these royal commissions are appointed to do something or to give the government an excuse for not doing anything. Over the years we have had investigations into the price of farm machinery. I was a member of the agricultural committee back in the 1930's when we had a two-year investigation into the high price of farm machinery. We have had investigation after investigation.
There is no doubt about the fact that the high price of farm machinery has been a major factor in raising the farmers' costs of production. There is no doubt about the fact that the labour cost per unit of machinery has actually gone down, so that wages cannot be used as an excuse for increased farm machinery prices. Yet the fact remains that farm implement prices have continued to increase steadily. Even in the past 12 months they have increased by 3.2 per cent.

March 5, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
Like most members, I will be glad to hear what the minister proposes to do about the high price of farm machinery. It is now over two years since he promised to do something about the fact that the farmer was being exploited by the farm implement monopoly. Everyone is prepared to give the minister ample time to investigate, to gather the facts, to work out a policy, but surely something over two years is more than adequate for the minister to bring some concrete proposals before parliament. So far he has failed to do so and the cost of farm machinery continues to rise.
Last evening the minister talked about sales of wheat and the price of wheat. The plight of the wheat producer in the prairies was summed up by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in their brief, and just one paragraph is all one needs to quote:
The Canadian wheat producer has faced a combination of rising costs, falling prices, and shrinking world marketings-a combination calculated to sharply and seriously undermine his income position.
The decline in the sales of wheat is something which is causing great concern not only to the prairie farmers but to the entire prairie economy. The minister quoted with great glee the large sales of wheat made under the present administration in 1963, 1964, 1965 and 1966. One could point out that these sales of wheat were largely due to the fact that there were very serious crop failures in certain parts of the world. These increased sales were due to a windfall of large exports of wheat to the communist countries, but last night the minister took all the credit for these increased sales of wheat. I submit that if he is going to accept praise for the increased sales he must now accept the blame for the very serious decline in the sales of wheat, and not only himself but also the Minister of Trade and Commerce who is primarily the minister responsible.
From July 1 to February 14, which is the latest figure we have, wheat sold by Canada for export purposes amounted to 126.5 million bushels compared with 283.1 million bushels for the same period in the previous year. That is a decline of 156.6 million bushels. That means that in the present crop year we have sold only about 40 per cent of what we sold in the same period of the previous crop year. When we get down to selling only two-fifths of the wheat we sold in the previous crop year then I suggest that the wheat economy is in trouble.

The minister, of course, will argue that this is due to the international situation but I would point out that the United States, which is a much larger exporter of wheat, for the same period of time has had a decline in its wheat sales of only 28.7 million bushels, and the United States department of agriculture is confidently predicting that in this crop year they will sell 750 million bushels of wheat compared with 742 million bushels in the previous crop year. They are confident that they will sell more wheat in this crop year than they sold in the last crop year.
It may be that the prediction of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that we shall sell 350 million to 400 million bushels of wheat in this crop year will be realized. I certainly hope it will, but even if it is, this will be considerably below previous years. But if we are going to sell 350 million to 400 million bushels in this crop year we will have to do much better than we have done so far this year.
It is not only a matter of sales of wheat-I will come back to those in a moment-it is also a matter of price. There is good reason to be concerned about price. On May 25 last, as recorded at page 577 of Hansard, when discussing the new 1967 international wheat arrangement the Minister of Trade and Commerce said:
On the matter of price, it is understood in trade terms that this means the new price range which I have reported to the house will be observed in the months ahead until the new agreement becomes fully effective.
Of course we know that those were empty words. The minister may have intended that the new price range would be observed in the months ahead but, as every member from western Canada knows, when the international wheat agreement expired on July 31, 1967, the United States began to dump wheat well below the price range which had been proposed for the new international wheat arrangement. It was because of this that the government was compelled to introduce a floor price of $1.95J for Canadian wheat What the farmers are concerned about is what happens after the end of June because the $1,954 floor is effective only until June 30 this year.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Does the government intend to guarantee that floor? Will sufficient importing countries sign the agreement that we will be assured that all the wheat we sell will bring the farmers a minimum of $1,954? For an 11-month period we have been without the protection
March 5, 1968



of the old international wheat agreement. The only protection the wheat farmer has now is the temporary guarantee the government has given of $1,954 a bushel basis Fort William effective until June 30.
What about the future? What are the prospects? I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce owes the wheat farmers of western Canada a clearcut statement concerning what the prospects are for the future and whether the government will continue that floor price or whether it will be the present floor price or another one. I do not need to tell the committee that on March 7, 1963, in the city of Saskatoon the Prime Minister made a firm commitment to the farmers of western Canada that there would be a guaranteed floor price of $2 a bushel and, moreover, that there would be a two-price system for wheat. We have never heard any more about that promise. That was a firm commitment made by the leader of the Liberal party and the man who is now Prime Minister of Canada.
I believe the government owes it to the farmers to state what the government's policy is with regard to wheat prices because since 1963, when the Prime Minister talked about a guaranteed price of $2 a bushel, the cost of living has gone up by some 14 per cent and the cost of producing a bushel of wheat has gone up by more than that amount. This is why the Federation of Agriculture is talking now about a guarantee of $2.12 a bushel for wheat sold in the export market and $3.12 a bushel for wheat sold on the domestic market. Fortunately or unfortunately for the government-I do not know which-western Liberals at a conference a few weeks ago attended by the Minister of Agriculture adopted a similar policy.
It is not enough for the Prime Minister on the hustings and for the Liberals in conference in Winnipeg to talk about a guaranteed price of $2.12 a bushel for export wheat and $3.12 a bushel for domestic wheat unless this is put into effect. Are we to believe that the government when it makes these proposals to the farmers during a political campaign or at a political conference is simply talking for public effect and has no intention whatever of doing anything about establishing a reasonable floor for wheat prices and establishing a two-price system?
May I conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying that no one thinks the Minister of Agriculture has a simple problem. As I said when I began, agriculture undoubtedly has been the depressed industry of Canada for a long time.
Supply-Agriculture
Part of the plight of agriculture is inherent in the type of economy we are developing in Canada and in North America. We are developing increasingly an economy of which a very large part is controlled by what Galbraith has called the oligopoly, a collection of gigantic monopolies which are able to establish prices of things like steel, automobiles, farm machinery and a whole score of items. These corporations are so powerful that they can generate their own capital requirements, control their own supplies and virtually set their own prices. Among them there is little in the way of competition price-wise. Their competition may be in service, advertising or in gimmicks. But the prices of the commodities in the administered section of our economy are largely set by the industries themselves.
Against this is the fact that part of our economy still operates on a competitive basis. This includes the service industries, some of the smaller industries in the retail trade, and particularly the agricultural industry. Consequently we have in our economy, on the one hand, a great oligopoly with fixed prices uninfluenced by the law of supply and demand and, on the other hand, the competitive part of our economy in which the farmers who must buy in the protected administered market must then turn around and sell in a competitive market whether they are selling domestically or overseas. They sell on the basis of competition while they buy the things they require in a protected market.


The Chairman:: Order. I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the hon. member wish to continue?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to finish if I may, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the committee to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The point I wish to make, Mr. Chairman, is that of course we cannot turn back the hands of the clock. We cannot go back to a completely competitive system or reproduce the laissez-faire system of the nineteenth century, even if it ever existed. The fact is that a large part of our economy

March 5, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
is now controlled; it has administered prices and we will not be able to abolish that. We must now look at the competitive part of our society which has no protection and which, as I said, must buy in a protected administered market and sell in an open competitive market with very disastrous results. Therefore, what Canada needs is a national agricultural policy that will take cognizance of the fact that if agriculture is left to sink or swim in this kind of economy it does not stand a chance of survival.
This means there are a number of things that this or any government in office must do. It must take some steps to protect the agricultural producers against unfair competition. The greenhouse industry, the potato growers and the dairy farmers are already experiencing this kind of unfair competition.
I am not suggesting that we build great tariff walls behind which the prices are exorbitant; I am pointing out that there are periods of time when unfair competition can so completely wreck the market for domestic producers that they may be put out of business and we may find ourselves at the mercy of importers who, having eliminated the domestic producers, are able charge us any price they like. It seems to me that one task this government must undertake is the provision of adequate measures of protection against unfair competition.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I think the government is going to have to adopt a system of guaranteed prices for a great many farm products. If the prices which the farmer has to pay for machinery, for a car, for steel, lumber and other construction materials are going to be set by monopolies over which he has no control, then surely the economy must be prepared to see that there are some guaranteed prices for the farmer.
I want to suggest also that the government is going to have to bestir it itself in order to do something about overseas markets for our farm products. We listened to the minister speak yesterday about the large exports of grain, about which we are all delighted, but we must remember that a very large part of these exports resulted from sales to Communist countries which had experienced drought and crop failure. In the crop year 1965-66 we sold 765 million bushels of grain, but there is no evidence that this is going to recur. So far this year I believe we have sold some 75 million bushels of grain to the Soviet union and 78 million bushels to China. What is
(Mr. Douglas.]
being done about these markets and what is the government doing to encourage these countries to continue to buy from us?
I am not just talking about exports credits. In the main these countries can only afford to trade with us only if we work out two-way trade relations; otherwise they will be merely occasional buyers. They will buy from us only when they are in desperate straits. There is no doubt about the fact that so far as the Soviet union is concerned, for instance, it would be much cheaper for them to buy Canadian wheat for their Siberian requirements and have it shipped from Vancouver through Vladivostok than to bring it up from the Ukraine. There is no doubt there will be a growing market for Canadian wheat for many years in China provided China can pay for it. The problem involved in paying for it is related to the earning of Canadian dollars. What are we doing about building up twoway trade so we can have a permanent market there?
We have a market in Europe and we want to hold on to it, but that market is not likely to expand in keeping with the increased productivity which our farmers are capable of demonstrating. If we are going to sell the increasingly large amount of wheat our farmers are likely to produce on the prairies we will have to develop markets in the Orient, in China and in southeast Asia, if the Viet Nam war ever ceases, and in Siberia. This is only going to be done on the basis of two-way trading agreements. I hope the Minister of Trade and Commerce is going to tell us what he is doing about this.
Finally, the government must look at what part the Canadian farmer can play in foreign aid programs in many parts of the world. It is a reflection of the lack of ingenuity on the part of human beings that in a world where 1,500 million people go to bed hungry every night we should be worrying about the huge surpluses of food we have in this country. There are markets abroad, and to sell to them in some cases may involve loans. In some cases it may mean accepting soft currency and in some cases it may mean outright gifts. I suspect that the outright gifts we might have to make would still amount to much less than what we are spending on armaments, and I have the strong feeling that outright gifts of food would do more in the long run to preserve the peace of the world than the money we are spending on obsolete military hardware. This is a field that has to be considered.
March 5, 1968

The consumption in our own country must be considered. What has happened to the school lunch program that was talked about and the tree milk for children in schools? The United States has experimented very successfully with a food stamp program which allows elderly people, old age pensioners and people below a certain income level to obtain food stamps so they can purchase food more cheaply. Surely there is no end to the possibilities for disposing of food. There is no doubt about the farmers' ability to produce food. No industry in Canada has increased its productivity more per individual employed than agriculture. The agricultural industry has produced so successfully and efficiently it has almost put itself out of business. No other industry has shown such a remarkable capacity to increase its commodity per person employed. The farmer has done his part.
The responsibility now lies with the government and with parliament to work out, first, the kind of programs which will give to the farmer a reasonable return for his commodity, which will enable him to maintain himself and his family and meet his obligations and, second, to work out programs by which the large quantities of food produced by farmers in this country are made available to people who need them both in this country and in many lands around the world.
I have no desire to make picayune criticisms of the minister, because this problem is much larger than any small, single issue. The real need in Canada is for the government as a whole, including not only the Minister of Agriculture but the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Finance, to work out a national agricultural policy which recognizes that farmers in a competitive economy, and part of a large administered economy, must have government assistance and government direction. If the government is prepared to work out such a national agricultural policy I can assure him that he will have our wholehearted support. I say to the government that if it continues to ignore this problem and merely puts patches on what is a badly torn garment, the situation will go from bad to worse. Every time the agricultural industry gets worse this in turn has an adverse effect on the economy as a whole. The people of the cities are to a very large extent dependent upon the purchasing power of the people on the farms. A healthy agricultural industry is a basic prerequisite to a strong and expanding Canadian economy.
Supply-Agriculture


Lawrence E. Watson: Mr. Chairman, after listening to the minister speak last night I could not help but think of that beautiful picture he painted of western agriculture. I was reminded of jet streams at 37,000 feet above Saskatchewan. The view the minister had of the prairies must have been from that distance.
It is now obvious to all farmers that the Canadian negotiators at Geneva, including the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture, were simply taken into camp by the wheat importing countries. Wheat is now selling at 22 cents below the price in April and 4 cents below the minimum of $1.95J.
The situation in which the western farmer finds himself is particularly serious in view of developments that tend to put the farmer in a cost-price squeeze from which there is no escape. The prices that farmers must pay have risen all along the line to the point where they have to pay nearly double what they were paying seven or eight years ago for the things they need. The government is directly responsible for a great deal of this inflation. This is the unanimous opinion of economists, the provincial premiers, newspaper writers and even the president of the Economic Council of Canada, Mr. Smith. Recent reports of the Economic Council of Canada and an article which appeared in the New York Times written by Arthur J. R. Smith, the president of the council, in January reveal that government spending has been growing at an unsustainable rate.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Many of the things farmers buy are subject to the 11 per cent sales tax. Building materials are still subject to this tax. The farmer has been heavily taxed through rising prices of consumer goods, since he is one of the nation's major consumers. In the past five years he has paid a heavy indirect tax amounting to 18 per cent and 20 per cent on almost everything he buys. Yet the rise in the price of farm products has been small in comparison and in many cases there has been a decrease in the price of the things the farmer sells, such as wheat, cattle and hogs.
In 1951 for the entire year prime steers averaged 31 cents a pound at the Alberta markets. Though costs have soared cattle prices are well below what they were 15 years ago. At the same time, the consumer is paying for beef twice what he paid at that time. Somebody is making a tremendous

March 5, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
profit, and I can assure the minister that it is not the farmer. Now the ministers of this government tell us that the farmers have never had it so good. If this is a joke, I say it is certainly in bad taste with the farmers. The government has made no move to protect the interests of the farmer. Western farmers realize that this is a normal situation under a Liberal government.
Everybody in western Canada recalls the mountains of wheat we had out there in 1956 and 1957. That was also a time when a Liberal government was in office. The attitude at that time was: If people want this wheat, let them come and get it. The attitude now is: Let us give it away. I say to the minister and the government that they cannot even do that this year.	'
I have here a clipping from last Saturday's Leader-Post which says that wheat exports are down 58 per cent. The article reads in part:
Canada's wheat and flour exports were down 58 per cent in the first five months of the current crop year, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics reported today. Sales from August to the end of December totalled 110 million bushels in terms of wheat equivalent, compared with 260,800,000 bushels for the same period of the previous crop year.
Another article headed, "Lower Beef Prices Seen," reads:
While prices of other meats may strengthen in March, beef prices are easing downward.
Despite these facts the minister in his speech last night left the impression that the farmers of western Canada never had it so good. This government has perpetrated a betrayal of the interests of the western farmers. At the same time it has neglected and ignored the farmers of eastern Canada. Last summer we saw on parliament hill 10,000 eastern Canadian farmers who put their views before the government. Ministers who have no conception of the problems the farmers have to face told them to be good boys and that they never had it so good. Then they locked the doors of the parliament buildings.
We now have a situation which all the eloquence of the Minister of Agriculture cannot conceal. Wheat prices have slumped drastically because two ministers who know absolutely nothing about wheat went to Geneva and gave away everything to the serious detriment of the western farmer. I can understand the predicament of these ministers. They go on the international circuit and do not want to hurt the feelings of anybody but the western farmer. Apparently they were ready to

agree to anything. Why is it that every time a Liberal government is in office the western farmer has the rug pulled out completely from under him? When the Conservative party was in office these things did not happen.


Mr. Roxburgh:: Nothing happened.


Lawrence E. Watson: We did not see
the hon. member for Qu'Appelle going to these conferences and handing over the interests of western Canada on a silver platter. Under this government we face sagging prices, diminishing markets, uncertain prospects and a refusal to face facts. Why do they not admit they have made a mess? Why try to kid the western farmer?
The Minister of Agriculture found out, when he met the western stock growers in Calgary a couple of weeks ago, that you do not kid the western rancher either. The trouble with this government is that there are on the other side of the house so many leadership hopefuls that to them running the country is just a part time occupation. What do they care if the western farmer faces higher costs and has to pay $16,000 for a combine that in 1962 could be purchased for $12,000? What do they care about the small farmer who could buy a 30-inch combine from 1950 to 1955 for $5,000 and who today have to pay $10,000 for the same type of machine?
A few years ago the Minister of Finance, who was minister of trade and commerce at the time, was playing around with the wheat board. At that time he went to western Canada, I believe to the city of Moose Jaw, and asked the farmers to cut back on their production. Then a little later he came out west and asked them to grow all they could.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture went to Geneva representing our farmers, and again the western farmer was taken for a ride. Those ministers must have been consulting the Minister of Finance because they decided the Canadian farmer did not need protection during the period when there would be no wheat agreement.
What has happened? While the Canadian farmer has been completely unprotected the Americans have forced down prices in order to unload as much surplus wheat as they can. They have done this with the consent or through the ignorance of this government. Talk about the blind leadings the blind. United States markets have stayed up while
March 5, 1968

Canadian markets are down 58 per cent. During this time the costs of the western farmer have increased.
On October 31 the Minister of Agriculture told us how wonderful it all was, and again last night in his speech he told the farmers of western Canada and those concerned with agriculture in general that they never had it so good. While prices were falling all around he spoke of the high prices we have enjoyed on the average in the past five years. I point out that we have also enjoyed very high costs, and these costs are getting higher. At the same time the price of farm products is falling. The government and its members have only one thing in mind, the leadership convention that will take place in the first part of April.
Is this parliament going to sit by while the western wheat producer is taken for a ride? On October 31 the minister in his speech mentioned that an average farm in the province of Saskatchewan contains 763 acres at the present time. I would like the minister to look at a 700-acre farm in Saskatchewan. The Canadian Wheat Board has said that we will be lucky if we get a six bushel quota. That means that 4,200 bushels is all that a western farmer can sell. This will bring in approximately $6,500. In what situation does this put the western farmer with a family to keep, taxes to pay, the increased cost of machinery to face, and debts to pay off? What other group of people in Canada would be expected to pay for all these things on a $6,500 income, and on top of that to buy the land and the machinery to go with it?
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
A drop in the economy of western Canada, which we appear to be facing in the next few months, will produce repercussions right across the country, in the automobile showrooms, the farm implement business, retail merchandising, and also in investment. A drop in western prosperity will be immediately reflected in eastern Canada. If there is a continuing rise in unemployment we will be able to thank this government and its policies. Just recently the Saskatchewan government released a white paper showing a 37 per cent drop in farmers income in 1967. I should like to quote the following article from the Financial Times of February 12, 1968, headed, "Saskatchewan Tightening Its Belt After 'Only Average' Crop":
As wheat goes in Saskatchewan, so goes the provincial economy and in 1967 several areas of the provincial economy deteriorated.
Supply-Agriculture
A government white paper last week showed drops in total income, net value of commodity production and housing completions. ...
Total personal income dropped 6 per cent to $2 billion in 1967-a drop of 37 per cent in farm income...
Farm machinery investments dropped, though, because of the smaller crop.
The wheat crop for 1967 totalled 339 million bushels, about 37 per cent lower than in the previous year-but higher operating and depreciation costs are expected to reduce net farm income to about $329 million-about 37 per cent lower than in 1966.
Having been a farmer in western Canada and knowing what the real pinch is, I think this is a very true picture. We in Saskatchewan have a wheat crop of 339 million bushels, which is 37 per cent lower than in 1966. The average yield is 17.7 bushels, 10 per cent under the 1957-1966 average. Net farm income in Saskatchewan was $329 million in 1967, down 37 per cent from $751 million the previous year.
We have heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce congratulating himself on having extended the range of the agreement. This does not help the farmer at a time when we have a low minimum price and prices which go below that minimum as well as a falling off in general sales. The western wheat farmer, in view of his massive commitments, cannot be expected to view the situation with calmness. I am sorry I cannot take the same optimistic view of the situation as do the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Since neither of them is caught in a cost-price squeeze in the face of falling prices and falling markets they can afford to be unmoved, but the western farmer cannot.
What about the final wheat payment in 1969? This is when the western farmers will realize that as a result of the lack of sales in the current crop year there will be practically no final wheat payment in 1969. It was an unpardonable example of gullibility for these ministers to leave Canada and the Canadian wheat producer without the protection of the international wheat agreement for a whole year. It is all right to be an international good fellow, but already this action has cost the western farmer and the Canadian economy more than Expo-well over $100 million. At the same time, wheat sales are sagging because of United States undercutting made possible by the failure to insist on maintaining or extending the wheat agreement. Many countries have held off their wheat purchases in anticipation of falling prices.

March 5, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
It is all very well for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to rush down to Washington and extract a few cents out of them when what we should be getting is at least 25 cents more for a bushel of our western wheat. That is what the western farmer wants and what he needs. What is the use of producing the world's finest wheat if the government is going to dump it on the market like so much garbage? The farmer does not want throwaway wheat, nor does he want give-away wheat. The western farmer is feeling the pinch and the whole Canadian economy will feel it when the returns are in. The government can look to itself for having bungled the wheat situation by its amateur tactics.
On September 27 the minister said in the house that he was disappointed with our sales to Japan. The western farmers are also disappointed. We are disappointed with the whole sorry story of government bumbling and inability to drive a bargain on behalf of the producers. We have done our share and we do not relish being undercut by the government's incompetence. We realize that the wheat boom is over at present. It is not over because people all round the world do not need our wheat. It is over because the government has not done its job properly. I suggest that if they cannot sell wheat and carry on successful negotiations they should take the advice of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle who has an outstanding record in this respect.
In recent years wheat has become the mainstay of our nation's economy. Under this government it is once again being relegated to a secondary position. Here is a government which spends its time and the taxpayers' money on phony publicity stunts like the war on poverty, reports on American investment, without which we could not five in this country, and a host of other meaningless and time-wasting schemes and programs. At the same time it is unable to look after the basic housekeeping of this nation, such as the sale of wheat, keeping prices and taxes down and giving to Canadians the opportunity to expand in the prosperity which should be ours. The government has frittered away prosperity. Now they come to us expecting congratulations because, as they say, they have kept us out of the poorhouse. Canada's wheat is needed. The market is there. The production is there. It is up to the government to come back to reality and forget about the leadership ambitions of some of its members. They should rather look after the essential business of the country.

Another factor leading to insecurity is the question of how much wheat China will take next year. The government is saying nothing about that. If there is a serious falling off in the amount of wheat that China buys from us the economy, not only of western Canada but of the nation in general, will be in deep trouble. We want the government and the minister to give us the facts on these matters. We want from the minister an assurance that he and his department will get the wheat moving. We want an assurance as to prices and the volume of sales so that farmers can have some idea of what the future holds under this government.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
The whole picture is one of uncertainty and it is growing worse day by day. The decline of 100 million bushels in exports this year at a time when United States sales are picking up cannot be explained to the Canadian farmer. I suggest that neither the Minister of Agriculture nor the Minister of Trade and Commerce go to western Canada and attempt to justify that situation. If either of them really has leadership ambitions he should think very seriously of a way to solve the wheat problem. There has to be a stepped-up selling campaign. We do not intend to return to the days when the western producer was a sitting duck for the lack of activity on the part of the government. The wheat situation is extremely grave, so not only the western farmer but the whole Canadian economy and the government had better get moving on it at once.
Western agriculture is in a serious situation. The constituency I represent includes approximately 45 rural municipalities. Of those rural municipalities, approximately 38 will receive P.F.A.A. payments during the year 1968. Whenever this number of farmers receives P.F.A.A. payments it is a good indication that western agriculture is in a serious situation. Last evening the minister mentioned the Farm Credit Corporation and the amount of money that had been borrowed from that organization. I believe he said that in 1962 about $78 million had been lent by the Farm Credit Corporation and in 1966 the amount was $234 million. I can assure the minister and the members of this committee that no farmer in western Canada is proud of borrowing money. If he had the money in his pocket which he should have he would not have to go to the Farm Credit Corporation to borrow these amounts.
March 5, 1968


Mr. Moore:: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the first chance for some time to discuss the present state of agriculture in Canada. I intend to confine my remarks specifically to the dairy industry. Before I commence may I say that I listened to the minister last evening comparing two government's policies. I think it is enough to say that the farmers can judge between the two policies. What they really want to know is, what comes next? They were not told this. After the minister's speech last night, however, I am sure the farmers will know that they have nothing to fear. They have been making more money than they thought they were.
In so far as the amount of money farmers are now borrowing is concerned, I point out that in most cases farmers borrow because they have to, not because they want to. They know how difficult it is to repay this money. I base my opinion on personal experience of over 30 years as a dairy farmer. The government's policy seems to be that rural poverty can be eliminated by getting rid of the farmers. If you get rid of the farmers, you get rid of the poverty. I would not like to try to tell the small dairy farmer who gets no subsidy that he never had it so good. I would not even like to tell the fluid milk shipper on a small quota that he never had it so good.
This government is not noted for having an agricultural policy but it does introduce a dairy policy each year, and a different one each year. The government hopes that this will keep the producers reasonably quiet until next year. The result is that the dairy farmer, who is running practically a lifetime operation, cannot make any long term plans. Policy is changed every year, sometimes even in mid-year, so a planned program is impossible. Guess who is left holding the bag as usual.
The Department of Agriculture, aided now by the Canadian Dairy Commission, has two separate pieces of advice for the dairy farmer designed to help him with his problems. These are two very interesting, separate pieces of advice. The first piece of advice is that he must increase his efficiency, enlarge his unit and work longer hours. This means working longer than the average of 13 hours a day for a dairyman. He must also cut his costs of production, and tell us how he does that these days. Finally, he must improve his herd.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
With regard to herd improvement, what is the record achieved by Canadian stockmen

March 5. 1968
Supply-Agriculture
who are breeders of dairy cattle? A couple of years ago Canadian breeders sold a dairy cow for the record sum of $42,000. Shortly afterwards another sold for $43,000. The highest price ever obtained at auction for a dairy bull by Canadian breeders was $115,000. Shortly after that a bull was sold to the American breeders association for $140,000, and since then $150,000 was paid for a sire used in Ontario in an A.I. unit. These sires are used by Canadian dairymen through the A.I. program.
Let us see if milk production has improved at all. A few years ago it was not very common to get a cow producing 20,000 pounds of milk a year. However, today it is common among the high producers, some of which have produced over 30,000 pounds. I believe that three such cows in Canada achieved this figure last year, though I could be wrong there. That means that over 1,000 pounds of butterfat, sometimes 1,200 pounds, is produced by a single cow in one year. If that is not an improvement I should like to know what is. I should also like to know what more the dairymen of Canada can do to improve their livestock.
The second piece of advice is that the dairyman should produce less milk. How you can produce less and at the same time increase production I have not yet figured out, though I may in time. If this does not solve the dairymen's problem, it will at least solve the problem of the minister and the dairy commission. How ridiculous can you get, Mr. Chairman?
A new dairy policy is due soon, though what it will consist of no one knows. If the dairy farmer is a good guesser he will be prepared to take advantage of the goodies it offers. Let us look at the last dairy policy for a moment since it is the one now in operation. More money was spent on subsidies than the year before but there was greater dissatisfaction, and I should like to know why. I can tell you why, Mr. Chairman. Producers who shipped under 50,000 pounds of milk or the equivalent in cream received no subsidy at all. This was one of the rank discriminations of the policy.
Who were the farmers affected by this discrimination? They were the smaller mixed farmers to whom the sale of milk from a few cows was an important part of their operation. I should like to know what principle the minister is adopting here. This discrimination could be removed to a certain extent when the figure drops to 12,000 pounds from 50,000 
pounds. The yearly production of one good cow is 12,000 pounds. Any farmer who produces more will come within the policy. Nevertheless, the principle is still the same, and we must not forget that a large number of dairymen are affected by it. If the principle is correct, then any farmer who ships one pound of butterfat or one pound of manufacturing milk should receive the subsidy. The present policy discriminates against the fluid milk shipper, who must produce milk of highest quality and at even greater cost, with a huge outlay for equipment. I am having a little competition from across the aisle, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order.


Harry Andrew Moore: For example, Mr. Chairman, fluid milk shippers are required to instal a $4,000 or $5,000 cooling tank. The barn cleaning equipment costs $2,000. Most large dairymen have this equipment but fluid milk shippers must have it and also many other items of equipment. Yet they receive no subsidy for a large part of their milk which may be used for manufacturing purposes. In many instances the quota for the higher priced distribution milk is very small, and it is to these dairymen that I refer, not to those with a full quota. The provincial board may increase the price for this portion, thereby increasing the cost to the consumers and causing them to buy less milk. In turn, this cuts the farmer's quota even further.
I should like to give you an example of this, Mr. Chairman. Some months ago I met a group of fluid milk shippers in Alberta and they had their milk cheques in hand. We carefully figured out the average price that each received. One young man-I pick him because the government seems to feel that the older men should pack it up-received an average price of $3.31 per hundredweight before haulage charges were deducted, and believe me, Mr. Chairman, they cost enough. This is hardly in line with the minister's widely published $4.75 per hundred pounds for manufactured milk. This man operates in an area where the cows are stabled eight months a year and fed on hay costing from 50 cents to $1 a bale.
The dairy policy of the government has been one of discrimination and expediency. The method of payment and the administration are just too awkward to describe, as many members of the house who have dairy producers in their constituencies can testify.
March 5, 1968

Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, the government recommends that our farmers be more businesslike. The stabilization board and the dairy commission did not set a very good example during the past dairy year to the farmers who were supposed to be businesslike. I should like to quote from page 2 of the Canadian Dairy Commission statement of January 15, 1968:
-the commission gives notice that this is the last year newcomers may receive subsidy quotas except by reallocation.
Is this common business practice or is it the action of a dictatorship? In a democratic country such as Canada it certainly amounts to arrogance. Has any man who purchases a herd of milk cows and is given a quota any guarantee that the quota will be honoured? This is a question that the Minister of Agriculture should answer. We are waiting for the answer and I hope we will have it today. I think the whole quota system requires very close scrutiny. May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 3 9A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, pensions of retired civil servants; the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, C.B.C. Radio-re broadcasts over CKRS-TV; the hon. member for Kootenay West, Finance-request for statement on economic and financial policy. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Herman Maxwell Batten: When the committee rose at six o'clock it had been considering vote 5c of the supplementary estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


Harry Andrew Moore: Before we rose I was making reference to some of the dictatorial statements given out on January 15, 1968, by the Canadian Dairy Commission. No wonder farmers have been forced out of business by the hundreds; no wonder young men cannot be found to replace them, even if they could afford to do so-which they could not, anyway, in these times.
The minister has told us on many occasions that prices are higher than ever before. He
Supply-Agriculture
compares them with prices under the former government. What a misleading comparison. Net returns are dependent on production costs, and this is all I need to say.


An hon. Member:: He doesn't know any better.


Harry Andrew Moore: Thank you.
This attitude on the part of the minister is not good enough. Under a Liberal government I sold milk for 48 cents a hundredweight. But that will not help the farmers of today. It is history. They are not interested in it.
It is noteworthy that a government supporter in the other place has introduced a bill to amend the Canadian Dairy Commission Act. I have read it and I have a copy here. I wonder why he is doing this. Surely it could not be for the sake of justifying an institution which once he wanted to abolish. He was at one time a member of this house and the chief agricultural critic for his party, or parties. He knows that the present act is not fair. My only criticism of his bill is that it does not go far enough; it only refers to discrimination against the small milk shippers or cream shippers. Nevertheless he deserves to be commended and his point is well taken.
Here is an industry which is already declining rapidly. Yet, through its policy the government is attempting to increase the rate at which dairymen all over Canada are going out of business. And it is succeeding. I would call your attention to this, Mr. Chairman: I have not asked the government to expend any more money. I have condemned it for failing to allocate the available funds more fairly. The minister should I suggest rectify this state of affairs when next he announces dairy policy. There is a limit to the amount which the government can pay in subsidies; we are all aware of that. But there is another aspect of this question. How much has the government spent on research to find new methods of processing and packaging so as to obtain new markets? Does the government intend to let other countries which have made great strides in this field get ahead of us, as usual? We have to remember that new markets will likely be found in countries where refrigeration is scarce or non-existent. Let us have a dairy policy next year designed to give all producers a bit of encouragement and a fair return for their labour in one of the hardest and most demanding professions in existence today.

March 5, 1968
Supply-Agriculture


Mr. Madill:: In rising to make a few comments on the supplementary estimates of the Department of Agriculture I should like to deal specifically with the subject of farm improvement loans, farm credit loans and small business loans as they are related to agriculture. It is also my intention to make a few remarks about the marketing and grading of hogs.
First, as to the farm improvement loan legislation: This, with a fixed rate of interest provided, is no longer geared to present interest demands. It is no longer realistic. We are told that these loans are being made-or, sometimes, that the available funds have been exhausted. But today, at the rate of 5 per cent such loans as are made are available only to a few well established businessmen or farmers. Local bank managers are placed in an invidious position. They may recommend a small loan at the rate of 7 or 8 per cent, but the farmers themselves, particularly if they are young farmers, or less well established, often feel they are the object of discrimination. Loans at 5 per cent are limited to a few people who have been preferred borrowers over the years.
Bank managers maintain that farmers have proven themselves to be competent, realistic borrowers and that a lot of the red tape and paperwork demanded by the terms of the Farm Improvement Loans Act is unnecessary. Loans need no longer be underwritten by the government because farmers have proven that they will repay them. It is obvious that since banks are now paying 5 per cent on moneys on deposit it is unrealistic for them to lend money out to farmers at 5 per cent. 1 would recommend that the act be amended immediately in such a way as to accommodate all the farmers, fruit growers, fur farmers and others who wish to improve their buildings, operations livestock, drainage and so on. They should be able to use the provisions of the Farm Improvement Loans Act instead of resorting to finance houses which are set up to handle short term loans.
Incidentally, having mentioned farm improvements, I should like to point out that battery operated hoists which are now widely used in agriculture for the storage and removal of potatoes, apples and so on are subjected both to import tax and to sales tax-and in almost every case they are imported. In addition to many farm applications, they are used to load logs and lumber, still in the field of agriculture. In the interests of the industry
(Mr. Moore.]
in Canada I strongly urge the government to consider removing the tax in this case.
The second item I should like to mention concerns the Farm Credit Corporation. In my opinion much greater latitude could be exercised when extending credit, depending of course on the type of farm operation under consideration. It is true that dairy farmers are in a special position, but farmers who grow cash crops can certainly engage in other types of work and still operate successful farms. Should they do so, however, they are not eligible for loans under the present legislation. At a time when farmers are facing a growing cost-price squeeze the amount of credit available to them through the Farm Credit Corporation is to be reduced following federal government cut-backs.
The third subject I would mention briefly has to do with loans from the Industrial Development Bank to small businessmen, particularly implement dealers, feed mill operators, greenhouse operators, hatchery owners and others who conduct businesses related directly to farming. On many occasions I have tried to help some of these people get loans from the Industrial Development Bank. The applications have been refused politely but positively. What has happened to the government's stated intention of helping small business?
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
So far I have mentioned a few of the areas in which legislation could be updated and improvements introduced to help those engaged in agriculture to make a livelihood. At the beginning of my remarks I mentioned hog marketing and grading. I have a number of statistics I should like to put on record. The average weighted price of hogs in 1966 was $35.64. In 1967 the average was $30.40. That is quite a drop, especially when one realizes that the cost of the producer's operation has increased considerably. From January to June 1967 there were 18,568,200 pounds of fresh, frozen or cured pork imported at a cost of $7,063,000. Also in the period from January to June 1967 there were 25,603,163 pounds of pork and pork substitutes imported at a cost of $10,302,000. This does not make sense when our farmers who are raising hogs receive less money for what they produce.
In this connection it is interesting to note a reply written by the Minister of Agriculture to a letter in December, 1967, in which he stated:
It is true that some products, such as hogs, are suffering from a cycle of overproduction and lower
March 5, 1968

prices. This has resulted from the higher prices for hogs over the past few years which encouraged some producers to increase their production with the result that for the past four or five months we have been marketing more hogs than there is a demand for pork products. Production, however, has been levelling off and it is expected that hog prices should firm up.
I just cannot see the relationship between that reply and the trend to import pork products, with reduced prices to our own farmers.
The other point I wish to take is with respect to the reduction in the premium on grade A hog carcasses from $3 to $2. I have received a resolution passed by the South Simcoe Hog Producers Association expressing very strong opposition to the reduction of the quality premium from $3 to $2. In their letter to me they say:
We realize that there have to be reductions made in the costs of government operations, but the producers of high quality food feel that they are being unduly discriminated against in this proposed action of reducing the quality premium.
Over the years farmers have been trying to improve the grade of their hogs both from a breeding standpoint and from the standpoint of competing with Denmark. Britain was one of our markets which was very fond of lean pork. It must be remembered that it is much easier to produce a grade B hog than a grade A hog.
I have a letter here from a man in Hast-ings-Frontenac, which spells out the thoughts of quite a few farmers on this matter. It reads:
I am just writing a letter to explain my feelings on the government's plan to cut back the premium on grade A hogs from $3 to $2. The reason given for this action is the government's economy measure.
This amount being paid is peanuts to the government, but means a lot to farmers working on a slim margin of profit. I read a column in the Belleville paper last night about the amount of money being spent on an investigation to find out the status of the Canadian woman. This amount was half as much again as the money being spent in all of Canada on the premium of hogs.
In Hastings county last year our production of hogs dropped to 21,000. We were the third highest county in Ontario in the highest percentage of grade A's with 51 per cent. The Ontario average is 44 per cent. A lean pork product is what the consumer is demanding and they want it cheap.
I feel that the Ontario farmer is already paying more than his share to maintain a stable economy, and one thing for sure it is we who are underwriting much of the cost of the government's cheap food policy.
I attended an agriculture college for three years trying to learn how to farm efficiently. I came back home to the farm, expanded by constructing new buildings, and purchasing more land to ''stay
Supply-Agriculture
in business," so the experts told me. Let me say that last year I didn't even make my interest on investment let alone a labour income. I market between 800 to 1,000 hogs annually and obtain about 70 per cent grade A's. If it were not for the premium of $3 at present I could not afford to produce as many A hogs, and last year I bought some of the best breeding stock in Canada.
In other words, I could not stay in business by producing A hogs without it, because I can produce B hogs cheaper and easier. Is this what the consumer wants?
The reduction of premium means between $600 or $700 a year to me, and how many people in Canada are going to get a wage cut by this amount this year?
This premium was introduced to try to give the farmer an incentive to produce A hogs. By looking at grade improvement figures it has done just that. If they lower it again now they will lose all they gained.
Another thing few people realize is that there are about half the number of farmers shipping hogs today as there were 12 years ago. The trend is going to stay this way. Because they are operating bigger, with more investment and better records, they know what it costs to produce A or B pork better than they did a few years ago. Unless they are paid to produce what the consumer demands at the present price structure someone has to pay it, or they won't be getting it.
Just one other point I want to make is-only .8 per cent of the Canadian farmer's income is derived from the public treasury. In the U.S. this figure is close to seven times higher at 5.4 per cent. These figures are from the Hedlin-Menzies report on farm income. Don't you think that the Canadian farmer is already doing enough to fight inflation?
These were the few remarks I wished to make, Mr. Chairman, and I hope the Minister of Agriculture will give some consideration to them in an endeavour to improve agriculture in Canada.


Mr. Fane:: Mr. Chairman, it is a long time since we have had an opportunity to speak on the subject of agriculture as much as we have done in the last couple of days. The big reason is that last year when the main estimates were before us there was only time for the minister to make a speech, and then the agricultural estimates were withdrawn. In fact I believe time ran out entirely for discussing estimates. This makes one wonder why it is that the government does not provide opportunities for us to discuss agriculture. Are the members of the government scared of what the farmer members of parliament will say, or are they scared to face the farming element of this country? I think that must be the case, Mr. Chairman, for the simple reason that they know that their agricultural program, if they have one, is not worth a darn in assisting agriculture, notwithstanding the wonderful speech that the

March 5, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
Minister of Agriculture made last night, or I should say the wonderful speech he thought he made. It won't be so wonderful when the farmers read it, because this Liberal government will probably lose the only two or three members it has from agricultural areas when the next election occurs.
I would like to commend the Leader of the Opposition on the most reasonable and factual speech that he made last night. He showed the farming element throughout Canada that he has a full grasp of agricultural problems and that he will be able to represent the farming industry as well as every other industry there is when the time comes. He certainly showed up well on agriculture.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I was a little surprised at the minister making the speech he made because it was just a rerun of the speech he gave us on the main estimates last fall,-exactly the same speech. But of course this government is prone to having reruns of things, so that should not surprise anybody. When he told us in so many words that the farmers had never had it so good, I was reminded of the time 11 years ago-the second time I was a candidate for election to parliament-when the then minister of agriculture, the right hon. gentleman who chose to be known as "Mr. Agriculture" in Canada, visited my constituency. As a matter of fact he arrived there the day after I was nominated as a candidate. I believe I would be generous if I said that he spoke to 300 people for three and a half hours, using three million words, and never said anything except that the farmers never had it so good. I believe that was one reason I was elected as a member of parliament. Therefore, I might suggest to the minister that when he tells the farmers they never had it so good he is probably alienating what little affection they have left for the party which he hopes to lead next month. May I say that if he realizes his ambition, which may be a vain one, I hope he will do something more to help the farmers when he holds the top position than he has done as Minister of Agriculture.
My hon. friend from Provencher the other day said that the farmers do not wonder what the minister has done for them. They just wonder what this government has done to them. They know very well of course. The minister's speech also reminded me of the small boy who runs through a cemetery at midnight and hollers as loud as he can in

order to have the courage to do it. I wonder whether the minister really realizes what the situation in the farm industry in Canada is. His speech certainly did not give the true picture, because the farmers of this country are not as well off as he would have everybody believe. As I said, when the news of his speech goes out through the country the farmers will have a big laugh about how well off they are.
It seems strange that the minister appears to be the only person interested in farming who does not know what the situation is. Perhaps he just will not believe the truth. There's none so blind as him who will not see. I find it difficult to believe that the information the minister receives from his high priced and well educated advisers could be so incorrect. Surely the members of his staff are aware of what is going on. Surely the minister himself must be aware of what is going on, especially when he sees 23,000 farmers from the provinces of Ontario and Quebec come down here, as they did last summer, to complain about the situation. Delegations representing the dairy farmers, the farm unions, the National Farm Union and the Federation of Agriculture have also come to Ottawa. In any event the minister has many people facing him in this house who can tell him what it is all about. We do not speak merely for the sake of speaking, and surely he might listen to some of us.
I realize the minister does not have very much farm support behind him, but surely the members of his party who do represent farming areas could tell him in caucus or in his office what the facts really are. There is no doubt that he hears straight talk on the matter of agriculture from members of all the opposition parties. The trouble is that the members of the government do not realize that they do not have an agricultural policy, and that what little dribs and drabs they are attempting to get by with simply are not adequate in providing the necessary help to the farming element of this country.
Very often in the house we hear about wheat. Ever since I came to Ottawa 10 years ago, wheat has appeared to be the main subject discussed by the western members. At the present time the price of wheat is down 22 cents a bushel. I believe this is a direct result of the action of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in allowing the international wheat agreement to lapse for about a year. This has had a drastic effect on the primary industry of this country.
March 5, 1968

Even though there are other industries which at times provide more wealth to the country I can assure you that they are not as important to the welfare of Canada as the agricultural industry, for the simple reason that if we did not have an agricultural industry we would not have food for our table. That is the situation. The price of wheat is down this year because the government relaxed its efforts in the selling of our grain. Everywhere out west there are low quotas. Some farmers may be able to deliver four or five bushels of grain per cultivated acre, but that is all. The final payments have been delayed and this year they probably will be lower than usual.
Ever since this government came into power the farmers have not been receiving their interim payments, and his has had a severe effect on the economic welfare of the farming industry. Not once in the last five years when this government has been running things have the farmers had an interim payment of ten cents per bushel.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
The price of cattle is down. The price of hogs is down. The premium on first grade hogs has been removed, except for $1 per hundredweight, and the premium on first grade lambs has been removed. The premium on cheese has been removed. By the removal of these premiums on top quality produce the government has penalized those farmers who produced top quality. As a result it does not matter now whether or not the farmer raises first or second class products. They receive no premium for producing first grade.
Hon. members just heard my colleague, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin, speak about the appalling situation in dairy production. The government makes a new dairy policy every year, and none of them has been worth a hoot. Dairy farmers are becoming so unhappy about the situation they are leaving the industry. Approximately half of our large dairies are either out of existence, or on the way out. These farmers are selling their cows. Perhaps it will not be too many years before we will all be drinking synthetic milk and eating synthetic beefsteak. I do not know where we will find a substitute for the products made from wheat.
The egg situation in this country is particularly bad. The other day I received a letter, one of many about this situation. This constituent sent 75 dozen eggs to the city of Edmonton for which she received $10.75. Of those
Supply-Agriculture
dozen, 43 dozen were grade A large for which she received 20 cents per dozen. She wondered why the price of eggs to the producer is so frightfully low. I made a few inquiries and found that during the first 11 months of last year we imported 11,059,558 dozen eggs from the United States at a cost of $6,526,000. We imported 264,184 pounds of dried whole yolk and albumen at a cost of $294,000. We also imported dry whole yolk and albumen n.e.s. to the extent of 1,821,560 pounds at a cost of $187,000. These figures are taken from Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports. I have here a poultry marketing report issued on March 1, 1968 by the Canadian Department of Agriculture which indicates that to date this year Canada has imported from the United States 3,260 cases of eggs, each containing 30 dozen. No wonder the price of eggs to the primary producer is so low. We also imported 23,000 pounds of frozen eggs from the United States.
People also wonder why turkeys and chickens bring so little to the producer. This year Canada has already imported 1,359,386 pounds of poultry. Already this year the department has carried out inspections on a total of 489,464 poultry carcasses of various kinds. No wonder the primary producer of poultry receives so little for his produce. The farmers in central Canada, that is Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes are not faced with the difficulty of selling wheat, but they do have difficulties in the marketing of cattle, hogs, lambs, eggs, cheese and dairy products. They are suffering just as much as the western farmers.
Farmers are finding it very difficult to obtain loans under the Farm Improvement Loans Act because banks do not wish to lend money at the approved interest rate of 5 per cent. In light of the situation today farmers cannot afford to pay that interest rate, let alone a higher one. Farmers are also finding difficulty because of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. This is having a serious effect on the construction of granaries and other buildings. Machinery prices are increasing each year, and we are beginning to wonder what the government is going to do with the recommendations following the inquiry into farm machine prices. Probably this inquiry will end up just like other inquiries and royal commissions.
The high cost of farm machinery is very serious. A self-propelled combine capable of handling a large crop costs in the neighbourhood of $15,000, or even more if it has a cab.

March 5, 1988
Supply-A griculture
It appears that the price of machinery will continue to increase to the extent that the traffic will bear. Farmers in some areas have boycotted the buying of machinery and the implement companies have really found out the problem they face if they are not able to sell their machinery.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
The minister told us how very wonderful it is that in 1966 the farmers of Canada borrowed $234 million from the Farm Credit Corporation. This may sound to the minister like very good business, but I would point out that when farmers are in debt to this extent it is very, very difficult for them to repay loans. Every time a farmer borrows money in this way he has to repay the loan and the interest thereon. Thanks to the western members in the house in particular, and to the Conservative members in general, the interest was kept as low as possible on these loans.
I ask the minister whether he or anybody else in the house thinks that anybody is able to borrow himself rich. I cannot see it, myself. I was in debt for a great many years on the farm and know how difficult it is to meet even small payments, especially when a Liberal government is in power in Ottawa. That really makes a difference.
The reduction in the assistance provided under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act is no help to western farmers in providing dug-outs and water supplies for the summer. In the part of the country from which I come people know that prairie farm assistance act is nearly over because in the last five years the trouble with it has been appalling. I am not laying all this trouble at the minister's feet, but he and I know where some of the trouble occurs. I can assure hon. members that it is not all the fault of the farmers or the act.
ARDA is a very wonderful idea that was brought into being by the minister of agriculture of the Conservative government, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. The extension of ARDA has proved to be a very wonderful thing in some cases. I know that the program is now handled through the provincial departments of agriculture. There is one ARDA project in my constituency which anybody can be very proud of. I refer to the project on the Saddle Lake Indian reserve where 15,000 acres of wonderful land is about to be broken up and put into cultivation for the benefit of the people who live on the reserve. This project will prove to be of great assistance to

these people in finding their feet. Therefore I commend the idea of ARDA. I know this project will prove of very great help to the Indian population of some 2,000 on this reserve.
My time appears to be up, Mr. Chairman. I do not know if I have been able to tie in my remarks with vote 5c, which reads as follows:
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 towards the construction of a road.
One dollar is provided for this vote. As I say, Mr. Chairman, I do not know how well I have related what I have had to say to that vote. Anyway I have said what I think should be said in this regard and hope I have been talking to the subject under consideration by the committee.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Chairman, there is one line in one of the verses of our national anthem "O Canada" which refers to our country as a "fair land of hope for all who toil". I ask the question: Who among us toils harder than the farmer? But under this government he toils without hope.
I shall be brief this evening in order to give the Minister of Agriculture the opportunity to attack the remarks made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, for to be consistent he must attack the leader of the New Democratic party as he attacked my leader, the leader of the official opposition, last night. The content of the comic opera attack by the Minister of Agriculture last night on the splendid speech and sound economics put forward by my leader could have been put to better use by the minister next spring on the flowerbeds of Arnprior.
Because of the importance of agriculture in the economy of my constituency, and indeed because of its importance to our whole country, I join the debate on these estimates at this time. As milk production is of great importance in our area, I now wish to touch upon that subject. I wish to protest the marked reduction of federal agricultural grants as they affect our dairy industry, and particularly the intended removal of the premiums on high scoring cheese by this government next April 1.
I wish to point out to the government that the cheese premiums were instituted as early as 1939 to encourage farmers to produce high quality milk, which in turn would improve over-all cheese quality. Payments have been
March 5, 1968

made on the basis of 2 cents per pound for cheese scoring 94 or better, and 1 cent for cheese scoring 93. I also wish to point out to the minister the splendid value and results that have been realized throughout the years from this assistance.
I note that when the program was begun 48 per cent of all cheese was eligible for premium. In 1966, there was 71 per cent eligible. One can see what an improvement this program has made in the quality of our cheese. Because of its importance to our local economy and our export balance of payments with Britain and other countries, where there is a great appetite and demand for our Cheddar, I say to the minister: Do not abandon this assistance to the Canadian cheese producers.
Some time ago this government was threatening to abandon the small milk producer as well. I am proud to have been one of those who spoke up on behalf of all those milk producers who produce 50,000 pounds or less of milk per year. Last November 30 I brought this matter to the attention of the house and the minister, and I now note that the subsidy will be applied to those producing 12,000 pounds of milk per year instead of only to those producing 50,000 pounds. I have no quarrel with the figure that has been arrived at, because the man who produces less than 12,000 pounds might better be in some other business.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
It is conceded that the future trend must be to larger production per unit, and in the next five years vast changes will take place. I am informed that in 1966, out of a total of about 190,500 farmers, 48,704 were producing more than 100,000 pounds of milk annually, and that it is estimated that in five years the number of producers in this category will rise to between 80,000 and 90,000.
One can readily see that this will vastly increase our dairy production, and I hope it will put this country into a position where we can help feed more of the millions of hungry mouths in this world. In the meantime, as we have contended, you cannot and you must not annihilate the small milk producers at one fell swoop of government legislation, for most of them have reached the age at which they do not wish, nor is it advisable for them, to expand their operations. They own their small holdings. They have six or eight, and sometimes ten, cows which produce several calves each year, and they have the summer grass for such an operation. I submit that these people are certainly an asset to any
Supply-Agriculture
community and to any country. I am proud to have been one of those who helped convince the government not to do such a callous thing as to cut these people off from their livelihood.
I have mentioned the importance of the dairy industry to our country, and in particular to the countries of Prince Edward and Lennox. From a national standpoint, one of the most valuable organizations connected with the dairy industry for many years has been the Canadian Holstein-Friesian Association. For many years this organization has contributed to the propagation of that great breed of dairy cattle and to the upgrading and improvement of Holstein cattle and also of our whole dairy industry, because I believe this breed of cattle composes the majority of the milk producing cattle in our country.
The county of Lennox is signally honoured in this year of 1968 by the election of Mr. Harold McCaul of R.R.5, Napanee, Ontario, as president of the Canadian Holstein-Friesian Association. Mr. McCaul has given years of valuable service to the association which he now heads, and to the dairy industry, as well as to Canada as a whole. I congratulate him on behalf on my constituency and I thank him for the honour that he has brought to Lennox and Addington counties and to his native township of Richmond.
I am sure the minister will agree with me as to the importance of the maintenance of high standards in our various breeds of dairy cattle. Others taking part in this debate will no doubt touch on the importance of grants to fairs and exhibitions of livestock. May I at this time quote from an article which appeared in the Western Producer of February 22, 1968 and which is headed "Decline Noted in Holstein Show Herds." The first paragraph reads as follows:
The decline in numbers of both exhibitors and animals at shows is causing the extension service committee of the Canadian Holstein-Friesian Association real concern, said Curtis Clark of Carstairs, Alberta, in a report to the annual meeting of the Holstein association at Toronto, February 14.
"Nothing can quite replace the show ring in providing an opportunity for the individual breeder to compare his cattle with the best others have to offer, nor in acting as a show window for the breed.
I am sure the minister will agree with me that the activities of this particular association and of all purebred cattle associations are certainly of great value to us nationally. I point out that it is a great balance of trade factor because the high grade purebred Hol-steins produced in our country are in great

March 5, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
demand throughout the western hemisphere, including Europe. Holstein cattle exported from Canada in 1966 brought us $15 million, and the figure may be even higher in 1967. The figures have not yet been completed for 1967, but in that year, 10,000 head of cattle was exported to countries other than the United States; 7,630 head to the United States; and 4,400 to Spain. One bull exported to Cuba brought $100,000 in that year. Another bull exported to Japan brought $75,000, and a third one exported to the United States brought $140,000. I should like to point out to the minister that to a large degree the new regulations regarding federal show classifications are hampering the incentive of the Hol-stein-Friesian Association members to show their herds. Only about 25 per cent of the Holstein herds are on the record of performance testing. The federal government is not providing the money which would be necessary for a full program. As long as the present system is maintained, conditions will not improve. The government should consult our purebred cattle associations more than they do now. I am sure the minister will respond by a change in policy which will assist our purebred cattle associations and which will also be in our national interests. May I remind him again of the balance of trade to which this one organization has contributed so greatly.
In summing up the last point, may I say that the government should make every effort, through better incentive grants to fairs and exhibitions, to halt the decline in our exhibitions of dairy cattle.
I listened with interest to this debate, and I congratulate the members of the opposition who pointed out the lack of interest in and frequently the utter disregard of this government for Canadian agriculture. Why should the government be so stupid as to fail to recognize an asset when they have one? Whoever heard of a farmer asking for relief or handouts, no matter how tough conditions become for him at home? Although the percentage of people on the land is steadily diminishing and farmers now are in a minority among our blocks of occupational population, they are still key men in this country and agriculture continues to be our most important primary industry.
On Thursday of last week I took part in the debate on Bill No. C-197 to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. As recorded at page 7137 of Hansard, I pointed out that the abandonment of agriculture in general by this

government is one of the prime causes of the sudden creation of more unemployment in this country. This is a most pernicious situation. Unemployment in this country is now at its highest level in recent years, and it will get worse as this government continues to lose interest in agriculture and withhold assistance to it.
There are a good many secondary industries which depend on agricultural production in our country. I speak now of the canning industry which is of great importance in my riding. Prince Edward county in particular is the home of the Canadian canning industry and the home of the first vegetable canning factory in Canada operated years ago at Dem-orestville in Prince Edward county.
What is happening this year in the canning industry? The cause of our trouble in the tomato and canning industry lies in the unfair competition of the largely subsidized industries of foreign nations. Italy, for example, provides a subsidy amounting to 18 per cent to its tomato industry. How much do we subsidize our tomato growers? We do not subsidize them at all. I think it is time that this government smartened up, and that we as Canadians smartened up and did something to combat this unfair competition. We have a far better product than any grown in Italy or any other country. Our field grown tomatoes are second to none in the world.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I now wish to put on the record an article which substantiates my statements. This article under the heading "Cheap foreign food products hit farmers", appeared in the Picton Gazette for Wednesday, January 31, 1968, and I should like to quote it:
Competition from cheap food products from foreign countries will hit farmers, including local ones, this year, as well as canners.
At the annual meeting of local 213, Prince Edward Farmers Union at Cherry Valley hall Monday night, J. F. Hepburn, manager of Waupoos Canning and president of the Ontario Food Processors Association, outlined the problem caused by foreign competition in the food processing products area. Such products, he said, are imported into Canada tariff free and with substantial export subsidies, direct or hidden, from the country of origin.
"It is almost essential that we (the canning industry) make a reduction in tomato acreage of 30 to 35 per cent for the 1968 pack."
Mr. Hepburn cited fixed domestic market consumption figures to show that the reason is directly because of the increasing quantity of whole pack tomatoes being imported from such countries as Italy, Spain, South Africa, Portugal and other foreign countries. Bulgaria alone has tripled its
March 5, 1968

exports on whole pack tomatoes over the past three years, through export subsidies and lack of tariffs in Canada.
Questioned from the floor after his speech by Harry Evans, on what happens to the average 20 per cent reduced price on imported tomatoes, Mr. Hepburn did not say other than that a can of tomatoes from any of the foreign countries mentioned costs as much on a store shelf as a can of domestic tomatoes.
"Tomatoes" said Mr. Hepburn, "is the most valuable single cash crop in Ontario."
Similarly, fruit processing in the Niagara peninsula is in trouble. Australia alone has taken 30 to 40 per cent of the domestic market in tender fruits and forced a comparable cut-back of one-third of the domestic industry's original capacity of seven years ago.
While Australia has a vast export assistance program, it also has a 22 per cent tariff for incoming food goods, yet their products are allowed into Canada duty free, he charged.
Similarly with United States food products... there are tariffs for Canadian products entering the U.S., but no tariffs for U.S. products entering Canada-
Italy already has tariffs of 18 per cent on all whole pack tomatoes exported, 15 per cent on tomato paste and 16 per cent on tomato juice. "Within the past 48 hours France has announced it will match any tariff set by Italy," he told the meeting.
Ontario tomato canners, he said, are forced by law to pay the highest prices for their raw product of any country. Wage costs are also the highest.
"We can now compete with the United States tomato products from California and our western Canada markets have opened up again, but we cannot compete with unfair competition from low wages and costs of foreign countries."
I continue quoting from the article:
These two joined with the farmers union executive to jointly pass and sign a resolution to support any future brief to the federal government by the O.F.P.A.
The wording of the resolution was as follows:
"Whereas the president of the Ontario Food Processers Association, the president of the Prince Edward County Canning Crop Growers Association, the president of the Prince Edward Federation of Agriculture and the president, executive and members of the Prince Edward Farmers Union, having met together and discussed the problems of the O.F.P.A. and primary producers with regard to unfair competition from offshore countries exporting under direct and indirect subsidization, we urgently request immediate action to contravene the above mentioned subsidization."
This is a resolution from Prince Edward county, one of Canada's important canning-crop counties, and I ask the government to take heed.
In so far as the Kennedy round of trade tariffs are concerned, I must say that our representatives who attended in Geneva, Switzerland, must have been looking at the mountains and the scenery when this aspect
Supply-Agriculture
of tariff problems was being discussed. The situation as it now exists will put our canners and growers out of business, so it must be fought tooth and nail. I respectfully ask the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce as well, to help us in this regard. The tomato growers of Canada do not ask, do not demand, a business environment amounting to hothouse protection from the cold blasts of competition. I appeal to the government and its tariff officials only for fair treatment. These people are appalled at the neglect and ineptitude displayed in this latest international tariff deal which abandons them to certain annihilation unless the government faces up to its immediate responsibilities. Those responsibilities are to see that our agriculture, indeed our whole national economy, is such that Canadians can truly refer to this country as a fair land of hope for all who toil.


Mr. Greene:: Mr. Chairman, I think I should try to answer a few of the many queries that have come up during the course of this debate. It is going to be rather difficult to answer them all, as there have been many speeches. Many of the speeches have been constructive and many, of course, have been of a purely political nature. To those who made constructive speeches, I may say that I am sure they had the best interests of the agricultural community at heart and for their contributions I am certainly grateful. With respect to the speeches having a political connotation, I am rather taken aback by the many speakers from the official opposition who have complained about my address last evening wherein I tried to straighten out the statistical background on which current agriculture policy should be based. I pointed out that there have been improvements in both gross and net agricultural income. Hon. members opposite took this as a political speech, I understand. I point out that the Leader of the Opposition, whom I am pleased to see back with us again, started his speech on the premise that the Conservatives got 60 per cent of the farm vote in the last election and were going to get even more in the next one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John James Greene: Those were the non-political words with which the Leader of the Opposition started his address. However, when I replied by citing some statistics to indicate the picture of agriculture today, apparently

March 5, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
hon. members in the official opposition thought I was making a political speech. I do not quite understand why the allegations of the Leader of the Opposition were not political in the opinion of members of the opposition, but apparently they were not. If the statistics on which he based his conclusion as to the percentage of the agricultural vote he is going to get in the next election are no better than the statistics on which he based the context of his speech, then he had better revise them because they are not very sound. There was a time when there was an hon. member in this house who, I understand, used to commune with the spirits before he made an important decision. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition communes, not with any spirits in any outer world but with the spirits down on Bay street, before he makes any decision.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John James Greene: If he received those statistics on which he based his agricultural conclusions from that source, I suggest he had better get a new medium or it may be that his entire prognostication, political as well as agricultural, will be in error.
I point out, too, that the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings made some allusion to political speeches. He referred also on several occasions, not so much to the situation as it [DOT]existed in Canada, but the situation which existed in the province of Nova Scotia. I am not sure whether the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings took exception to the fact that gross and net incomes of farmers had gone up all across Canada. I noticed that most *of the political speeches came from members of the official opposition, and I take it that this was a rather concerted and planned political effort on their part. They referred to the Minister of Agriculture having stated that the farmers had never had it so good. This, I presume, is supposed to be a very crafty and Machiavellian political technique on their part, to describe this government and this minister.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Let me point out, Mr. Chairman, that I think I have made as many addresses as anybody dealing with the plight of the farmers and the contribution that they have made to the economy of this country. However, not too many of the speeches of hon. members opposite told both sides of the story. They have not been telling the consumers of Canada that they never had such a good deal, and

that they should be prepared to pay more for their food in order that the farmers of Canada could get a better living.
I have often said, Mr. Chairman, and I shall continue to say, that no sector of the economy of this country makes a greater contribution than the agricultural sector does to the total well-being of Canadian citizens. No sector of the Canadian economy has had more difficult problems in an era of transition. However, I do try to make my decisions and to reach my conclusions on a factual basis, not on political premises to the effect that "Things were grand when we were in", or "Oh my, weren't they fine when we were in office?" despite the fact that all the statistics and data show that the most difficult days that agriculture ever faced in this country were during the period that the Conservative party was in office.
Hon. gentlemen opposite may have been quite successful in the past in selling the story to the western farmer that they were his friend-though they did very little for the western farmer when they were in office, as the statistics indicate-but they have not fooled the eastern farmer. The eastern farmer knows that at no time did they ever do anything on his behalf, and again the statistics very clearly indicate this to be the case.
To return to the comments of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, who apparently made a "non-political" political speech, the hon. member alleged that conditions in Nova Scotia were very, very bad and that the income of all farmers in that province had gone down by 30 per cent. I had particularly avoided speaking about any particular province, especially the province of Nova Scotia-and this despite the political speech of the Leader of the Opposition -because in view of the circumstance that the hon. gentleman who is now in this house as Leader of the Opposition, had previously been premier of the great province of Nova Scotia, I thought it would be unfair to point to the unfortunate conditions prevailing in that province, particularly in the realm of agriculture, and I refrained from so doing.
However, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings was very careful to point out in great detail how very sad was the state of the agricultural industry in the province in which his present leader had been premier for many years.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Would the minister permit a question?
March 5, 1968


John James Greene: I have the floor.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It is not a question as much as it is a point of privilege.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I am interrupting the minister, since he did not accept a question, to stand on a point of privilege. When the minister continues his remarks I hope he will refer to the full content of my speech, because I made reference to New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and eastern Quebec as well.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings might be a little worried, now that his leader is in the chamber, about what kind of spot he has put him in. However, in this house we make policies and programs for the whole of the country, not just one particular province.


Mr. Crouse:: It is not as bad a spot as you put your leader in on February 19.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, whenever hon. members opposite do not have a good argument, they have louder voices than anybody else. If volume were good policy they would still have been in office. There is no question of that, because volume they have.


Mr. Flemming:: We will be.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, if we can get
back to the debate for a moment, the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings complained that the income of farmers in the province of Nova Scotia had decreased 30 per cent during the past years. The gross income of farmers in Canada from 1962 to 1966 actually increased from $3.1 billion to $4.2 billion. This represents an increase of $1.1 billion.
Many hon. members opposite have asked to have income defined in terms of net income rather than gross income, so I should now like to put on record the net income of farmers across Canada as a whole. In 1962 the net income of Canadian farmers was $1,492 million. In 1963 it was $1,495 million, in 1964 $1,281 million, in 1965 $1,565 million, and in 1966 $1,978 million. These figures represent net income after expenses. As I said last night, Mr. Chairman, these figures, which were compiled by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, clearly indicate that in the last three years the net income of farmers in Canada as a whole has increased by some 33i per cent.
Supply-Agriculture
In view of this increase, Mr. Chairman, if the income of farmers in the province of Nova Scotia has decreased by 30 per cent, as the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings alleges, I suggest he had better complain to the provincial government, as apparently things are much worse in Nova Scotia than in other parts of the country. Since his present leader was premier of that province during this period, he may be able to make his complaint to the Leader of the Opposition.


Michael Starr: I wonder whether the minister would permit a question based on what he has just said?


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, I think I would prefer to finish my remarks. Many questions have yet to be answered.


Michael Starr: The question is a very simple one and pertains to the statistics the minister has just put on the record. I wonder whether he would give way and answer a question?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order.


John James Greene: The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings also complained that farms in Nova Scotia are far smaller than in other parts of Canada. I think he said they averaged in size only 40 acres. The average size of a farm in Canada as a whole in 1961 was 359 acres. By 1966 it had risen to 404 acres.
So again, Mr. Chairman, apparently the situation in Nova Scotia is far worse than it is elsewhere. I am sure all of us sympathize very much with the farmers of Nova Scotia in this connection. If the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings is as concerned as he pretends to be in this chamber, then I am sure he will take up the specific and special problems that exist in that province with the provincial government of Nova Scotia. My only regret is that during his leader's term of office agricultural solutions were apparently not so easy to find as Nova Scotians who come to the federal house appear to think.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Again, the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings suggested there should be greater contribution of capital grants to agriculture in the provinces. I know this is one of the requests which the provincial Federation of Agriculture has made, I believe to the provincial governments, although I have also met some of them in this regard when they attended here to meet me, or when I met some of them in their own province. Capital

March 5, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
grants are oi course, available under ARDA or FRED programs, and I would take it, although I am no expert, under the Atlantic Development Board. I suggest to the hon. member that the initiative for such programs must come from the provinces and to the best of my knowledge no provincial initiative has been taken and brought here under the aegis of ARDA, FRED or any other joint cost sharing program which is subject to provincial initiative.
The hon. member suggested that programs similar to those put into operation in the deep south of the United States might be applicable here. I doubt very much whether the situation in the maritimes could be compared to that in the deep south many years ago. I certainly would not be one to compare the able and competent farmers of the maritime provinces with the rural poor of the deep south. I think there are grave problems to be faced, but with all respect to those good people in the United States I do not think the farmers of Nova Scotia are to be compared with the poor whites of the deep south.
I do believe, however, there could be programs of improvement, and certainly if the provincial authorities in their wisdom see fit to bring forward programs under ARDA, FRED or the Atlantic Development Board I am sure the proper authorities here would consider them very seriously indeed.
The hon. member for Moose Mountain, who also made a "non-political" political speech, was concerned about an extremely important subject-the question of the world wheat agreement. He belaboured the government and the ministers concerned for permitting the world wheat agreement to lapse, as he described it, and leave the western farmer defenceless in the absence of such an agreement. Let me point this out, Mr. Chairman. Since many hon. members on the other side have voiced the same opinion I take it from their words that they would not have permitted the world wheat agreement to lapse, had they been in office. Therefore I am bound to take it that their policy would have been the continuation of the world wheat agreement. Under that agreement, as I understand it, the price ranged between a minimum of $1.75J and a maximum of $2.18 for No. 1 northern. Our government permitted the agreement to lapse in order to achieve a price range of between $1.95 and $2.38J. We believed the western farmer was not getting enough for his wheat. I take it that hon. members opposite believed a $1.75J minimum was plenty

for western farmers and that a $2.18 maximum was enough, also.
They have stated time and again that this is their view. They would have continued the world wheat agreement as it existed. Speaker after speaker has told us so. If this is not their view, if they would have abrogated the agreement as we did, let them get up and say so. Speaker after speaker has told us they disagreed with the abrogation of the world wheat agreement in order to achieve these new and higher price levels-an improvement of 20J cents which was achieved as a result of the Kennedy round. I take it that hon. members opposite, including the hon. member for Moose Mountain disapproved of this price increase which has been achieved.


An hon. Member:: The price has dropped 22
cents.


John James Greene: These minima and maxima which we achieved in the Kennedy round and which we are striving to implement in a new world agreement at a higher price range, instead of the lower price range with which hon. gentlemen opposite were apparently satisfied-


An hon. Member:: We shall be here for days, now.


John James Greene: This is the reason the agreement was abrogated and if the debate is to hinge on whether or not the western farmers should be receiving prices between $1,754 and $2.18 rather than new prices under a new agreement, we shall be pleased to hear what hon. members opposite have to say.
Several other points were made by various hon. members. The hon. member for Wetaski-win dealt with dairy policy, which perhaps I might touch on for a minute. I noted he was not too anxious to talk about prices because he knows as well as I do that when we assumed office the average price for industrial milk under the very successful policies to which he referred was $2.62 a hundredweight for 3.5 milk, whereas today, a little less than five years later, it is $4.64.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John James Greene: I do not claim for a minute that in this area, as in so many others, the end has been achieved, despite the campaign by hon. members opposite who are apparently spreading the word that the Liberals are saying the farmers never had it so good.
March 5, 19G8



The difference between what we are saying and what they are attempting to say is this: We recognize that the farmers have very grave problems and that we have to move ahead as rapidly as possible, as rapidly as the economy can afford, toward making the lot of the farmers in economic terms a better one. But we base our decisions on facts, instead of playing politics with the unfortunate economic lot of the farmer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John James Greene: The facts speak for themselves very clearly from the standpoint of net income, from the standpoint of gross income, from the standpoint of the size of farms, the number of economically viable units capable of providing a good income, from the standpoint of the income made possible by the dairy policy. In all these areas very considerable improvements have been achieved, improvements moving ahead at a far faster pace than any which took place between 1957 and 1963. Certainly there is a long way to go and a great deal to be done, and if hon. members opposite are concerned with this problem of getting ahead with improvements at a faster pace, they will be more concerned with the ways of tomorrow as they affect the farmer than with playing politics on the basis of their so-called great accomplishments, as compared with our accomplishments.
The real problems facing agriculture are difficult enough. The hon. member for Burna-by-Coquitlam premised his remarks along these lines and some of the comments he made were perfectly valid.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
There is a great deal to be done, and while improvements have been made, many more should be made if the farmer is to achieve the economic well-being that has been achieved in large measure in other sectors of our economy.
Again, with respect to the dairy policy, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin complained about quotas. This comes under the aegis of the Canadian Dairy Commission, and quite properly so. We are very pleased with the progress being made by that commission, and I am very happy to have the opportunity of answering for the commission in the house. First of all I would say that we, and I think all hon. members generally, would like the commission to have the greatest possible independence in formulating their policies, with the funds made available to them, for
Supply-Agriculture
the purpose of rationalizing the dairy industry. This is no easy chore.
If hon. members are interested in what the purpose of the quotas is, it is to the end of ultimately rationalizing the industry, to see to it that persons in the dairy industry have units of a size which will produce an adequate income. This year the original plan was to have a minimum quota starting with some 50,000 pounds, which is the production as I understood it of approximately eight to 12 average cows. When the commission came closer to the time of setting the quotas for the current year it was found that this would be too rapid a pace of progress. It is as simple as that. This would create an economic hardship in human terms to too many people. So the commission in its wisdom decided to reduce the minimum eligibility to some 12,000 pounds, being the production of about two cows. It would not seem that this would be too rapid a rate of progress.
Ultimately if the industry is to be in good shape, if the people who are attempting to make a livelihood in the dairy industry are to have the kind of living we would like them to have, they are going to need far bigger units than two cows if they are to be full time dairy farmers. The question of course is the rate of change, the pace at which we can make these improvements without in human terms creating too great a difficulty or problem for the people involved in the process of change.
I quite agree with the hon. member that the quota system will not achieve perfection in five minutes, one year or two years. I believe the commission is doing an outstanding job and I would point out that the question of quotas, the question of policy has been discussed at great length over many meetings with the Dairy Farmers of Canada, with l'Un-ion Catholique de Cultivateurs de Quebec, and with the various farm organizations that are concerned in improving the lot of the dairy farmer; and to the greatest possible degree, consonant with the funds available and consonant with the over-all governmental policy of putting the dairy industry in economic shape within a reasonable length of time, the suggestions and the directions of those farm organizations have been heeded in formulating the quota policy and will be heeded in formulating this year's dairy policy.
The hon. member for Bruce made a considerable address which was a very comprehensive review of speeches I have made, for

March 5, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
which I thank him very much because at this time it is certainly much appreciated to have a review of that nature in this chamber. I do not believe he was in attendance at the meetings where those speeches were delivered and it may be a good deal was said that was not in the printed text, and also a good deal was left out which was in the printed text. But I make no apologies. I gather he indicts me as the minister for speaking to the agricultural community of Canada about matters other than agriculture. Well, I think I talk to them about agriculture problems quite often, and I make no apology for discussing with the agricultural leaders of Canada problems such as national unity, problems affecting the entire prospect of the Canadian economy, apart from agriculture, because it has been my experience that the farm leaders of this country are also among the foremost citizens of the country generally. They are interested in what is going on in this country.
I think it would be rather an insult to their intelligence, to their capabilities, to their desire to make this a worth-while country in all its parts, aside from the agricultural sector, if I said to them, "I will never talk to you about anything but agricultural matters because apparently that is all you are concerned with." This is not the case. But again the hon. member for Bruce apparently felt this was in some way belittling or insulting to the farm leaders of Canada. I do not believe it to be so.
The hon. member for Assiniboia, who also made a wide ranging address on farm problems, also said that the minister said that the farmers "never had it so good," which again I reiterate I have never at any time said, nor have any of my colleagues. We have said improvements have been made. The net income position is improving. There is still a long way to go and a great deal to do. That is all any of us has ever said.
The hon. member also alleged that there were mountains of wheat in storage in 1956 and 1957 prior to the time when the Conservatives came into office. Again I think we should at all times try to keep the record straight. Hon. members opposite feel it is politics if we keep the record straight, but if that is politics I think it is the best kind of politics, possibly a little better politics than statements which are not according to fact. The hon. member complained that apparently during Liberal times there is great carryover of wheat, and I gather it is his conclusion that during Tory times there is not much

wheat in storage because it is sold. The facts are as follows:
In 1957 there were 734 million bushels of wheat in storage, in 1958 there were 648 million bushels, in 1959 there were 588 million bushels, in 1960 there were 600 million bushels and in 1961 there were 608 million bushels. In 1962 there were 391 million bushels in storage, in 1963 there were 487 million bushels, in 1964 there were 459 million bushels, in 1965 there were 513 million bushels, in 1966 there were 420 million bushels and in 1967, estimated to this time, 577 million bushels, which I admit is our worst year but it is still better than 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960 and 1961.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John James Greene: If those facts are politics, as hon. gentlemen opposite would allege, then I can only apologize for putting the facts on the record because I quite agree we should not be playing politics with the very grievous position in which the farmer finds himself.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The hon. member for Assiniboia referred to the Kennedy round, as did other speakers, and stated that in the Kennedy round the Canadian negotiators locked the door of the building-I think this is the way he put it- and gave everything away at Geneva. Again may I say that I think this is very unfair criticism of the Canadian officials who carried on the negotiations. The ministers attended at the conclusion of the Kennedy round and claimed very little credit for the great success the Canadian negotiators had. They did a magnificent job in the interests of Canada, and therefore I believe it is very unfair to allege that in some way they let the country down. As has been indicated previously, the main question at the Kennedy round which affected agriculture was the range of wheat prices, which under the world wheat agreement were in the range of $1.75J to $2.18. By reason of the great success of the Kennedy round the far higher price range of $1.95J to $2.38 j was achieved by our negotiators. Needless to say it was not easy to achieve this because the buyer countries were far more numerous than the seller countries, and they were not in favour of a 20 cent price-range increase.
I trust hon. members opposite are in favour of a price increase, although their objections would not seem to indicate this. Apparently they believe the Kennedy round was a mistake and that we should have kept the old
March 5, 1968

agreement. I believe that the price range our negotiators achieved was a very great success. I believe they are to be commended rather than denigrated for their performance. It is hoped and believed that their great success will be embodied in the world wheat agreement, which again will very much improve the position of the wheat farmer.


Richard Russell Southam: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman, may I say that we have listened to the minister suggest that the western farmers were not in agreement with the signing of a new wheat agreement. This is what we advocated and developed in the first place.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.


John James Greene: Well, perhaps the hon. member wishes to change his position. What I believe he said was that we should never have abandoned the world wheat agreement.


Richard Russell Southam: We said that it should not have been allowed to lapse.


John James Greene: If the hon. member was familiar with the nature of the Kennedy round discussion he would have known that if we had not let the world wheat agreement lapse we could not have entered into the Kennedy round to renegotiate these far better mini-mums and maximums in the interests of the Canadian farmer. I believe it is totally wrong to blame anyone for the fact that the wheat prices went down after the Kennedy round, or to blame our negotiators or the Canadian government for the fact that there was a decline in world wheat prices which naturally made the buyer nations reluctant to implement the findings at the conclusion of the Kennedy round into the world wheat agreement.
I believe the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam was quite right in this regard. He did not attempt to play politics with this. He said that world wheat prices went down by reason of the fact that there had been very large crops in the Communist countries and-I do not know whether or not he alleged this-the fact that the Americans brought I believe 30 million acres out of the soil bank into production. These were the reasons the world wheat prices went down. If one attempts to formulate a policy having in mind the facts, rather than playing politics, I think he must accept as fact that the world wheat prices went down because of natural reasons, and not because of any failure on the part of the Canadian negotiators or the
Supply-Agriculture
Canadian government. Negotiations have been going on since, as I believe the Minister of Trade and Commerce has often stated here. I believe these negotiations will be fruitful and will result in a new world wheat agreement which will implement the higher price range that was achieved at the Kennedy round. If this comes to pass, as I believe it will, it will certainly place the western farmer in a much better position than he was in prior to the Kennedy round, and I feel certain he will appreciate the efforts which were made at Geneva by the Canadian negotiators.
I should like to deal with the points raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, because I think he and the hon. member for Lambton-Kent brought in some very constructive points which I believe are valid and could add something extremely useful to the discussions in respect of the direction that agricultural policy should take and the direction in which we should be moving. I think the hon. member for Lambton-Kent originally suggested that we should move in the direction of an incomes policy in agriculture. He suggested the implementation of Dr. Gilson's paper in this regard. I believe that the same general line of approach was taken by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam with, regard to the question of the marketplace in which the farmer finds himself today, a marketplace which is not free.
If I understood the position of these hon.. gentlemen correctly I believe they both indicated that we should be moving toward some type of incomes policy, if we want to keep agriculture in a healthy state and if we want to obtain a satisfactory level of income for the agricultural producer in the non-free marketplace which exists today. I think it is a fact that the marketplace is no longer the free marketplace it was when the agricultural policy of the past was conceived. If the farmer is to get a fair shake in this non-free-marketplace, there will have to be new approaches which do not presume as at present that the farmer is dealing in a free marketplace where the consumer has a free-choice. I think this is an area of suggestion and direction which merits the very careful consideration of those who are serious about attempting to improve the lot of the farmer today. I believe that when hundreds of thousands of farmers are dealing with very few buyers in the non-free marketplace it is inevitable that the farmers will get the worst of the deal until the time comes when they have equal control one way or another over the

March 5, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
marketplace, whether it be by means of an incomes policy or otherwise.
I very much appreciate the suggestions of the two hon. members in this regard and I assure them this is an avenue of consideration that is being studied by the government and one which certainly will, I am sure, receive a very comprehensive survey by our task force. I quite appreciate that some very pervasive and fundamental changes will have to be made in the agricultural industry if we are to achieve the kind of income we desire for our Canadian farmers.
Not too much mention of the task force was made by hon. members opposite, but I believe one or two members did ask questions about it. I can only say to those interested in the work of this body that I hold great hopes for the contribution that the task force can make in pointing out the directions in which Canadian agriculture should move and the direction in which parliament should move if we are to achieve the kind of income and economic sufficiency for the farmers that they should have.
To those hon. gentlemen who asked about the task force I can say that it is meeting almost continuously. In fact they were here today and I had a meeting with them. They will be reporting by the end of this year. I have every anticipation that the work of the task force when completed will be compiled in a paper for the perusal of hon. members, and for members of the public generally who are interested in the problem of agriculture. The present intent of the government is that ultimately the findings of the task force will be submitted to a national conclave of one kind or another at the federal and provincial levels, which would include representatives of farm organizations as may be recommended by the task force.
 (9:50 p.m.)
It is quite clear that the problems of agriculture cannot, under the complexities of our constitution, be solved by either the federal or provincial governments alone. This is an area of our economy that very clearly comes within the responsibility of the two.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I must interrupt the hon. minister to advise him that his allotted time has now expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


An hon. Member:: No.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the minister wish to continue?


John James Greene: Apparently hon. members do not consent.


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


An hon. Member:: No.


Herman Maxwell Batten: There is not unanimous consent.


Harry Andrew Moore: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of personal privilege. The minister implied that I did not know what I was talking about when I quoted certain figures in my speech. Let me put it on the record that there are many shippers of fluid milk who receive for their surplus $3.25 per hundred pounds, and many cream shippers who receive something over $2. With the added payment this means they receive very little more than $3.30 per hundredweight.


Mr. McLelland:: been pressing the government to request the Canadian Wheat Board to make the final wheat payment for the 1966-67 crop, because they need the rest of their money. I hope the minister realizes that farmers delivering the same variety and the same grade of wheat I referred to earlier receive only $1.28J per bushel for No. 2 hard wheat, and $1.24| per bushel for No. 3 C.W. Durum wheat. The farmers in the constituency of Rosetown-Big-gar need their final payments, and I hope they will receive them in the not too distant future. I hope I have helped the minister to understand what the western members have been talking about in respect of wheat.
Let me draw another problem to the attention of the minister which is of great concern to the people in certain parts of my constituency. We now have a dam, built or at least started during the time when the Conservative government was in power. I am sure the minister is aware of this because he was at the location last July 21. A large irrigation project will be developed downstream from this dam. Farmers there are now levelling and preparing their land. Some will be sowing irrigation crops this year. I ask the minister to use his influence with his cabinet colleagues to see whether the Minister of Finance will discontinue the 12 per cent sales tax applicable to irrigation equipment and other supplies used for the irrigation of land. I hope the government can be encouraged to give some tax incentive to the farmers in this new development area, which will be called upon to produce a great deal to answer the world demand for food supply. The minister should take a serious look at this whole question and use his influence to convince the Minister of Finance to provide tax incentives or to rescind the tax now applicable on these supplies. This will provide an opportunity for these people to go ahead with the development of this area, in order that they may increase production.
Mr. Chairman, may I call ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to advise the house that tomorrow we will continue with supplementary estimates, beginning with the estimates of the Department of Finance. The Minister of Finance will make a statement at the opening of his estimates.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Mr. Sianfield:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to maye it clear that I am not sure this is agreeable, in view of the length of time the Minister of Agriculture has taken tonight and the quality of the remarks made. We will sleep on it.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the subject of the pensions of retired civil servants is on the late show again tonight because of a question which I put to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on Wednesday, January 31, as recorded in Hansard at page 6207. Initially my question on that day to the Prime Minister had to do with the business of the house. In particular I asked if he could indicate what items of legislation the government wished parliament to deal with before anything happened to the present session. The Prime Minister in reply expressed the hope that he would be able to give a list of such items shortly, and then Hansard reads as follows:


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the list include provision for increasing the pensions of retired civil servants, so this matter can be dealt with before the present Prime Minister retires?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would only be in a position to submit the pieces of legislation which are very urgent and of immediate importance; and while the item to which the hon. member refers is of great importance, it is not on the immediate and urgent list.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not?
As a matter of fact, the point of my asking for this matter to be posted for this adjournment debate is to seek an answer to that question: Why not? Why is it that the matter of increasing the pensions of retired civil servants, as recommended unanimously by a joint committee of both houses in a report tabled on May 8, 1967, is not on the list of business to be dealt with before the present Prime Minister retires?
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I have not time to go over the whole history of this matter, and it is not necessary because it has been done a good many times; but there are one or two other references I should like to make at this time. On December 15, 1967, eight days after
7320
March 5, 1968

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Benson) had indicated the programs that were being cut, I asked the Prime Minister whether he would include this question of increasing the pensions of retired civil servants on the list of things that he would attend to before leaving office. His reply on that date, as recorded at page 5474 of Hansard, was that he hoped the situation would improve during the remainder of his period as Prime Minister so that this might be possible. Later, on another occasion, I asked the Prime Minister whether conditions had improved to that point. This was on Friday, February 9, 1968, as recorded at page 6558 of Hansard, and he said he was still hoping that the situation would improve so this matter could be dealt with.
The story in its entirety is a long one; it covers many years. But the facts are now pretty well known to the members of this house and to the public generally. Our retired civil servants have a case for an increase in their pensions. Other people have, too; but surely the place for the government to begin is with its own employees. That case has been confirmed by the report of the special joint committee to which I have already referred. We were assured time and time again that the matter would be dealt with, but we have been put off and off and off.
I say quite frankly that if this matter is not dealt with under the present Prime Minister,
I am not very hopeful that any of the candidates who aspire to be the prime minister in the next session of this house will be as interested in the matter as he is.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There is an exception.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My leader says there is an exception. Perhaps the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), if he is the exception, could indicate where he stands on the matter. It might help him at the April convention.
In any case, I am deadly serious about this. It does seem to me that neither we in the house nor the people who are affected should be insulted and put off any longer by the excuses which are given to us from time to time. The excuse that it was a matter of saving money, as suggested by the President of the Treasury Board last December 7, just does not go down. The excuse that the matter is complicated, just does not wash. The excuse that there is no parliamentary time to deal with it, is not acceptable at all. The need is there; the case has been made. This matter


was dealt with by a previous government, so it can be handled. It is not brand new ground that is being broken. I suggest therefore that the appeal I make is one to which a response should be made. This matter should be dealt with during the present session of parliament before the present Prime Minister leaves office.
My time is nearly up, so without indulging in any histrionics or further argument, may I just ask whatever person opposite is answering my question for the Prime Minister tonight to tell me why this urgent and important question is not on the list of matters to be dealt with before the present Prime Minister leaves office. If it is not yet on that list, I urge that it be put there without delay.


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to this question I will have to repeat some of the remarks which the hon. member made. Five weeks ago tomorrow, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked the Prime Minister on orders of the day a general question regarding legislation which the government hoped to bring forward in the present session. The Prime Minister answered in general terms, and two days later replied more specifically. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked a supplementary question to his first one, as recorded at page 6207 of Hansard, which reads as follows:
Will the list include provision for increasing the pensions of retired civil servants, so this matter can be dealt with before the present Prime Minister retires?
The reply read as follows:


Lester Bowles Pearson: X would only be in a position to submit the pieces of legislation which are very urgent and of immediate importance; and while the item to which the hon. member refers is of great importance, it is not on the immediate and urgent list.
I say to the hon. member that I think it is less than realistic for him to brush aside the answers which have been given to him and others time and time again by the Prime Minister, the President of the Treasury Board, and myself. Why bother asking the question if he will not listen and understand the answer? I submit that this is the real question.
Another basic question is: When will this house deal with the extremely urgent and critical matters which now lie before us, including a simple amendment to the National Housing Act which will reduce the down payment on homes for thousands of Canadians.
March 5, 1968

The question of superannuation pensions is of great importance and a matter of continuing consideration on the part of the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why refer anything to committees if you do not pay any attention to their reports?
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)



TELEVISION-REQUEST FOR IMPROVEMENT IN SERVICE IN LAC ST. JEAN CONSTITUENCY

Joseph Alcide Simard: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I shall read the question I put this afternoon to the hon. Minister of Transport:
Further to the representations made by the chamber of commerce of Alma, main centre of my riding, can the hon. minister tell us what steps he intends to take to improve the relay of C.B.C. programs by the station CKRS-TV of Jonquiere-Kenogami?
Mr. Speaker, the reasons which prompted me to put that question to the hon. minister are, to my mind, very urgent because for a while now, the people back home deplore the inefficient relay of C.B.C. programs.
The facts which motivated that question can be found in the brief addressed to the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), of which he certainly has a copy.
I quote this excerpt from the brief presented by the Alma chamber of commerce:
The Jonquiere station (CKRS) serves the people of Alma through channels 12 and 8, that is from the main station or from the Chambord satellite. In both cases, and we shall see why, black and white or colour reception leaves much to be desired, especially in the lower parts of the city and in certain areas such as Isle-Maligne and Maltais. The most highly perfected antennas- several citizens made the experiment-did not remedy the situation. On the other hand, the Chicoutimi station (CJPM) -
Incidentally, this is a private station.
-serves all the area through its facilities at Mont Sainte-Claire alone. Generally speaking, the black and white and colour reception is superior to that of CKRS-TV.
In a city like Alma, where thousands of people watch television, which constitutes a well of publicity from which the two regional T.V. stations draw abundantly, this is intolerable.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what are the causes of this poor reception? I shall quote further from the brief:
In the course of our survey, we questioned a good number of T.V. owners, technicians in electronics, people who work in the area.
On the strength of what they told us, and considering the fact that the problems related to the quality of relaying are far more acute through the 27053-461*

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion channels of the Jonquiere station, we decided to limit our remarks to this station only for the time being.
Now, Mr. Speaker, who is responsible for this sad state of affairs? Here is what the brief has to say in this regard:
It is difficult to determine who is truly responsible for all this, because the frequencies are allocated by the federal Department of Transport. The owners of television stations have no jurisdiction over them. But, on the other hand, it is unfortunate that such inconveniences become noticeable only after the transmitters and antennas are installed. Their removal would no doubt, cost hundreds of thousands of dolars to the Jonquiere station.
I hope that it is fully realized the kind of expenses incurred by the owners of television sets who, having noticed a rather poor reception, called the dealer of the technician in order to find out why. Other people installed rather expensive antennas simply to come to the conclusion that the station itself, CKRS-TV, was in fact responsible.
And the brief concludes with these words:
After due consideration to all the arguments and facts mentioned above, the Alma Chamber of Commerce calls upon the federal Department of Transport to ask CKRS-TV station, which broadcasts the C.B.C. programs, to set up a microwave relay system as found everywhere else in the province of Quebec and in Canada.
I should like to know the attitude of the hon. Minister of Transport in this regard and ask him whether he can assure us that steps will be taken to correct it.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this seems to be a matter that would more properly be directed to the Secretary of State, inasmuch as it deals with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I am in great sympathy with the hon. member for Lake St. John regarding his difficulty in sorting out the various television stations in his community. I wish some of the members from Quebec, Ontario and the more central regions would visit British Columbia and note the difficulties we are facing in the matter of providing television service. The C.B.C. and other private stations have been unable to provide service to communities of up to two and three thousand people. So that while I am in great sympathy with the hon. member I do want to assure him that his problem is certainly not unique.
On making inquiries this afternoon during the little time at my disposal I was informed that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has this matter under consideration and has
March 5, 1363

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion requested that the application for satellite transmission, as I understand the problem, be deferred till certain other technical problems have been resolved. But the matter is under active consideration, and since the hon. member has brought it to the attention of the Department of Transport I want to assure him that I personally will be pleased to look into it on his behalf.



FINANCE-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL POLICY

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance was being questioned today about the statement that he is going to present to the house when his estimates come before the house tomorrow, I asked him the following question:
I have a supplementary question. Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether in making that statement he could, for the information of dullards like me and others, specify the advantages of a fixed exchange rate or the disadvantages of a floating exchange rate.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that exchange rates are a bit beyond the intellectual capacity of the hon. member for Kootenay West to absorb; however, I am anxious to learn. On reading the history of exchange rates I find that there has been no pattern with any nation throughout the years. Most nations, I find, have acted in what they thought was the national interest in periods of emergency. I find Conservative governments taking both sides of the question, Liberal governments taking both sides of the question, and socialist governments have taken one or the other side of the question at certain times. That is the reason I asked this question.
I understand that at the present time the minister is strongly in favour of a fixed exchange rate. Before the minister replies I want briefly to refer to an article that appeared in the Star for February 16 written by Peter Newman in connection with the report of the Watkins task force. I must say that I think the Star is to be complimented for publishing this article, which is a report on foreign investment in Canada.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
It reads as follows:
A floating rate for the international value of the Canadian dollar would help protect jobs and guard against inflation in this country, suggests the Watkins task force report on foreign investment.
The present fixed rate-921 cents U.S.-restricts independent Canadian policy in these areas, the report says.
It comes down on the side of the "flexibles" in the continuing argument over exchange rate policy. They include many bankers and financial men, as well as politicians.
The government has been committed to the fixed rate since 1962. At that time, a floating rate had to he abandoned as part of the price of massive international help in supporting Canada's efforts to relieve speculative and other pressures against the dollar.
Other major world trading nations also have fixed rates, by agreement under the International Monetary Fund. Their purpose is to assure currency values to international traders and investors.
The report says "it is likely that the most effective means for lessening these constraints (on Canadian economic policies) would be a return to a flexible exchange rate system."
Backers of the flexible exchange rate see it this way:
When there is a heavy flow of money from Canada, the natural tendency is for the value of the dollar to drop.
If it drops far enough, it helps correct the outflow by discouraging imports and encouraging exports.
That is, it brings more money in to Canada and lessens the amounts going out.
But Canada can't now let the dollar drop more than 1 per cent below its pegged rate.
This means it may be compelled to attract money to Canada by raising interest rates, slashing government spending and raising taxes.
And that may interfere with policies of growth and full employment.
After hearing arguments on both sides of this question I can well understand that many of the Canadian people are confused. This is why I asked the minister the question I did. I hope he will respond favourably to my invitation because I think his comments would be most interesting to members of the house, and informative to the Canadian public.


Mitchell William Sharp: As the hon. member has suggested, it is my intention when my estimates are called tomorrow to discuss both international and domestic matters, and I shall of course at that time be talking about some recent developments in the exchange market.
I cannot promise, now, that I shall engage in a dissertation on the respective merits of fixed and floating exchange rates. The only thing that causes me a little wonder is that the hon. member should raise any question about this at all. I understood that the party to which he belongs is fully committed to the floating exchange rate. However, I shall listen with great interest to the views of his party, and perhaps the hon. gentleman himself will enter the debate when he has an opportunity to do so.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Wednesday, March 6, 1968