1969-11-18

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: In the forthcoming year a number of changes will be made in programs of the Department of Agriculture so that the maximum assistance can be given to producers with the money which has been allocated to the department under the government's policy of budgetary restraint. These will include program adjustments, curtailment of travel, construction and acquisition of equipment, controlled expenditure on some cost-sharing programs, and increased fees for certain services performed by the department. Changes are aimed at increasing efficiency of operation and at terminating or reducing longstanding programs which have tended to reach their objectives or the applicability of which has become less appropriate in the context of current departmental and governmental objectives.
Adjustments in programs will, of course, cause adjustments in staff, particularly since there will be staff expansion for programs providing essential services to the public and, as indicated above, for those of high priority. Thus, while staff reductions in most cases will be met through normal staff turnover and staff transfer within the department or government service, there will be some lay-offs of staff employed on lower priority programs.
A start on farm adjustment programs is planned as well as the rapid expansion of CANFARM, the national farm management program.
In order to implement and expand these programs, adjustments will be made in the support provided to dairy and sheep producers. For 1970-71, $115 million is being budgeted for dairy support. These changes in price support will provide between $10 and $11 million.
I should note that the wool support level will be continued during the current year at 60 cents per pound.
In the research program there will be a continuing policy of work realignment. The following specific actions will be taken: experimental farms at Mile 1019, Alaska Highway, Yukon Territory; Fort Simpson, Northwest Territories, and Caplan, Quebec, will cease to function as research farms of the department.
In the production program there will be the elimination of grants to a few organizations and less funds available for the loaning of beef sires. The specific associations will be advised where grants are being eliminated. Another step will be taken in the new year toward the previously announced phasing-out of hog premiums. The premium of $3 will continue to be available but only on higher index hogs effective January 5, 1970.
Two open-end, cost-sharing programs are under review and for the new year a ceiling will be placed on these expenditures. These are the assistance programs to fairs and exhibitions and the federal-provincial 4-H programs. Discussions are being, or will be, held with the appropriate representatives so that the action to be taken can be as satisfactory as possible to all concerned.
Fees will be increased for certain services to bring them more in line with the benefits that accrue to the individual obtaining these services. The ones to be adjusted in the new year are: record of performance (dairy cattle), seed potato inspection, ship inspection, field inspection of certain crops, shipping-point inspection of fruits and vegetables, the registration of certain products and facilities, and the inspection and quarantine of animals.
The nature of the actual change in the programs for those items where I have indicated only a reduction in expenditures will be announced at an appropriate time as well as the details concerning the changes in the costs of services, etc. In the meantime consultations will be undertaken with applicable groups in order that their views may be obtained as to the most appropriate use, in keeping with the objectives of the program, which can be made of the funds that are to be provided in the forthcoming year.
November 18, 1969

Agriculture Program Changes
In conclusion, may I say this is the first time the department has announced well in advance-several months in advance-the changes which it is intended to make in these programs. We hope this early notice will be useful not only to members of the House but to the public who are affected, enabling them to make their views known to us before the date on which the changes are actually made.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Keni-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, this announcement by the minister amounts to nothing more than a statement couched in flowery departmental language saying, in effect, that for the sake of political expediency the department is sharply curtailing its expenditures during the coming year. It means that at a time when agriculture is facing its worst problems of development, the government is withdrawing from research, withdrawing services to the farming communities, and withdrawing from subsidization programs indiscriminately. We find it is even shutting down some experimental farms.
The government has indicated that there is going to be some shifting of staffs and perhaps some lay-offs. Experience has taught us that this will disrupt the entire department. It is unfortunate indeed that at a time when agriculture most needs help the government is withdrawing from its responsibilities and obligations. May I also point out that this announcement today is in direct violation of all the advice sought by the government at the congress that they said was so successful last spring.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, if we had more days for opposition motions perhaps we might receive more statements of policy. This statement is notable in that it provides no hope for positive action for an industry that is in trouble. The adjustments proposed are negative. It is not a forward-looking statement. It will not give the farmers confidence that the government has a grasp of the problems facing agriculture and is determined to do something about them.
The statement indicates that a start is to be made on adjustment programs, but we will have to wait to see just what these adjustments are since the statement itself does not give any details. Adjustments are going to be made in the support for dairy and sheep producers, but all we know is that cuts are going to be made somewhere.
The whole tenor of the statement is that cutbacks are going to be made in the depart-

ment and in the services to people who depend on the department. In other words, the document simply is an innocuous one which gives no hope to agriculture and farmers for the immediate future.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I cannot congratulate the minister on the statement he has just made.
Right now, in eastern, central or western Canada agriculture is in trouble. The minister's long statement will bring us another deception since it tends to provide maximum assistance to producers with the credits allocated to the department under the government policy of restraint. In fact, the minister seems to say that we will grant more subsidies with less money.
Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that in 1969, a Minister of Agriculture as competent as the present one could not turn aside from the beaten path and suggest a financial policy in accordance with the overabundance of products our farmers are able to offer the population.
In the field of dairy products, for instance, we are not facing a production surplus, as indicated in the statistical data of the federal government, but rather a problem of under consumption.
The minister has also announced a curtailment of travel expenses. We could understand that but, on the other hand, he said that subsidies of $115 million will be granted to the dairy industry to support the price of milk, which will result in savings of $10 or $11 million for 1970. This means that in April 1970 our deception will be more bitter on account of the quotas on manufacturing milk.
I regret that in 1969-70 we have no better announcement to make to farmers than this unfortunate statement which bears no relation to the progress and problems of agriculture in 1969.



SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A), 1969-70

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (A) for the financial year ending March 31, 1970, was presented by Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.
November 18, 1989	COMMONS
Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, these supplementary estimates contain budgetary items in the amount of $66 million, which brings the total of estimates tabled to date for the fiscal year 1969-70 to $11,924 million. They also contain loans, investments and advances amounting to $25 million.
Last February when I tabled the main estimates for this fiscal year in the House of Commons I indicated that there might be a need for supplementary estimates in the course of the year and spoke of the government's determination that such supplementary estimates would be held to a figure consistent with the declared objective of a balanced budget. I may say now that the total estimates to date of $11,924 million, plus additions that may be made in final supplementary estimates, will be consistent with the government's determination to achieve a budgetary surplus for the year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I would be pleased to supply any additional information that may be required when I appear before the appropriate Parliamentary committee.


Mr. Stanfield:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the motion to table and refer the supplementary estimates is not debatable, and I am puzzled that the minister should be permitted to make a statement when there is no provision in the rules for discussion or debate. Your Honour should settle the matter so that either the minister is not permitted to make a statement of this sort or-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The matter is easily settled. The minister has made a statement and according to the rules hon. members of the opposition may also make statements.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the Leader of the Opposition wishes to make a statement. It was my understanding that when each of the opposition representatives has made his statement I would move the motion, which by the rules is not debatable. If the Leader of the Opposition is going to make a statement I will not move the motion at this time; otherwise it is my intention to move the motion.
DEBATES	927
Yukon and N.W.T. Government


Mr. Speaker:: The procedure suggested by the President of the Privy Council might be followed.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker, under the new system whereby estimates and supplementary estimates go to a committee and Parliament has lost control of the pursestrings, it seems to me that when the minister makes this type of statement representatives of the opposition parties should have the opportunity to comment.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's point is redundant. The point has been made by his leader and I have agreed with him.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite as accustomed as are some members on the other side of the House to making a speech without having full information-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -or to comment on something I have not yet seen. However, as a matter of courtesy, if a minister is to make a statement in the House in regard to supplementary estimates, or a statement such as was made by the Minister of Agriculture, copies of such statements should be sent to the Leader of the Opposition or the official opposition spokesman on this side of the House so that the matter can be discussed. I do not wish, sir, to take the time of the House to discuss something I have not yet seen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEE ON MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I move, pursuant to Standing Order 59;
That the Supplementary Estimates tabled this: day be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, because this is the first day this week that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is scheduled to be in the House, at this time I should like to table two copies
November 18, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry of the New Democratic Party statement regarding self-government in the Northwest Territories.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member may wish to distribute this in an unofficial way, but I doubt that the rules permit him to make an official tabling of the document to which he referred. If he did, I am afraid the table would not be large enough to receive all the papers members would place on it.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped we would have present in the House today either the Minister of Finance back from his pilgrimage or the Minister without Portfolio whose day it is to be in the House. However, I shall direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the forecast by more than 250 manufacturing firms that the prices of their products will increase from 1 per cent to 25 per cent in 1970, what is the position of the government? Specifically, will the government, in co-operation with the Prices and Incomes Commission, undertake to define what constitutes acceptable restraint so that those concerned will know what is consistent with public policy in the view of the government?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the Prime Minister has to take as notice a question on a policy concerning which he has been saying so much. Specifically, will the Prime Minister also take this question as notice? Is he prepared to advise the House whether the government has supported or is prepared to support the suggestion made earlier today in a speech by the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission, and put forward by the commission, of a 5 per cent limitation on wage and salary increases and a 2J per cent ceiling on price increases for a limited period of time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
IMr. Howard (Skeena).]



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Last July he indicated that the United States government had requested permission to locate a number of dispersal bases in Canada for the use of Strategic Air Command bombers. At that time the minister indicated that no decision had been reached by the Canadian government. Has any decision been reached, what is the nature of that decision, and has any agreement been signed between the two governments in question?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I must inform my hon. friend that no decision has yet been taken. I should also correct the impression he left by saying that the request was not for SAC bomber bases but for refuelling facilities.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister a supplementary question. Does the request from the U.S. government envisage the stationing of U.S. troops on Canadian soil to man these dispersal bases or are they to be operated in some other manner?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: The request was to provide facilities for refuelling only in emergencies and also for exercises. The stipulation was that whatever U.S. personnel would be needed for such operations would be flown in for the operations, and therefore there was no requirement for stationing U.S. personnel on our bases for refuelling aircraft.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Has he been consulted by the Quebec Minister of Family Affairs and Social Welfare or the officials of his department about the transfer of the federal allowance plan to Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.
November 18, 1969	COMMONS


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainie-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether the government intends to give effect to a recommendation contained in the white paper submitted to the government about the transfer of powers for family allowances to the provincial government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, two questions arise in that connection.
The first, which is a constitutional one, will be answered in the document which the federal government intends to make public when the federal-provincial conference meets in December. The hon. member knows that one of the items on the agenda is precisely the question of social legislation. Consequently, the House of Commons will then get acquainted with the government position.
As for the general intention of the government with regard to social security, the hon. member also knows, since the Minister of National Health and Welfare has announced it, that we are now preparing a white paper on the federal position in the social security field.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
With regard to the further request made by the Quebec government for the transfer to the province of the family allowance program, would the Prime Minister tell us whether the Canadian government is of the opinion that it is not advisable to discuss the matter until all the provinces have submitted their proposals concerning the distribution of powers between the two levels of government, as stated in a booklet published at the time of the federal-provincial conference last June?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer is contained in the question, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the federal government wishes to discuss with all the provinces the question of the distribution of powers between the federal government and the provincial governments when the constitution comes under discussion.
But since the hon. member referred to a booklet published by the federal government,
I could tell him about another one that was published in February 1968, in which we show that in order to ensure the existence of a healthy federalism, it is necessary for the central government to keep the power to distribute the wealth between rich and poor,
DEBATES	929
Inquiries of the Ministry between rich and poor areas, in such a way as to give all Canadians a greater degree of equality.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask another supplementary question. Considering that the authorities of the province of Quebec claim that the transfer of the family allowance program is the main spring of the social insurance system in Quebec, does the Prime Minister think that the thousands of people on social welfare in Quebec can wait without suffering for the result of this endless constitutional wrangle between experts?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think that this question, as asked, is admissible.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary
question arises from the reference the Prime Minister made a moment ago to the government's proposed white paper on social legislation. May I ask whether a decision has been reached concerning the tabling of the Willard Report, upon which I believe that white paper will be based, in the same way that both the Woods Report and the government's white paper on veterans pensions were tabled?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There has been no decision to table this report, Mr. Speaker, nor do I currently expect any such decision to be made. But, as I replied to the previous question, the House will know the federal government's constitutional position on these matters by the presentation of documents to the constitutional conference in December, and we would gladly table these in the House.



TRANSPORT


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Minister of Transport back from his rovings and direct this question to him. In light of the very recent unanimous adoption of a resolution by the Air Transport Association of Canada expressing loss of confidence in the Air Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission, what specific steps has he or his department taken to overcome this very grievous situation in the Canadian aviation industry?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I answered a similar
November 18, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry question the week before last. I have met with the President of the Air Transport Association and requested him to come to Ottawa at his convenience to discuss the matter with my officials and the CTC. In the meantime, and perhaps more important, the gap in the legislation which caused some of the difficulties to which they referred has been rectified, and we hope the position will be better for the ATC and, indeed, for the commission in the future.


J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether or not it was implicit in his reply that directions were issued by his office to the Air Transport Committee, through the Canadian Transport Commission, to do something about tightening up existing rules and regulations and to enforce them rigidly, because it was on that ground that the unrest arose in the industry?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure it would be appropriate for me to instruct the CTC on this matter, but even before the ATA complaint was received the necessary changes were being made and I will make every effort to have them speeded up.



NICKEL-PROTECTION OF EXPORT POSITION

Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I gave notice earlier today and was advised an acting minister would be in the House to answer it. In the light of the imminent rise in the price of Canadian nickel and new developments in Australia and elsewhere that threaten our export situation, what action is the government taking to protect the Canadian position in the world market?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge there has been no increase in nickel prices in Canada, so the question is speculative at worst. I would have thought that the developments in Australia to which the hon. member refers would have a tendency, if anything, to moderate prices for nickel in the world market.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister or his department had consultations on the matter with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to establish a

Canadian approach in order to maintain our position in the world market?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that it is not in order to put a question in that way. The hon. member is asking whether there has been consultation between ministers. I doubt whether the question is acceptable in those terms.



HARBOURS


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Is he in a position to answer at this time and, if not, would he agree to make a statement on motions at an early date regarding the report that the government intends to introduce a new system of leasing the major publicly-owned piers in Vancouver to private operators, the wharves affected being Lapointe and Ballantyne piers and berths one to three at the Centennial pier?


Mr. Speaker:: I think this is a question that could be debated at the time of adjournment if there is urgency.


Harold Edward Winch: Ten o'clock.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Can he tell the House what has become of the CNR's Turbotrain that was to operate between Montreal and Toronto?


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



INDUSTRY


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who is supposed to be in the House today, but in his absence I will address it to the Prime Minister. As the index of industrial production has fallen for the second quarter in a row, the first time this has happened in the past ten years, and as this is an important
November 18, 1969

factor in the increasing unemployment that has been taking place over the last four months, would the Prime Minister have the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce take the first opportunity on motions to outline to the House what steps the government is planning in the near future to overcome this very serious trend?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister will be very glad to do everything to keep the hon. member informed about the many things being done by the department in regard to industrial production in this country.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As it is not particularly important to keep the hon. member informed but very important to keep the country's economy rolling at a high rate, and not to laugh and pay no attention to this problem like the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt does, will he please get on with the job and see that something is done?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Has the government of Canada received any report from Professor Paul Lin, professor of Asian problems at McGill University, following his recent visit to Communist China?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know of no such report having been made to the government of Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, he reported the last time he was over there to the great Tiger, to the Prime Minister-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: To you?


John George Diefenbaker: -and I thought possibly he would do so again. I ask the Prime Minister this question: Is there any foundation for the generally accredited story that Professor Lin, as a result of his visit to Mao, or at least to Communist China, is to be appointed the first ambassador from Canada to Communist China?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. gentleman to my left knows that the question cannot be asked in those terms.
Inquiries of the Ministry BIAFRA-CANAIRELIEF REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT SUPPORT


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the International Red Cross, the agency preferred by the government for conveying aid to the people of Biafra, has not operated since June, has the government come to any decision on the request of Canairelief, which was made, I understand, about three weeks ago, for support in carrying on its mercy flights into Biafra?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In coming to a decision on the request of Canairelief, has the government taken into account that the United States government is supporting similar American agencies that are carrying on relief operations in Biafra?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: My supplementary question is also for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of recent reports that difficulties have arisen with regard to the relief program in territory held by federal Nigeria, has the government made any plans to reactivate its relief program to that part of the war-torn area?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would have to discuss this with the department, Mr. Speaker. I know of no recent action.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question on this matter. At page 872 of Hansard the Prime Minister told the House yesterday that the government of Canada had made certain suggestions for bringing help to Biafra in other ways, such as the use of helicopters, river crossing, and so on. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether these suggestions were made in writing and if so, whether he would consider tabling any relevant documents. If they were not made in writing, would the Prime Minister inform the House how and by whom these suggestions were made to the Biafran authorities and if they were also made to the Nigerian authorities?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, they were not made in writing that I know of but they did arise in discussions between officials of the
COMMONS DEBATES	November 18. 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry federal government and other governments, notably that of the United States. Various measures such as those mentioned were discussed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the right hon. Prime Minister arising out of the announcement by the appropriate British ministry yesterday that the government of Great Britain proposes to increase substantially the shipment of arms to Nigeria. Is the government of Canada making any representations to Great Britain in this connection?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have no such plans, Mr. Speaker.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, arising directly out of the answer by the right hon. gentleman to my question, if I heard his answer correctly he said that these suggestions arose in discussions between the United States government and the Nigerian government, whereas his answer of yesterday suggested that they were conveyed to the Biafran authorities. What I should like to know, Mr. Speaker, is whether these suggestions were made to the Biafran authorities and, if they were, how and by whom were they made?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, what I said was that the discussions arose in meetings between Canadian and United States officials and that some of the United States officials made us aware of certain propositions. We discussed others as well. Various plans have been looked at practically on a continuing basis by several governments, including ours. Some of these plans have been discussed with the Biafran authorities. One that comes to mind is a proposal for the Cross River. I cannot give specific dates and details of such representations made to the Biafran authorities by other governments, but I do know that our government has not had direct contact with them. I believe the exception is the occasion when the Secretary of State for External Affairs spoke with these representatives in New York city.


David Lewis: I have a further supplementary. I apologize to Your Honour and to the House for pursuing this matter, but I think it has very great relevance. In the statement the Prime Minister made yesterday he referred to these alternatives and then added that "it always happens that the Biafran authorities do not see their way clear to accept these alternative ways." Does the Prime Minister's
[Mr. Trudeau.)
answer today mean that he made a general statement which was far wider than the facts warranted and that his mind is completely closed on this important humanitarian matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for St. John's East.



POLLUTION


Mr. James A. McGrath (Si. John's East):: have a question for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister in a position to report to the House on the stand taken by Canada at the Brussels conference on oil pollution of the high seas at which he represented Canada? If not, would he be inclined to give consideration to making a statement on motions?


Mr. Speaker:: I feel that if the minister is to make a statement in reply to the question it should be made on motions, and the minister might wish to reply in those terms.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, a copy of the statement is available. I shall consider whether anything would be gained by making a statement on motions when the conference is concluded and the various countries involved have stated their positions.



TAXATION


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As the Minister of Finance is having a tough, rough time selling some parts of his white paper, would the Prime Minister be prepared to suggest and direct that all his cabinet ministers be prepared to publish their equities and holdings prior to valuation day so that no individual may benefit from prior knowledge of the date?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary South.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask a supplementary question. Would the Prime Minister not reconsider his silence and give an answer? The fact is that this information would likely be fully known to the cabinet but not to the taxpayers. Therefore would he suggest to his cabinet that their holdings be published prior to valuation day?
November 18, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, valuation day will not necessarily be set as a result of cabinet discussion. It is more likely to be announced in the usual manner by the Minister of Finance in a budgetary statement or some other way.
Regarding the previous question, if the minister is having trouble selling some parts of the white paper perhaps the hon. member could talk to some of his friends about whether progressive measures are a good thing for Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
supplementary? It was not my friends who objected, it was the Prime Minister's Liberal friends in Calgary.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase my question?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government has yet received the report of Professor Jeremy Williams on the subject of conflict of interest legislation and whether the government would be prepared to table that report?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The report has been received, Mr. Speaker, and we will be considering the hon. member's notice of motion for production of papers on this subject and perhaps be able to respond to it tomorrow.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder if I might ask one supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister inform us in clear terms as to who in the government or outside it will set valuation day?



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: My question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Mr. Speaker. Now that the minister has made his statement in Yellowknife and in the Yukon to the legislative councils to both territories with respect to self-government and the advance of self-government in those territories, when does he 21362-60
Inquiries of the Ministry intend to introduce for first reading the two pieces of legislation mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, the bill to amend the Northwest Territories Act and the bill to amend the Yukon Act?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: As soon as possible, Mr. Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Has he received a telegram or other communication from the Yukon Council or its members requesting a personal interview and reconsideration of the policy enunciated by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development? If so, has he replied and to what effect?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I entered the House I was told that such a telegram had arrived in my office. However, I did not see it and have not replied to it yet but I shall consider it and reply.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member puts his supplementary, we have reached the point where I take the liberty of reminding hon. members that we will soon have used up all our available time and I know many members still have questions to ask.


Erik Nielsen: Just one supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since in that communication the council requested a personal interview with the Prime Minister in order to express their regret as to the policy and discuss its reconsideration, is he able to inform the House whether the request will be granted?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the interview is merely for the purpose of expressing their regret, it is not necessary that I meet them. I shall accept their regret and discuss the matter with the minister.


George Harris Hees: Is that the Prime Minister's idea of participatory democracy?



POLLUTION


Mr. Barry Malher (Surrey):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It arises out of the action taken in the last day or two by the United States government to bring an automobile manufacturing company to court in order to make it live up to antipollution regulations. What is being done or
November 18, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry considered in that field in the Department of Transport?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt whether the question as asked is acceptable at this time. Perhaps the hon. member might give notice for consideration at the time of adjournment.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport regarding a matter to which he recently indicated he and his departmental officials have been giving attention, namely, the upgrading of the Wood Islands-Caribou ferry service so heavily used last summer. Can the minister advise if a decision has been made to augment and improve this important transportation link and, if so, can he indicate the extent of the Canadian government's participation in this good work?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that this question could also be placed on the Order Paper. There may be some urgency that is not readily apparent. If there is, perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply at this time.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Has the National Harbours Board been supplying fresh water to the huge Russian fishing fleet on the west coast at a price lower than that at which British Columbia fishermen can obtain fresh water?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am afraid I cannot answer that, Mr. Speaker. It may be heavy water from Glace Bay. I will be glad to look into the matter and provide an answer for the hon. member.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: As
the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is absent today I will direct my question to his Parliamentary Secretary. In view of the reported statement by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry in Vancouver on November 13 that his department will not allow oil drilling permits in Georgia Strait, are the
[Mr. Mather.)

required drilling permits in such areas still issued by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources?


Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister stated in the House last week there had been no change of policy in the department.


Randolph Harding: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the department require clearance from the Department of Fisheries and Forestry before pemits are issued for drilling in our continental shelf areas?


Mr. Speaker:: This question could be placed on the Order Paper.


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, this must be the Minister of Transport's day in the House. I also wish to direct a question to him. In light of current reports that there is heavier than usual utilization of Canadian boxcars in the United States, will the minister take immediate steps to review this matter with officials of the United States with a view to establishing a more equitable formula for the use of Canadian rolling stock?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into it.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the suggestion I made a year ago regarding the appointment of a transport controller to direct the allocation of boxcars receiving the attention of the government?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I think that question might be more properly answered by the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan.


Otto Emil Lang: This question, of course, has frequently been put. It has been and still is our position that the appointment of a transport controller would not add anything to the movement of grain at the present time.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the fact the minister represents Saskatchewan and is a member of the same party as the Premier of Saskatchewan, does he think that government was not intelligent in making that recommendation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
November 18, 1969	COMMONS



POST OFFICE


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: My question, Mr. Speaker, is directed to the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications.
I have just received a telegram which I would like to send to the minister. I ask him to look into the fact that the community of Brochet, Manitoba, has not received mail since October 17 despite the fact that aircraft are landing daily and taking passengers and freight in and out of this community.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member may have a grievance, but I would not think his point is acceptable as a question. In any event, he has made a representation and has to assume it will be taken into account by the minister.


Robert Simpson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Communications. Is the minister aware of the fact that there has been no mail service to the community of Brochet since October 17?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: I will certainly find out about it in a few minutes, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
James Aloysius McGrath: In
the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I address my question to the Prime Minister. Has the government been officially made aware of an agreement entered into between the government of France and an international cartel for a $400 million promotional program for St. Pierre which will include the building of a gambling casino, a free port, an international airport, motels, hotels and nightclubs?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a
DEBATES	935
Inquiries of the Ministry question to the Prime Minister to which I would like to receive a serious answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: That will be hard to get. He will just laugh it off.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I ask this question in view of the statement by Mr. Young that in the event of the failure of a policy of restraint the authorities may have to resort to a degree of unemployment which will be unacceptable to all concerned. Will the Prime Minister accept his responsibility to the House and to the country and, in view of his emphasis upon restraints, make a statement in the House tomorrow or the day following as to what the policy of the government is with regard to specific restraints so that this policy may have some chance of succeeding and the degree of unemployment indicated by the chairman may be avoided in the fight against inflation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In due course and if necessary, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. In view of the assurances previously given in the House, how much longer do civil servants have to wait for their retroactive pay increases?


Mr. Speaker:: The question as asked is in an argumentative form. Perhaps the hon. member might like to ask it in the usual unargumentative way.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak more softly. I will try to bury the big stick in the question. In view of the fact that some of these cheques are now three months late, will the minister please specify what steps the department is taking to end this problem?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking for a statement which normally ought to be made on motions.



CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolietfe):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister.
November 18, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry i Following his recent meeting with the Secretary General of the United Nations, could the Prime Minister tell us whether the Secretary General agrees to the principle recently stated by the Canadian government of Canada's sovereignty over the so-called extraterritorial waters of the Arctic Ocean?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we never asserted our sovereignty over Canada's extraterritorial waters.



THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lamblon-Keni):: My question is to the Minister of Communications. It concerns the minister's Toronto speech of last Wednesday in which he described the Confederation for Tomorrow Conference as a grandstand performance. Will the minister be good enough to table the text of that address so that we all may peruse his latest contribution to co-operative federalism?


Eric William Kierans: I must explain the context in which the remark was made. I can do so briefly.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister says he can answer briefly, but even in those circumstances I do not think he can make a statement at this time explaining a speech. It would not be in accordance with the rules of the House.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Kon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-iings): I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. During his recent trip did he ensure that the Indian and Eskimo population of Inuvik will in future be supplied with hydro, water and sewage facilities in the same way as civil servants living in the town so that they do not remain second-class citizens?
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, Indians, Eskimos and white people are treated the same way at Inuvik. A problem arose which did not only involve the Indians and the Eskimos but also a certain portion of the white population and it is now about to be solved.


George Harris Hees: Is the minister not aware that in the northern half of the town the Indians and the Eskimos are the only people without these facilities?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



TRANSPORT


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. In view of the impossibility of obtaining space on CNR trains as far ahead as December 21 and later, will the minister move positively to require the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific to put more cars on their passenger trains to handle the demands of the travelling public?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I shall be glad to make representations to the railways as I did at the end of the summer vacation with some success, I think.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


J. Michael Forrestall: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister indicate when he will be in a position to read the next chapter of the base consolidation program to us?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I am still writing it, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



PESTICIDES


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Supply and Services arising out of a question I addressed to the Prime Minister several days ago concerning the government's policy of restricting the use of DDT? Can the minister tell the House whether or not Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is still calling for public tenders to purchase government stocks of DDT at Prince Albert National Park or anywhere else in Canada or whether the government will cease to call for such tenders?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: The call for tenders for pesticides containing DDT has been withdrawn.
November 18, 1969

[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Harold Warren Danforth: That in the opinion of this House the government has failed in its duty to the Canadian farmer by its neglect to initiate and promote adequate marketing and distribution of food and agricultural products and the adoption of effective international policies with respect to agricultural commodity arrangements.
He said: In the light of events which have taken place since 1963 with regard to the agriculture industry, events which have accelerated drastically in the past few months, I consider it a real privilege to be in a position on behalf of that industry to move a motion of non-confidence in this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Warren Danforth: The hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam) has done me the honour of seconding my motion.
If there had been any doubt whatever in my mind about the wisdom of making such a motion it was completely dispelled by the statement the minister made this afternoon on behalf of this so-called government, a statement which amounted to nothing less than a declaration that the government has closed the doors on attempts to solve the major problems facing agriculture today and is resorting to an undignified retreat from its responsibilities and obligations. It is my considered opinion, an opinion shared by all my hon. friends on this side of the House, that these decisions were taken solely for reasons of political expediency in a desperate attempt to balance the federal budget without giving consideration to the implications as they affect the agricultural industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Warren Danforth: During the past six years we on this side of the House have tried desperately to bring what is happening in agriculture to the attention of the government. We have pointed out that the industry is in a flux of evolution. We have pointed out that measures which might have met some of the problems to a certain extent prior to 1963 are no longer sufficient to meet the demands of 1969
DEBATES	937
Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies and 1970. We have tried to make it clear to members of the government that the problems which bear on agriculture today affect every field of Canadian life-that the consumers are directly affected by price changes and food costs, that health and welfare measures are directly concerned when farmers are forced to leave the so-called poorer farms of this country and migrate to the urban centres to become, for the most part, welfare cases; that the Department of Labour is concerned when it is called upon to find employment for these people or retrain them because they can no longer make their own living on the farms.
Especially during the past months we have sought to bring home to the government the fact that agriculture as a whole is in dire financial straits, and whenever we have done so government spokesmen have attempted to prove that the gross income of the farming community was much greater than ever before and that the net income is growing every year. I contend this is just a method of book-keeping which is used by government supporters to conceal from the Canadian public as a whole exactly what is happening in the agriculture industry. It makes not one bit of difference if a farmer receives 5 per cent more gross income during a year if his expenditures rise by 10 per cent and if his interest charges have increased from 6 per cent to 11 per cent in a single year; his "take-home" pay is far less than it was a year earlier. It is hard to convince such a man that he has never had it so good.
Isn't it strange that when we point to one of the greatest industries in Canada, the industry which exports more goods than any other, the industry which employs more people than any other, we should find that the increase in the inventory value of the holdings in that industry has, over the last ten years, been almost identical with the increase in borrowings by the industry from government sources? Speaking from memory, I think the figure is around $1,800 million.
Through the years the government has indicated to leaders in agriculture that it is aware of the problems and is attempting to do something about them. The fact is that today leaders of farm commodity groups and farm marketing organizations are no longer coming to Ottawa to present the facts, make their requests and offer advice and suggestions to the government. They have found from bitter experience that all they get is a pleasant hearing and absolutely nothing else.
Most of us concerned with agriculture were invited to attend the agricultural congress,
November 18, 1969
938	COMMONS
Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies and for this we thank the minister for his courtesy. In his opening address, which was excellent indeed, the minister stated that the three main objectives of the congress were, first of all, to deal with matters realistically; second, to approach the problems in a practical manner, and third, to look at agricultural needs not in the short term but in the long term. This is very commendable.
The minister also indicated to the assembly that he was not interested in political expediency but in the long term approach to agriculture that he, as minister, wished to adopt. In other words, he left the impression-and I admire him for this-that he was not interested in extending his own political career or the political life of his party; he was acting solely for the good of agriculture.
Within three weeks, contrary to every indication in the congress report, the minister took it upon himself, without consultation with the industry, to reduce the subsidy on the hog program, one which he had said 90 days previously had been formulated after consultation with the industry. The minister reduced this subsidy unilaterally, without consultation even with the members of the agricultural committee in whom he said he had greatest confidence. The minister took it upon himself to reduce this subsidy in order to cut expenditure in the Department of Agriculture.
This is the man who said we must speak with realism, in a practical manner, and deal with the long time good of agriculture. If this sort of action is repeated, there will be no farmers and no need for a long term policy. The Canadian agricultural industry as such will be finished.
There is no doubt that this congress, to which all leaders of agriculture and allied industries were invited, reflected the desire of the government progressively to withdraw from the financial support of agricultural institutions and to drop, as I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) put it, the paternalistic approach to the industry. Otherwise, how could the government, which has been supporting the agricultural industry in Canada for 100 years, now tell that industry it is no longer interested and is going to withdraw its support? I say the government cannot withdraw and will not withdraw.
An indication of the government's intentions was given the other day when the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) stated in this House that preferential tariffs were going to be applied by Canada and


developing nations to the mutual benefit of both. Those who have engaged in agriculture or any of the allied industries know that the prime exports of developing countries in the world are agricultural products. In other words, the government has issued an invitation to these countries to export agricultural products to Canada. This is a direct intervention by the government over which the industry has little control.
First of all, the government said it would not intervene in this way. Then, the government said it would withdraw from its responsibilities. The government is also attempting to establish a new price for potash, one of the prime products used by farmers. It is proposed to increase the price $6 a ton for farmers in eastern Canada, and in my province alone the average quantity used per year is
150,000	tons. In other words, production expenses of farmers in Ontario next year will be increased by $1 million as a result of direct government intervention. I ask the government how it can even think of withdrawing assistance from agriculture.
The Liberal party has been in office for about six years, and I should like to know what they have in store for agriculture. It was indicated yesterday that there would be another federal-provincial conference of agricultural ministers this week, something that is an annual occurrence. As I say, we attended this great agricultural congress that was going to discuss agricultural problems and find solutions thereto. The Standing Committee on Agriculture has travelled the country from coast to coast. The government has set up a task force to study agricultural problems, but this body has failed to report since it started work three years ago. The government also set up a royal commission to study the high price of farm machinery, and the only report during its life span of two years has been an interim one. This interim report consists of about 640 pages, and what does it indicate? In short, it is an indication to the government that there are problems facing Canadian agriculture that should be investigated. The commission recommends that an investigating body be set up. Perhaps we should set up another royal commission and also concentrate research upon the marketing field.
Today, the minister stated that all financing of agricultural research and farm subsidies is going to be curtailed. Changes will be made. There will be further cut-backs, even to the
November 18. 1969	COMMONS
extent that staff will be dismissed and personnel will be deployed within the department.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Read the statement again.


Harold Warren Danforth: Some experimental farms might even have to shut down at a time when agriculture needs every bit of scientific research that we can afford in order to introduce new packaging methods, new varieties of crops, additional sales promotion on the domestic market, while at the same time emphasizing new competitive methods for securing international markets.
This government seems to think that we are still in the 1950's or 1960's. We are talking about the 1970's, about a brand new ball game. We are talking not about free trade but about managed markets. We are talking about the buying and selling of food by international food chains. We are talking about sales not by individual farmers and marketing groups, but by countries. We are talking about in.erna.ional distribution. But the government is running to its little corner, holding up and umbrella and hoping that the rain will go away. This is why this House should have absolutely no confidence in government policy. Frankly, I do not understand how hon. members on the government side who come from rural areas can any longer support this type of approach to agricultural problems. They are knowledgeable men and know, or should know, what is going on in the industry in their ridings, but we do not hear from them in the house. They are not actively pro-moling methods which will save this great farm industry from actual annihilation.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
What has this government finally decided after years of investigation, procrastination and alibis? It has come to the conclusion that what we need is perhaps national marketing schemes and supply management. This approach could possibly provide some help, but I gravely suspect that when the government talks about national marketing schemes and supply management what it means is that we are going to curtail production to meet demand. When the government talks about demand it is not talking about national markets, as we learned from bitter experience, it is talking about domestic demand which is becoming increasingly smaller each year because of pressure from imports into this country under the impetus of international food chains buying cheap food everywhere in
DEBATES	939
Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies the world. This is what agriculture is faced with today.
I should like to quote two sentences from publication No. 12 by the Agricultural Economics Research Council of Canada. It is entitled "Evaluation of Objective for Agriculture" by J. C. Gilson. In it he quotes from Professor Cochrane's recent book "A City Man's Guide to the Farm Problem". This quotation sets forth the problem very simply and eloquently and indicates where this proud agricultural industry stands today. These are the sentences:
Farmers stand hopelessly divided and badly confused before their problems; their political power is dissipated and their understanding is muddied.
To my mind this is the position in which this government has put this once proud industry. So, it is with pride that today I propose a motion of non-confidence in a government which has regimented the agricultural industry to such an extent it has been put not just in the position of second class citizens but on the road to destruction.
This government talks about the movement of small farm operators into the city, and encourages this movement. It talks about those small farm operators making $2,500 a year, as though they have no right to be on the farm any more. We are facing a new age. There are going to be far more farmers living on farms making under $2,500 a year than there were in the past. This is the type of farmer who will accept full or part time employment in an adjacent city. He will, because of the high cost of living and inflation, be forced to do both jobs. This type of existence is not the exception, it is rapidly becoming a way of life.
In the interests of farmers as a whole, the government must reach the decision that we camiot have any over-all legislation for farmers. It must recognize that there are three distinct types of farmers in this nation for whom something must be done. First, there is the large commercial entity composed of a number of groups of farmers banding together for the purpose of operating a common feed plant, a food processing plant or a cattle feeding operation. That is one type.
We then have the family type farms. My definition of a family farm perhaps differs from that of other hon. members in the House. Under today's circumstances, a family farm is a farm that utilizes to the "nth" degree every possible mechanical and technical advantage but where the labour input exceeds that of purchased labour.
November 18, 19S9
940	COMMONS
Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies
Finally, we have the small farmer who lives on the fringe of suburbia or an urban centre in which there are commercial and industrial enterprises. He augments his income by working in the factories or in industry. He might even drive a school bus in order to provide, in his own fashion, for his family.
The government cannot adopt one policy in respect of these three types of farmers. These people have various problems, both agricultural and social. This government must make a decision. Perhaps during its term of office it can make one decision. It must decide to put farmers in training programs and provide adequate employment so they can furnish their families with the necessities to which they are entitled. The government must evaluate the cost of such a program and decide whether it would be cheaper for the taxpayer and better for the welfare of small communities to introduce programs which would keep the small farmer and his family on the farm. It is very easy to say we are going to retrain this group of farmers in order to move them into the cities where unemployment is increasing even for those who are specialists, and where we have not got adequate housing. Under this program we would put farmers out of their homes, which would fall into disrepair very quickly, and put them into other areas which also have problems. The result will be to increase the problems of the small municipalites which will lose their tax base and thus be unable to support community life.
We have a Liberal government today which, after nearly seven years in office is still trying to ascertain the problems. This is the same Liberal party that assured the people in 1963 it knew all the answers. Seven years later we are staggering blindly along unable to reach concrete decisions, even after months and months of deliberation. The policy the government has evolved amounts to a withdrawal of financial support from the agricultural industry, and a withdrawal of its responsibilities and obligations. It proceeds with blind faith that perhaps tomorrow will be a better day.
I have no confidence in this government. I have no confidence in the plans it has put forward for the future of agriculture. When I note that the very knowledgeable leaders of this agricultural industry in Canada refuse to come to Ottawa because they feel that would be of little value, I am sure that standing in my place here I speak for the Canadian farmer.

e (3:30 p.m.)


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion and in due course will move an amendment. I am amazed that within the year, or better than a year now, that this government has been in office it has not brought before this House a clear enunciation of a policy to meet agricultural problems as members of the government see them. A year ago members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture looked at the agricultural scene in Canada. During that study members of the Standing Committee, not only of the opposition but also of the government, agreed there was a necessity to take a look at what was happening to the farming industry in Canada. So, we travelled to western Canada and to eastern Canada. Some areas still remain to be visited. The committee has not even yet made its final report. Members were ready to comment on some of the things they saw. I am sure there were some things upon which members of the committee, in their extended tour, could have agreed to make recommendations to the government of the day. As a result of their tour, the members of the committee did recommend some things to the government, very few of which have been implemented.
When we met here on September 23, I thought one of the top priorities for the government would have been to have this committee meet, bring in a final report on eastern Canada and cover some of the very important issues on which the committee has not yet reported. One of these issues, notably the feed grain situation, was left until the committee made its final report. The government, however, apparently feels there is no urgency for action in this particular field, otherwise it would have acted. Yet, I do not suppose there is any facet of agriculture in which there is a greater disarray or a worse situation than that which exists in respect of feed grains in western Canada today. One hears of farmers selling feed grain, wheat, oats and barley, at prices that are simply give-away prices, such as 50 cents and 60 cents a bushel for wheat. One wonders how those who buy this feed grain have the gall to go into the yard, load it up and haul it away. But I guess there is no limit.
One hears complaints, some of which were also heard by members of the standing committee. It was obvious from our discussions with the officials of the Board of Grain Commissioners that feed grain was bypassing the regular trade channels and

November 18, 1969

appearing in eastern Canada where it offered competition to those manufacturers who made their purchases through the Wheat Board. In view of this situation one would have thought the government would have considered it urgent to ask the members of the committee for advice on how to deal effectively with the problem. But no, that was not done. If the government did not want the advice of the members of the committee, then one would be led to believe the government itself would make a proposal for dealing with the situation. But, no. So, like Mohammed's coffin, the problem hangs half way between heaven and hell, waiting for someone to bring it down to earth.
As members of the committee travelled about the country there were other things they saw which required attention. One of these was the abattoir in Nova Scotia which is seeking to deal with the problem of marketing livestock in Nova Scotia and perhaps part of New Brunswick. This abattoir is in need of some aid for its effort to serve that area. But I suppose this problem also has been lost in limbo. One could go on and mention other things we saw on that tour, such as the change that is taking place in agriculture. After looking at the big processing plant in New Brunswick, we could see the close tie-in there is now between marketing and production. Policies are needed to deal with this situation. Only this morning representatives of the National Farmers Union appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to ask for consideration of the high interest rates which now prevail and with which farmers are trying to deal and live. Some farmers will not be able to cope. I do not know the number of farmers who will be in extreme difficulty because of the interest rates which now prevail in Canada.
Some sectors of Canadian business and Canadian industry probably will be able to live with this type of interest rate structure without too much difficulty. I would not venture to pass an opinion on that, but I will venture to pass the opinion that agriculture will not survive and be healthy with the interest rate structure which it now faces. That same interest rate structure will prove to be one of the factors that will prevent the adjustment to other forms of production which some farmers are having to make in Canada today, and more particularly in western Canada. A farmer is a pretty flexible individual. He can adjust to a great many
Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies different conditions. He is pretty resourceful, but the one thing he cannot adjust to is a zero income. That is what many farmers in Canada are trying to do today; they are trying to adjust to a zero income. This is impossible.
I could provide figures, but why bother. They have all been quoted in this House before, and, indeed, many times during the last year. Is it necessary to put more on the record? I doubt it. Perhaps a brief example might be sufficient. Last spring the price of beef was $35 per hundredweight. When it reached that point the head of one of the great chain stores in Canada advised that there should be a boycott. One minister said he thought this would be a good idea. Well, it was effective within six weeks. The price went down to the neighbourhood of $29 and now is down to $28. Some farmers who put cattle in their feed lots last spring will be lucky when they bring them out this fall if they are able to repay their loan. These are the men who are attempting to adjust to a new set of circumstances.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
In wheat and coarse grains, there is a marketing crisis which has existed for almost two years and which is getting worse rather than better. We have had recurring crises in transportation and grain handling, and every once in a while one hears that this or that grain is not in position for this or that market. I will not take the time now to say who was right and who was wrong in the last crisis with regard to flax because what we really need to do is to look at the grain marketing and transportation facilities and make them into an effective working mechanism. Flax rye and rapeseed should be handled by the Canadian Wheat Board. How can the program work well when, on the one hand, there is the Canadian Wheat Board administering quotas allowing one to put so much into the pipeline and giving permission to move it here and there while, on the other hand, there is another agency doing the selling and pricing and governing itself, strictly according to the profit on the day's operations? That is then-only concern. If something goes wrong with their operation, the Canadian Wheat Board gets the blame. It is the biggest thing in sight and it is always a handy whipping boy.
I say to the government that if they continue their present policies they will invite this sort of circumstance. We need a clear statement of policy from the government. The
November 18, 19S9
942	COMMONS
Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies Globe and Mail carries a story under a byline which indicates there is going to be a big shake-up and much friction between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Therefore, a secretariat will have to be set up. I do not know how closely this reporter has his ear to the ground, but a little over a year ago this government set up the Canada Grain Council in Winnipeg. Perhaps some day when the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang) is in a good mood he will tell us what that council has done in the intervening time. I see occasional press reports stating that they have some money, but perhaps we should be told of their activities. Apparently they are not doing the job because, according to the Globe and Mail press report, there has been too much friction and another secretariat will have to be set up.
The news release of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool of November 7 stated that Mr. John W. Channon advocated a change in the selling policy of the Canadian Wheat Board. According to that report:
In its place Mr. Channon suggested a bid-and-ask type of pricing. Under this system he said, the Board's average price may fall but revenue to producers would increase because more sales would be made.
I wonder who gave him a crystal ball and I wonder if he looks into it every morning on rising. How does he know that more sales will be made through that method? I would not set myself up as a judge but I suggest that the two departments should agree on the policy that should be applied and should try to be more consistent.
The main point that should be recognized in the selling of wheat and coarse grains is that we are in a new ball game in terms of trade, and that is the new circle in which the Wheat Board operates. I suppose none of us really has a crystal ball, but following the second world war we should have foreseen that markets in western Europe were not going to expand. Certainly, when the Chinese and Russian sales took place, the clear indication was that we were going to have to reorient ourselves toward new markets and their development. Unfortunately, instead of doing that we considered those sales as windfalls. I do not propose to make any criticism of that but I say that we emerged out of the Kennedy round without any advantage. The Kennedy round was essentially a continental policy and we are still going to have to live with it because it oriented us one way, but the western grain producer will have to start looking [Mr. Gleave.l


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this motion and the amendment relate to a serious matter of deep concern to the people of Canada and in particular to the farmers of Canada. It is a striking circumstance that at a time like this, with agriculture in the doldrums to an extent we have not seen in many, many years, the House of Commons by its attendance gives little indication that there is any realization of the serious situation in which the farmers find themselves. When one looks across at the government side and finds there Is one minister in the House, the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang), one is given an indication of the attitude of the government towards the serious situation faced by farmers everywhere in the country, and in particular in western Canada, of which I intend to speak.
The hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth) seconded by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam) moved the motion to which an amendment has been moved. The hon. member who moved the motion made a striking contribution to the problem. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have to correct myself. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is back on the scene.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have been here all the time.


John George Diefenbaker: So, they have doubled their representation in a few moments.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You cannot tell whether he is here or not.


John George Diefenbaker: This is the best record the government has had so far. I know the Minister of Agriculture is here today because earlier he made a statement, more vacuous than any produced by any minister of agriculture in the last 35 years. Indeed, it was a mimicry of Parliament to produce a statement as vacuous and vapid as was that statement and expect it to bring any hope to the farmer. It cannot bring anything else but a deep and abiding feeling of frustration.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Come now!


John George Diefenbaker: I would be glad to hear the minister. I would like to hear him defend the indefensible because that is what he will be doing if he rises to speak in support of what he said this afternoon. So far as western Canada is concerned, it is all in keeping with the immortal words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at Winnipeg when he
Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies asked, "Why should I sell wheat?" That was the attitude of the government. When asked what he intended to do about selling Canadian wheat he replied, "Why should I sell wheat?" I quote:
According to press reports Mr. Trudeau added that although selling wheat was a national problem, first and foremost it was the farmers' concern.
The farmer has nothing to do with the selling of his wheat. It is done through the instrumentality of the Wheat Board, but the Prime Minister is apparently unaware of this. Again, I quote:
He said that selling wheat was the farmers' problem, because the only case in which it would be the government's responsibility would be if the state owned the land, the wheat, and hired the farmer to produce it.
That ejaculation of his is indicative of the complete indifference the government has to the problems of the western farmer.


Otto Emil Lang: You left out something.


John George Diefenbaker: There are two ministers present and I will welcome any interruptions from either of them because then I can always clarify and deal with matters that otherwise would not receive attention. There they sit. I think they are men of deep concern.


Otto Emil Lang: May I ask the right hon. member a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Oh yes, welcome.


Otto Emil Lang: I would just like to ask, Mr. Speaker, if he would care to read the other sentence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in which he referred to the Wheat Board on that occasion?


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, the Wheat Board. I am reading from the report by Canadian Press.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently, I am reading the entire report, and the hon. gentleman knows that what the Prime Minister said rankles in the hearts of western farmers so he produces that little alibi, "What did the Prime Minister say about the Wheat Board?" I will refer to the Wheat Board a little later on.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Please do.


Otto Emil Lang: Yes.

November 18, 1969
944	COMMONS
Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies


John George Diefenbaker: I would like to hear from the minister. I have a high regard for him in an intellectual way. He went from Dean of Law at the university to a high position. I sometimes wonder whether the Prime Minister gave him the wheat problem so that he would be suffocated in endeavouring to solve it.
It is an interesting situation in which the minister finds himself. Well, I shall now deal with some of his recent observations. He issued a Press release the other day, November 5, in which he-
-defended the work of the Canadian Wheat Board, called on farmers to adjust their production to market forecasts, urged pooling of terminal resources and suggested that the wheat situation calls for the use of computers, unit trains and very large country elevators.
There is the solution: more computers, larger country elevators and unit trains. That will put money into the farmers' hands! That is the solution of an intellectual wandering into the fields of practical politics in agriculture. He gave advice. He said that farmers must adjust production to meet market needs.
The farmers must be completely aware of the probable sales opportunity for the crop to be produced and a means will be sought to provide this information in advance of the critical time for farmers to make their decisions.
What was the hon. gentleman's advice in 1968, during the election campaign? He told the farmers, as did all of the Liberal members from western Canada, "Produce your wheat and we will sell it." The difference is that when we got that pile of wheat in 1957, we sold it. We did away with that tremendous avalanche of wheat.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Do you want to compare the figures?


John George Diefenbaker: May I hear the ejaculations of the minister? I do not want to miss any of his words. They have been very costly to the western farmer. I have listened to him, and I have also listened to his confrere, the solver of the farm problems in my own province and in all of Canada. They are now faced with this wheat situation and they give the farmers explanations that have no basis in fact. They say, "If you only wait long enough we are going to act". When? I will deal with the declaration made today by the minister.
I don't often give quotations, but here is one from the Western Producer. I think the Minister of Agriculture is a consistent reader


of the Western Producer. I recall that in the past, as he sat here in the darknesses of opposition, he often quoted the Western Producer. It was his Bible until he changed his location. The article is headed, "No Help for Farmers", and reads in part:
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Have these cabinet ministers who have been assuring us that help will be forthcoming for farmers at the new session of Parliament been deliberately misleading us?
That is dated November 13. "Have these cabinet ministers who have been assuring us help will be forthcoming"-one of whom was the Hon. Mr. Pepin. When Pepin found he could not put any pep in the Wheat Board to sell wheat the responsibility for that Board was transferred to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang) and ever since then he has been producing alibis-alibis for inaction. I feel sorry for him because I have a fondness for him which is the result of non-bias and the propinquity of our adjacent constituencies. However, I find he is an automaton; he gets pushed around. For the past several weeks the farmers producing rapeseed have been endeavouring to get action from him and he has told them they should be able to deliver their quota, providing it would not be using up space. After weeks of telling the farmers he agreed with them, that he was sympathetic-


Otto Emil Lang: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I should like the record to show that I did not make those statements.


John George Diefenbaker: I will have the letter in a moment. Did the hon. gentleman say that he was sympathetic to them? He did. What did he mean by sympathy-inaction? Oh, I am glad to hear that.


An hon. Member:: He is all heart.


John George Diefenbaker: Action was circumscribed by his political position. I have the letter here you know. When I read it I could just see the lachrymose words that he uttered-"I am sympathetic to you but I can do nothing. If I do anything I will get in trouble."
What about the rapeseed farmers in Saskatoon-Humboldt who have tens of thousands of bushels that will not be sold unless action is taken to look after the damp rapeseed at the present time? Action? He said to them, "I am sympathetic". These are farmers in his
November 18, 1969

own constituency as well as all over Saskatchewan who have this damp and wet rape-seed. Is that all they will get from this government? Sympathy? It is not sympathy they want. Why does he not give the order? Is he afraid he is going to antagonize somebody? He knows it is right. He told them he knew that. He said, "I am all for you but come around tomorrow."
Now, let me read on:


Mr. Peters:: I am all heart, to the last drop of your blood.


John George Diefenbaker: It reads:
Delivery quotas are almost non-existent; country elevators are plugged; desperate farmers are selling good wheat, according to reports, for 30 cents a bushel, some barley for 20 cents. Business in country stores has slowed to a mere trickle. Many merchants have gone bankrupt and many others are facing bankruptcy in a matter of a few months.
We are told what the government is going to do. We are going to have the Canada Grain Act changed to suit the times. Mr. Speaker, the minister is representing the province of Saskatchewan and also the province of Alberta in this matter, but when the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas), is outside this House he rides the white horse of action against this government. Let him speak up today. Let him tell this government exactly what he says outside this House.


Mr. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Do you mean what I said in the House the other day?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not hear from the hon. member-


Albert B. Douglas: Where the hell were you?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


William Arnold Peters: You did not like that, Douglas. You just cannot take it.


Albert B. Douglas: Where the hell were you?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I invite hon. members to kindly remember that only one member at a time has the floor. The right hon. member for Prince Albert has the right to speak now.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Assiniboia makes his best contribution when he is sitting down.
Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies
I proceed to read from an editorial which
says:
The thing that bothers us is this: the present farm income situation is such that government failure to introduce sound and effective policies immediately will be disastrous. We may assume that Mr. Trudeau's farm policy statement was in line with his concept of a "just society". Farmers in this case can scarcely be blamed for being totally disillusioned.
That is the feeling out in western Canada. This government could not elect a member on the prairies today if there were an election, and in that I include the Minister of Agriculture who crept in by 400 votes the last time. They know that and still they will not act.
Here is what the Winnipeg Free Press says:
The problems of the Canadian farmer today are usually associated with a slumping market for wheat. Certainly this is the number one problem, but it is by no means the only one. The whole agricultural economy is in bad shape and it has not been improved by the policies of government or the advice of the experts.
There has been no guidance to the farmer, and may I read the exact words? ". . .he received no guidance on these matters." The reference is to the question of what he should or should not produce or what alterations he should make.
He continued to produce high quality wheat and, as recently as two years ago, was advised to increase his production.
And so it goes, down the line. Western Canada's dairy market has been destroyed by this government and by the tinkering of the Minister of Agriculture. Here is what the article says about that:
Even dairy production has its problems. When Canada had a huge butter surplus, farmers were urged to reduce their production of milk for manufacturing purposes. Western farmers did this; those in the east did not. Now with fixed quotas the order of the day, all the large quotas are in eastern Canada; the prairies caught in a strait-jacket, are no longer allowed to produce enough butter for prairie needs.
No longer allowed to produce sufficient butter! That newspaper, the Winnipeg Free Press, can never have ascribed to it the heresy of Conservatism.
Every year Manitoba is forced to import millions of pounds of butter from Quebec-butter on which the western consumer has to help pay the subsidy as well as the freight. In the meantime, unable to get quotas, thousands of milk and cream producers in the prairies are being forced out of business every year.
That is true. What is the government doing about it? In effect, the minister says, "That is the rule and we cannot change it." But they can change it, so why don't they?
November 18, 1969

Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: You describe it.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister not receive hundreds and hundreds of letters from dairy farmers in western Canada protesting this injustice to them?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: And from eastern Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: I know, and from eastern Canada too. That proves exactly the point made by the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth). Things are bad in eastern Canada, too. I thank the minister for that interpolation. Out of the mouth of babes comes wisdom. The minister has again proved that aphorism.


David Lewis: Don't exaggerate the situation.


John George Diefenbaker: What about the wheat situation? The hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt is apparently satisfied, but I intend to refer to the position in which we now find ourselves. Canada, in the last year and a half, has lost its reasonable and fair share of the world wheat market. It has fallen by approximately 9 per cent or 10 per cent. At the same time the United States is increasing its share.
I have before me an extract from the Southwestern Miller of Kansas City dated September 23, 1969 which reads:
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Bookings of flour and wheat for export last week were largest in some time, and additional sizeable volume is pending. Major business in flour was purchase by A.S.C.F. of 1,318,000 cwts of bread and all-purpose flour for October export relief. Bookings by Brazil and Japanese Food Agency comprised major portion of export wheat business.
The article goes on to tell of the increases. The United States sold to Saudi Arabia, Bahrein, Congo, Dominica, by barter as a matter of fact, to Colombo, the Netherlands, Surinam, Honduras and a tremendous amount to Brazil. While all this was happening the government of Canada stood back and did not give to the Wheat Board the support that it should in order to assure that Canada got its fair and proper share.
There are those who criticize the Wheat Board. I am not one of those because if it had not been for the Conservative party, there would not be a Wheat Board. The Board was established by the Bennett government in July of 1935. The Liberal party did everything they could to throw monkey wrenches in the way to prevent the implementation of that act. Then, for a period of years-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Which one was that?


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. Minister of Agriculture was not a member of the Liberal party at that time. I recall he was one of the directors along the line and I am now referring to when he sat in a more accustomed place.
There have been nine months of waiting with regard to Communist China. I am not going to discuss the cowering attitude of the government of Canada as it goes before Mao and asks for the right to recognize the government of Communist China. I ask, what are they going to get? What is a quid pro quo? Are they going to sell extra amounts of wheat to Communist China? Do they know? We were able to bring about sales as a result of extending credit at a time when recognition was not even regarded as being within the realm of possibility.
The same is true of Australia. Australia is getting the orders, but they wait. I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) if during these deliberations in Stockholm, either on the street or in some building in Stockholm, he were discussing the possibility of Communist China buying wheat. Do we get any trade out of it? Not a bit! Those countries that have recognized Communist China have not increased their trade. What was the reply of the Secretary of State for External Affairs at a time when we have over a billion bushels of wheat piled up? He said, we have not talked about wheat. I suggest these two ministers should get together with the Secretary of State for External Affairs and point out to him that there is a market that might be secured.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the right hon. gentleman at this point to remind him and the House that his time has expired. Unless he has the unanimous agreement of the House-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: I always appreciate acts like that, but they always have the result of making it impossible from then on to be in any way seriously critical.
I feel that something has happened in connection with the Wheat Board. I think the ministers of this government sit in the shadows and are not giving support to the Wheat Board. They are playing around and giving lip service. The whole problem of wheat marketing must be reviewed. There can be no delay.
November 18, 1969

The other day I asked the hon. Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt whether consideration was being given to setting up a royal commission. He swept that aside by saying, no, we do not go in for that. Well, there were more royal commissions under the Pearson government and since the present government came into office than in any similar period of time. The minister said that today we have task forces. What is needed today is a royal commission to investigate the whole marketing problem and to place the responsibility for the loss of Canadian markets abroad where it deserves to be.
One of the reasons the government is opposed to setting up a royal commission, a commission which should be able to report within a period of three months, is the fact that they realize such an action would be a condemnation of this government. The statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) "If you expect me to sell wheat..." was an obvious and clear indication of the attitude of this government.
I mentioned something about the problem of sales. Imagine the advertising Canada received through an article which appeared in the Wall Street Journal headed "Bartering with grain helps Saskatchewan weather wheat glut". The article states the only way prairie merchants can keep alive today is by bartering wheat. It mentions one merchant in the city of Regina, a furniture dealer who, because of the serious shortage of cash was unable to sell his merchandise. Having learned either to swim or drown, he now barters furniture for wheat. This is happening all over the province. While this happens government members simply smile and smirk.
Why doesn't the government do something? Members of the government have been out west. They have left with the farmers the hope that something is going to be done. When the Prime Minister returned to Ottawa his words became clear and definite, "Do you expect me to sell wheat?" The situation on the Prairies is critical beyond words. There has been nothing to equal the fear and frustration that exists with these people today. When they look to tomorrow, they wonder what is next. They have a right to expect action.
Now then, what is the reason for this situation? Is it the Wheat Board? The Agricultural Economic Research Council of Canada brought the Canadian Wheat Board under fire for alleged timidity in the struggle for world grain markets. It emphasized the serious
DEBATES	947
Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies situation that is resulting through the failure of the Wheat Board, as I understand it, to get out of the tentacles that have held it back in the last two or three years and to start to sell wheat.
What about the possibility of persons or organizations outside of Canada selling our wheat? Why should there be organizations from every country but Canada endeavouring to get orders for wheat? There is a list of five or six of these international traders. Let us give private industry the opportunity to go and look for markets. Other nations have these corporations in various other countries. It is time we in Canada did something similar.
I will conclude by simply summarizing what I have endeavoured to suggest to the House should be done. First, we should have aggressive policies for sale and not just the evasive answers we receive in this House for failure to act. Second, there should be an acreage payment of $2 an acre-something the wheat farmer has a right to expect under present conditions, third, the implementation of a system of farm storage involving accelerated depreciation of multiple-use farm buildings in addition to that already in existence. Next, we should give to the farmer market outlines and guidelines in co-operation with the provinces which would enable him to know the direction in which the industry is moving and to make the most effective use of his land, farm resources and labour. Fifth, the government should improve road and port facilities-and use Fort Churchill, extending the period during which Fort Churchill can be used. By putting modern technology into effect, the port could be open for at least six or eight weeks longer during each season. Let the government do this. It would mean a saving to the western farmer. It would also mean the use of the installations we have there, facilities which are virtually not being used at present. Twenty million bushels or so a year does not begin to cover the situation.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I think the time has come when sales of all wheat for domestic human consumption by the Wheat Board should be fixed at a price of $2.95J per bushel. I remember that when the hon. member for Medicine Hat was sitting in the Social Credit party this was something he advocated. He wanted a two-price system and he advocated a responsible price for the wheat which was used in Canada.
November 18, 1969
948	COMMONS
Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies
Finally, there should be on the part of this government a four year commitment of more than $100 million to be used for assistance, development and adjustment of the prairie farm economy. Some have asked for more. I believe this amount, if used properly and appropriately would bring about a rejuvenation of agriculture in western Canada. I say to this government: if you do not act you will encounter a revulsion of feeling in western Canada on the part of responsible people, people who follow the law, such as I fear to mention; you will add to the fires of that group which today throughout western Canada is preaching secession. It is becoming a subject of discussion. It must be met. It would be met if this government would take off the shackles which have prevented some of its members, however estimable they might be, and however desirous of action, from doing that which in their own hearts they realize should be done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, during the course of my contribution to this debate I want to say something by way of rebuttal, if that is the right word, of the charges which have been made by those who have taken part in the debate so far. In addition, I want to make a statement respecting the condition of agriculture in Canada today and to make some comparisons related to the contents of the motion and of the amendment to that motion which are before us.
What is more, I have been invited by the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth) and by the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) to make some comparisons as between the five years immediately past and the five years preceding them. Each of those hon. gentlemen repeatedly referred to the fact that this government had been in office for five years. Then they went on, I suppose, to deprecate the record during those five years. Perhaps it would be as well if I were to make some of the comparisons they suggested, focusing them on the particular periods to which hon. members opposite referred.
Before doing so I think I ought to say a word or two about the statement I made on motions earlier today because, as usual, it has been interpreted in a completely contradictory manner by hon. members opposite. Just for the record, and, perhaps, for their information, I should like to ask them to read


some of the observations I made a little more carefully. Obviously, they have not done so. The right hon. member for Prince Albert said just now that there should be farm adjustment programs and that money should be put into the setting up of programs of that kind by the federal government. If he would look at the statement I made


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, I read that vacuous document. There is not a figure in it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It says that a start on farm adjustment programs is planned-


John George Diefenbaker: Planned!


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -as well as a rapid expansion of CANFARM, the national farm program. The right hon. gentleman knows it is not proper to go into a great amount of detail in statements on motions, but I have said on many occasions that we intend to ask Parliament this year for authority to embark on a program which would be of assistance to small farmers so that they can withdraw resources including, indeed, human resources, from agriculture in a dignified way.


An hon. Member:: A burial service.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The statement I made earlier today has been distorted further by charges that there is a great cut-back in funds for agriculture.


Harold Warren Danforth: There is.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member says there is, which again illustrates his inability to read and comprehend the statement. I hope that when he sees the blue book in February the hon. member will do as he has done in the past, that is, apologize for having misunderstood and misinterpreted me.
What I said was that there were some changes in staff requirements. Staff increases will be needed for such things as meat inspection in various parts of Canada. This is an essential public service-[DOT]


John George Diefenbaker: Where are the decreases going to be?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: All the decreases were spelled out in that statement. The right hon. gentleman, when he was prime minister, never did that; it was always government by surprise. As I said, we have chosen to make these program changes known well in advance so that members of this House and members of the public who are affected might have the
November 18. 1969

opportunity to make representations and express their views as to the best way of making the adjustments. This needs to be done so that the position does not become so hard and fast that it cannot be changed. The alternative would be for an announcement to be made to the effect that these changes would be made effective at a certain date-


John George Diefenbaker: When will this become effective?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Most of it will become effective in the new year, 1970-71.
Now, I should like to turn to some of the matters which were discussed by hon. members opposi e. Since hon. gentlemen opposite have this uppermost in their minds, I will have to spend some time on it.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Dan-forth) repeatedly suggested that since the government took office in 1963 allegedly terrible things had been taking place. In response to that statement made by the mover of the mo'ion I think the appropriate thing to do is to make some comparisons on either side of the year 1963, say five years before and five years after.
The average cash income from sales of wheat in the years 1958-62 amounted to $464,378,000. The average between the years 196468 was $715,255,000, an increase of 54 per cent. The average cash income from the sale of oats in the period 1958-62 was $26,334,000. Between the years 1964-68 this cash income rose to $30,226,000, an increase of 14.8 per cent. Cash income from barley during the first period was $70,595,000, and this rose during the second period to $84,570,000, an average increase of 19.8 per cent.


Harold Warren Danforth: What about net income?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member wants me to talk about something else now, yet a few minutes ago it was he who was making comparisons. Since he has not had time to do his homework, perhaps I can help him. The average income from sales of rye between 1958 and 1962 was $5,663,000; in the period 1964-68 it rose to $9,305,000, an increase of 64.3 per cent.
Hon. members opposite also mentioned rapeseed, and I should like to put on the record the average cash income from rape-seed sales during these periods.
Alleged, Lack of Agricultural Policies


Mr. Yewchuk:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Athabasca is rising on a point of order.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: He might as well sit down, Mr. Speaker, because I know what he is going to say. Every time I get up in this House the hon. member asks me questions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. Does the hon. member wish to ask a question?


Paul Yewchuk: I would like to ask the minister a question, Mr. Speaker.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not have the time, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: At this point may I refer hon. members to Standing Order 12 (3), which reads:
When a member is speaking, no member shall pass between him and the Chair, nor interrupt him, except to raise a point of order.
I ask hon. members to abide by this rule.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, this happens every time I speak on agriculture. Hon. members opposite make a lot of complaints but they have not done their homework. As soon as a member on this side presents them with the facts, they adopt this kind of diversionary tactic. It is an old practice very familiar to me; in fact, I used to participate in the practice myself.
Hon. members opposite also complained about rapeseed sales, but I would ask them to look at the facts. The average cash income from sales of rapeseed during the years 195862 amounted to $11,180,000. The average for the period 1964-68 was $35,632,000 an increase of 218.7 per cent.
I do not have time to put all the figures on the record, although I should do so. I will have to content myself by making a quick reference to the relative increases.


Paul Yewchuk: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Athabasca on a point of order.


Paul Yewchuk: I suggest the minister is deliberately trying to mislead both the House and the country by refusing to give the net
November 18, 1969

Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies income received by farmers for the same years to which he referred.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I have a note dealing with that and I will come to it. The hon. member will have an opportunity later in the debate to deal with this, that is, if he has done his homework. I hope that somebody on this side will be able to follow him and straighten out some of his twisted statistics.
With regard to soybeans, the average cash value showed an increase between the two groups of years I referred to of 54.7 per cent. The increase in the cash value of corn between the two periods was 139.2 per cent, and for potatoes, 38.8 per cent. Fruits showed an increase of 48.8 per cent. These figures do not represent tonnage but cash value to farmers from the sale of these products.
Let me put on the record some other statistics in which hon. members might be interested. The increase in the cash value received by farmers from the sale of cattle and calves between the two periods I have referred to has been 46.2 per cent. Income received from hogs has increased by 24.9 per cent, dairy products by 20.1 per cent and poultry by 46.3 per cent.
I now come to another matter with regard to which hon. members have not done their homework, the federal government deficiency payments. The average annual deficiency payment made by the government during the period 1958-62 was $2,692,000, compared with $6,421,000 for the period 1964-68, an increase of 138.5 per cent. In addition, of course, there was the dairy program, a program that was non-existent when hon. gentlemen opposite were in office. I am sure that any reasonable person, looking at the facts, would agree it is obvious that the comparisons between the years either side of the year 1963 invalidate the arguments that have been raised. I am not saying that things are going well in all sectors of agriculture.


Harold Warren Danforth: You said that the farmers had never had it so good.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, I did not say that at all. I have heard the hon. gentleman attempt once in a while to put those words into my mouth, but without success.


Harold Warren Danforth: That is what you are saying right now.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am not. What I am saying is that there has been an increase in the cash

flow received by farmers from the sale of their products, and the hon. gentleman knows that is a fact.
Let me just restate the motion that has been moved:
That, in the opinion of this House the government has failed in its duty to the Canadian farmer by its neglect to initiate and promote adequate marketing and distribution of food and agricultural products and the adoption of effective international policies with respect to agricultural commodity arrangements.
Total Canadian exports and exports of agricultural products to all countries, by major groupings, are as follows. Again I am using the year 1963 as the pivot. Between 1958 and 1962 average exports of all commodities amounted to $5.4 billion. The average between 1964-68 went up to $10.2 billion, representing an increase of 89 per cent in Canada's exports of all commodities. With regard to agricultural products, average exports between the year 1958-62 amounted to $1,052 billion; the average between 1964-68 increased to $1,607 billion, or by 52.7 per cent. The argument is not valid that there has not been a very significant increase in the export value of Canadian agricultural products.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
After putting those facts on the record, I want to comment on some of the other matters we are also dealing with, and which urgently need some intensive attention because they relate to these problems. There is orderly marketing, for example of farm products. There have been many serious attempts, I suggest, in the past by both individuals getting together and through their groups-co-ops, or whatever they call them- as well as by governments both provincial and federal to introduce more orderly marketing of farm products in this country as well as exports. There has been an attempt to rationalize production with consumption.
I can understand a lot of the difficulties that people have been confronted with in the past in trying to resolve these problems. The division of powers under the constitution is one of them. I do not believe that we in agriculture should wait, however long it may be-a matter of a few months or a few years -in order to obtain complete agreement among the 11 governments on the constitutional changes necessary to accomplish a new division of powers which would enable us to overcome these problems. We can continue the negotiations which we have been carrying on in a more active way, I am told, in the
November 18, 1969	COMMONS
last year and a half than has ever been the case before. Indeed, I have had five meetings with all the Ministers of Agriculture across Canada or their representatives in order to work out the problems we will have to meet in respect of these constitutional difficulties.
I say that because it will not be good enough to attempt to pass legislation, regulations or an administrative authority based on the present division of powers if someone can successfully take us to the courts and have such legislation ruled ultra vires of the federal jurisdiction. Such action has been tried in the past. We want to do this in co-operation with the provinces. As I have said many times, we think the best course to follow is to ask this house for enabling legislation under which we can set up a marketing council and, subsequently, particular marketing groups, agencies commissions or boards, whatever they may be called. We can then set them up under that legislation in such a way that these specific commodity groups can receive delegation of power from both levels of government. We could then get around the Constitutional problems and attempt to bring in legislation that exceeds the authority in this area.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is an amazingly new idea.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is not all that new, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has indicated. Let me say to him that I think this time it is going to work, maybe because cooperative federalism is now at its best. Perhaps one of the reasons for the earlier failure was the former position of the hon. member, I do not know. That is what we are attempting to do.
I do not think there is validity to the argument that this government has failed. This government has gone a lot further in attempting to set up a satisfactory and orderly marketing arrangement than any government in history. By the way, I hope hon. gentlemen opposite will support us when we come to this House asking authority to do these things, since they have made a complaint about them in this motion.
We have also made changes under the Agricultural Products Marketing Act now in existence. For example, at the present time there is in force a delegation of authority under this Act to 56 provincial boards and commissions which gives these agencies power to exercise some control over interprovincial export marketing boards. This
DEBATES	951
Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies authority is similar to that which they can exercise in respect of products while they are within the jurisdiction of their own provinces.
We have also been helping through the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act. This Act provides a guarantee by the government of initial payments to producers. It has been used regularly by this government to support producers in improving their marketing programs. An agreement was undertaken during the current marketing year relating to white beans in Ontario as well as such things as apples, maple syrup and a number of other commodities which have received guarantees by the government in respect of initial payments through the marketing agency to the producer.
In addition to that, we recently amended the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act so that farmers who want to get together to process will have an opportunity to do so. That was not provided for before and I think it has been useful to some farmers. I have not enough time today to go into all the details in relation to some of these groups who have taken advantage of this act, but certainly improvements have resulted.
In addition we brought in a new system of hog carcass evaluation. This was done about a year ago, in fact last December. At this point I want to challenge the statement made by the honourable member for Kent-Essex who said we had a great agricultural congress. I agree it was great. He said a few weeks later I announced a reduction in premiums on hogs. That is not right because we made the announcement before April 1. As a matter of fact, we made it when the congress was taking place here. I suggest that hon. members must do their homework because they are getting all fouled up in their arguments.
We announced at that time, and I announced again today, that under the new marketing system there is a built-in incentive right at the market place to produce high quality hogs. Indeed, that is what is happening under the new grading system. This premium was introduced a long while ago for the purpose of encouraging Canadian farmers to produce higher quality hogs. Now, we have the premium included in the marketing structure, and this is why I referred to it as one of those programs which had achieved its purpose. Hogs are at a very satisfactory price now and we hope this will continue. Whether hogs stay at this very high level, slip some or even increase in relation to demand, the
November 18, 1989'
952	COMMONS
Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies fact remains that there will still be a very significant incentive to produce a high quality product in order that the rates will go up on back fat measurements.
We have also announced that we intend to bring in amendments to the Canada Grain Act. Again, I have not got sufficient time to go into the details, but these are designed to help farmers achieve adequate marketing in both domestic and international trade. What is more, the right hon. gentleman, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) as well as others referred to the matter of giving some advance notice of what ought to be grown at any given time. We have changed the format of the "Outlook Conference" on agriculture to be held in Ottawa next week. We feel that this will in fact be more meaningful and useful to producers in planning production. The 1969 conference format and content has been revised to provide producers in agri-business and other policy makers with more timely and complete information about the situation. There were three conferences or regional meetings held with officials of the provincial governments, farm organizations, field staffs and so on.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
As a matter of fact, a total of 144 officials attended these meetings. As hon. members know the conference is scheduled for November 24 and 25. This will be followed by outlook meetings in the various provinces across Canada. The Canadian Department of Agriculture will participate in most of these meetings by aiding the agricultural sector to improve decisions wherein commodities would be produced for the market patterns, national and international. So, we want to be helpful and will be substantially more helpful. One of the problems faced by a minister of agriculture or any minister who makes predictions that there will be a more brisk market for any particular commodity is that if too many farmers take this advice then of course there is a difficulty.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Therefore, you do not tell them anything.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is not so. We have tried to tell them more than any government in history has. Indeed, the advance information we have given not only today, but today was a good example, is far more than any government in history has given, particularly the government of members across the way when


it was in office which, thank goodness, was only for a short while.
I should like to conclude by saying that we are also substantially increasing the economics branch of the Department of Agriculture. This is the branch which does most of the work in so far as marketing research is concerned. That information was also contained in the statement that was made, but perhaps it was not spelled out well enough for hon. members. There will be a reorganization and expansion of this branch, not only for market research but also so that it will be of greater assistance to farm producers in reaching management decisions based on a wider selection of information.
A great deal should be said to members of the House and the people about the particular needs of the grain economy, wheat and other grains. I have not done this in the few minutes at my disposal because the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang) will enter the debate later and will deal particularly with that subject. In his amendment the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) states:
and by its failure to take adequate steps to provide the additional cash income urgently required by the farmers of this country.
That may be true; there may be an element of truth in it. I do not deny that. However, in many parts of western Canada, and some other parts of Canada, although there is a critical shortage of cash I can say that no other government, under any other program any time in Canadian history, has come anywhere near providing the amount of cash that this government has made available to the wheat economy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am not sure of the exact figure because it keeps changing from day to day, but there has been well over $200 million in cash advances since August 1. There is no interest on that money because it is not in the form of loans.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister but his time has expired.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Go on.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the minister does not wish to mislead the House.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Sure, he does.
November 18, 1969	COMMONS


Alfred Pullen Gleave: These advances are payments which the farmers have to repay if they deliver grain. Would the minister agree to that?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows just as much, and perhaps a little more than the hon. member, about the way these cash advances are made. The fact of the matter is that the amendment of the hon. member contains the words, "additional cash income urgently required by the farmers of this country". I am saying there has been a greater volume of cash made available to the grain, particularly the wheat, economy in the last five months than in any time in history by any government. It is also a fact that these cash advances are interest-free.


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: May I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. The minister may know what he is talking about, but what he is doing now is confusing and frustrating the public.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The only people I am confusing or frustrating are those people who want to distort our program.
There are a number of other matters with which we have not dealt. We have some harvesting problems in parts of western Canada. A week ago Friday I announced a program which we think will be helpful in this situation. I think it is generally recognized that the cost-price squeeze on the farmers of Canada today is very severe. There is no question about that. But when hon. members say this government has failed to come forward with programs that are helpful, they are wrong. We might look at the record of this government over the past year. There have been such things as the change in cash advances. I do not have time to repeat the record. Last winter things were done for several commodity groups. Then, there was the action taken this fall by the government which, while it has not solved all the problems, has received a sympathetic response. This government has taken more action than any other government of which I know.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to open my remarks on the no-confidence motion made by the Progressive Conservative party not only by
DEBATES	953
Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies blaming the government for not having taken the necessary action to assure the farmers of a fair share of the national income, but also by making suggestions for the building of a truly just society for every social class and for every category of workers, including farmers.
It is disappointing to realize that from year to year the farmer's share keeps on decreasing.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has quoted meaningful figures and I think he has proved his honesty by refuting the charge that the government did not take the required steps to solve that problem.
Undeniably, attempts have been made, but without succeeding in making the farmer derive more profit from his work, from his efforts to participate in the national activity, producing the foodstuffs required by the population.
I would like to give an example of concern to both housewives and meat producers. The steadiness of retail prices of beef over the past three months reminds us of the gradual rise in the marketing costs of foodstuffs. Among these costs, a difference must be made between the price to the consumer and the price paid to the farmer.
It is common knowledge that a 1000-lb. steer on the hoof cannot supply 1000 pounds of prime steak. The ratio is in the vicinity of 125 pounds, or 10 per cent of the total weight of the animal. But nobody understands that the retail price of a very good roast is kept at the supermarket at the level of June last, namely $1.59 per pound, while from mid-June to the beginning of October, the price of steer on the hoof decreased by some $10 per 100 pounds.
The middlemen, and in particular retailers, submit that none of their customers has to buy beef at $1.59 per pound; there is a wide variety of cuts, less expensive from which they can choose. To that one could retort that no customer has to believe either that a grocery store is right to keep the price of its beef at the same level while the price of a steer decreases by $10, at least on the hoof.
Yet, all those people in the trade: commission salesman, slaughter house operator, wholesaler, retailer, in short all of them dismiss that responsibility.
The fact is evident: grocery stores quickly and often boost prices whenever farm prices go up ever so slightly. Conversely, retailers
954	COMMONS
Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies seldom pass reductions on to customers when farm prices go down. This trend does not apply to beef only; it goes for all foodstuffs and is more prevalent as years go by.
It is logical and normal for processors and bank agents-the intermediaries, in other words-to receive more today than yesterday because they have more expenses, wages are higher, packaging has improved, processing is more elaborate, the food is pre-cooked, etc. However they have taken the necessary steps to increase their profits by raising their prices to consumers.
In fact, all increases in retail prices are absorbed by the intermediaries. None of them reach the farmer. Yet, God knows how much production costs have climbed. Interest rates are also higher. You will recall that during the last session bills were introduced in the House for the purpose of modifying interest rates on farm loans. Ceilings were lifted in order to allow financial institutions to get better returns on their money.
But these higher interest rates are a contributing factor in the increased production costs of farmers, and as the latter are unable to recuperate these higher production costs when they market their commodities, they inevitably suffer a reduction in their income. This is what we are now complaining about and it is the reason why we would like to see, besides current measures, additional steps taken to guarantee to the farmer the possibility not merely of keeping body and soul together for a while, but also of enjoying a decent standard of living.
When asked why the interest rates were raised, the minister answered that the financial institutions no longer agreed to make loans at rates of 5 or 6 per cent as they brought them no profits. I remember telling the Minister of Agriculture that the government was much more anxious to please high financial circles asking for higher interest rates because of allegedly insufficient profits, than to satisfy the farm people who, for the same reasons, asked that prices be raised to provide them with a better income.
As far as we, the farmers, are concerned, we stand in a somewhat unique position. We cannot indefinitely store farm products. Indeed, we have to market them, whether the sales are profitable or not, and to suffer the losses as they come.
Farm machinery costs more also. So does mill-feed this year, especially since the subsidy for the transportation of feed grain from
[Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse) .1
DEBATES	November 18. 1969
west to east has been reduced to $1 a ton. The minister did not mention it a few minutes ago, he did not have the time. In any event, this is one of the factors that contribute to the increase in production costs. I am asking the Minister of Agriculture if it is all possible for him to come back on his decision, in order to facilitate the transportation of feed grain that the western farmers would be quite happy to sell to the eastern farmers, but at prices that will enable the latter to produce meat, eggs, etc., at reasonable prices while still making a profit. This reduction will necessarily have disastrous effects on the Canadian economy.
From 1949 to 1967-I know it is always boring to hear statistics, but it is thanks to them that one can make fair comparisons- the volume of marketed food increased by 74 per cent but, quantity for quantity, marketing costs increased by 137 per cent according to a federal government document. In 1949, Canadian consumers bought food for a total of $2,064 million. On that amount, $1,243 million were returned to farmers. The middleman's part amounted to $821 million, that is 40 per cent. Now, in 1967, the retail value of food sold in Canada exceeded $5.9 billion on which $2.5 billion, that is approximately 43 per cent, were returned to farmers and nearly $3.4 billion, that is 57 per cent, to middlemen.
This is one of the causes that could explain why the condition of the farm workers deteriorates every year, as is clearly shown indeed by the continuing decrease in the return share that ought necessarily to go to farmers or producers.
Finally, I blame the government for doing nothing to improve the lot of farm producers, in order that they may get a fair reward. I do not say that the government does absolutely nothing, for this would not be true, but I do say that they must be guaranteed a fair reward for their work, so as to be assured of an income at least equal to that of their fellow-citizens who work in other sectors of the economy.
In the dairy industry, the curtailment of subsidies and the increase in the export premium on the 1968 equivalent production constitute by themselves a cause for the deterioration of the economic situation. The new 52 cent tax on the surplus production on the quota allowed by the Canadian Dairy Commission for 1969 because of the dairy surplus, makes the farmers' situation even
November 18, 1969	COMMONS
more difficult, even though they must work more.
The substitute milk products imported from abroad, as reported by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, are also a reason for the deterioration of the farmers' financial situation.
That famous matter of substitutes for dairy products was brought up at the general convention of eastern farmers.
Here is what La Terre de chez nous has to say on the subject:
The influx of ersatz products that threatens both the consumers' health and the farmers' future-
Therefore, both the consumers and the consumer-producers are involved
-did not fail to move the convention members and they unanimously passed a resolution calling on the responsible governments to take whatever steps are necessary to enforce the act and the regulations governing substitutes. One of the requests was that, before any new product is marketed, checks should be made to determine its effects on the health of the consumers and that the findings of those checks be given wide publicity.
We therefore require the public, the consumer to co-operate, in order that he may be well aware of what he is buying and able to compare it with Canadian manufactured dairy products.
Several agencies, agricultural and otherwise, have put forward very valid suggestions to help the government in solving problems.
Once more, I would like to urge the Minister of Agriculture to see that the Standing Committee examines as promptly as possible all briefs submitted in order to evaluate the suggestions put forward, particularly by the C.F.U., the Quebec Federated Cooperative, whose thoughtful and well prepared briefs offer a solution for the problem of milk surpluses. In fact, those agencies ask for a distribution in the schools. This suggestion could be examined. I think it is a sensible suggestion. In the United States they do that and, as far as we know, there is no waste. What are the terms? I do not know. But, at any rate, I should like to invite the Minister of Agriculture and the officials of his department to examine that policy in order to determine whether it could not be applied in Canada. Would it not be possible to distribute these food products in homes and charitable institutions whose resources are not sufficient? Moreover many families have an insufficient income. I think it is not necessary to mention statistics as I am certain that the House knows already that studies have been made and that in the city of Montreal alone there are, for instance, more than 100,000 families
DEBATES	955
Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies which have an insufficient income and live in dire poverty according to the report submitted last year by the Economic Council of Canada.
If there are surpluses, it is because it is impossible to reach the consumer and fulfil all his needs. A wide gulf separates the consumer who is in a position to buy and who has requirements to be fulfilled and the producer who has products to sell.
One should not imagine that I am referring to the governor of the Bank of Canada who already gets a sufficient salary and is not compelled to deny himself, because he has a purchasing power which enables him to meet his needs. However, in a family with 5, 8 or 10 people to feed and an inadequate income, it is understandable that all the needs cannot be met, whereof under-consumption and over-production.
It would also be possible to make lengthy comments on the assistance to underdeveloped countries. All the inhabitants of this world are entitled to a minimum of wellbeing and their prime right is surely to be properly fed.
At a Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference held in Nassau last fall, and which I attended as a member of parliament and as the representative of the Canadian parliament, 30 countries were represented. For eight days, I heard the delegates talk about the problems they had in their countries in producing the goods essential to the subsistence of their people and ask better off countries to help them provide the necessities of life so they could better develop and improve their existence.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
We had a work paper entitled "Aid-Its efficiency".
That paper was well prepared, and a number of sittings were devoted to determine whether the aid from Canada, the United States, Great Britain and France was effective. We found out that unfortunately, in too many cases, the aid given out was not sufficiently co-ordinated to prove effective.
I have been impressed by a letter published in the newspaper La Terre de Chez Nous under the heading "What Do Those People Think of It?"
Here are some excerpts:
I have the translation of an article published by Time, October 3, page 32. I would like you to print it in your paper.
There are 3.5 billion people in the world who go to bed hungry.
November 18, 1969
956	COMMONS
Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies
It is unbelievable and even if there were only half as many such people it would still be too many. Indeed, is there not enough food in the world to feed all humans? He goes on to say:
A survey made by the United Nations reveals that the world will no longer be able to feed itself in ten years because of the wide gap between the population increase and the food available to certain nations.
I think that at one time President Johnson said about the same thing when he pointed out that recent increases in farm production would give us a mere breathing spell before the population explosion. And I continue with the quotation:
-It is said that Latin America only produces 25 per cent of the food it requires, due to deficient crops, particularly last year, when production slumped by 2 per cent. The most developed African countries do not produce more than 2 per cent of their food requirements. In the greater part of Asia, there is food for 5 per cent of the population and it is produced by archaic methods. It is only the second year that they are practising row planting. The most progressive countries are Malaysia with 11 per cent and Thailand with 8 per cent.
What do those people feel when they hear that in Canada, the United States, Australia and Western Europe granaries are full to capacity and wheat is left to rot in the fields?
If we really want to be looked upon as a civilized nation, if we have the privilege to live in a wealthy country, we should after having read such a letter seriously consider the possibility of increasing our help to those people as well as giving them every opportunity to help themselves, because, we must not forget that the economic system in which we live everyday, without being aware of it, is capable of great things.
We can produce, thanks to science, progress, the will and brains of the individual. We are capable of doing much more. As far as production goes, we are extraordinarily efficient. In fact, we are forced to hold back our eagerness. There are 400,000 unemployed who are not producing, because our system is unbalanced where distribution is concerned.
Goods should be distributed in Canada, and elsewhere, where there are needs to be met. It is in the field of distribution that our economic system is sadly lacking. Unless we straighten things out, I am afraid that before long, others will come and try to do so, but not in the way we should hope to see.
If we are unable to share our wealth freely, peacefully and efficiently, we must of necessity some day share it against our will, and then it will be in disorder, at the cost of the


freedom we cherish so, and not for the greater good of our families or Canada.
There is one obstacle to all that. It lies in the field of finance. It needs tidying up. Why accuse us of repeating the same things: as long as the doctor treats his patient without success, he must necessarily repeat the same advice and give the same medication.
To my mind there are enough intelligent people in Canadian finance who are capable of bringing in the necessary reforms, and I am convinced-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired, unless he has the unanimous consent of the House to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues. I think that their generosity is especially attributable to the fact that we try sincerely to contribute to the solution of our problems, while helping to solve those of others.
Some people boast of having made extraordinary discoveries like the province of Quebec which can claim to be the first to conquer the moon, since it is in Quebec that the landing gear of the device which landed on the moon was manufactured.
All this is so remarkable that we are right to rejoice about it and to speak of it. But if we really want to be up to date, we must be so till the end. Let us reform our obsolete monetary system. Why? Because a few years ago, as I remember, everybody was busy producing. The salaries enabled the people to live and to buy the production.
I read this week in an American magazine, that if they used all the science that is known, only 5 per cent of the working population of the United States would be required to produce all the things that are necessary to feed the American people.
I would like to end my remarks by suggesting, as a solution, that we study seriously and as soon as possible the suggestions made in this house and to adopt immediately the motion which is being studied by the House as well as the amendment in order to increase the income of the farmers to enable them to work for their country. So, we will be really proud to say that we have reached our purpose, that our production and our distribution are well organized and that the needs of all
November 18, 1969	COMMONS
people are satisfied, in short, that we enjoy an efficient economic system which answers the aspirations of one and all, in peace and freedom.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, first of all I must say how disappointed I was with the attitude adopted by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), which I can only describe as flippant. I have heard him before and read speeches which he has made outside this House. I have searched them for some constructive program in connection with agriculture but have not found it. In the light of the seriousness of this situation, such flippancy seems very much out of place.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There was no flippancy at all, not even a suggestion of it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I read the speech which he made at Chatham on November 7. I was seeking enlightenment but I found nothing but broad platitudes. Part of that speech reads:
This then, is the first guideline. Policy and programs must be based on a realistic assessment of the future developments in agriculture.
Now, this is a rather profound statement, Mr. Speaker.
Another group that we have to take into consideration is the consumer.
That is pretty profound, too.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Why don't you read the part in between? That is really a good speech.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If I read the part in between I would put the House to sleep even faster than usual, Mr. Speaker.
I also feel that farm policy must be flexible.


An hon. Member:: What have you got to
say?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am going to say plenty in a minute. You people over there had better attend to the script.
Then we come to the final principle-I looked for the principles in between.
This leads us to the final principle which I wish to mention. That is obvious, in my view, that we need two fundamental policy directions for agriculture. One for the commercial or potentially commercial farmers and the other designed for those farmers who are non-commercial in that they could never hope to make their living solely on the returns of the marketplace.
DEBATES	957
Alleged. Lack of Agricultural Policies


An hon. Member:: Communal farms.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am not interested in standing here bantering back and forth with the minister. This is a serious problem and I say in all earnestness that neither in that speech nor today have I heard or seen anything that sounds like a serious approach to the problems of the farmers. The minister spent a good deal of time today talking about the past, comparing four-year periods, 1958 to 1962, 1963 to 1968 or 1964 to 1968, I forget which. I am not interested, nor is the Canadian farmer, in talking about conditions in 1965, 1966, 1967, or even 1968; we are talking about conditions in 1969 and the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have heard the minister play this record before. It is not very helpful; he seems to be looking backwards rather than forwards. He talks about the exports of grains but he talks about two or three years ago or a four-year period ending in 1968 when we are all concerned with the outlook today. That is what this is all about. Where are these two programs, one for the small farmer and one for the large farmer?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: On the order paper.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On the order paper, Mr. Speaker? The minister says he is bringing in a program but he wants representations from the industry and he wants all kinds of discussions. Now, I do not want to be flippant, Mr. Speaker, but what has he been doing? There has been lots of time for discussions. That is a feeble excuse for this delay. When I asked if there was anything novel about the approach he admitted there was not; it had been talked about before. He suggested that it had not worked because when I was in a previous office I had made it impossible. That is the explanation given by the minister for not taking action.


An hon. Member:: The reason is obvious.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I think the gentlemen who are calling out might at least take part in the debate.
What I am saying to the minister in all seriousness is that he has not produced a program for either of these groups of farmers. All that has happened has been that the minister has sat idly by watching the farmers being crushed by the markets and by the price squeeze which this government has failed to check.
November 18, 1969
958	COMMONS
Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies
I am not suggesting that the minister is not interested, but I do not see any sign that the government as a whole treats the problem of agriculture in this country with any high degree of priority; just the opposite, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The flippancy which the minister exhibited earlier this afternoon when dealing with the subject was also shown by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). We hear a great deal of talk about restraints and trying to bring in an effective policy to deal with inflation without creating an unacceptable amount of unemployment, but all we get from the Prime Minister is a flippant attitude and a refusal to give serious answers to questions asked of him. As to forecasting, I think this is a year in which the minister and his department could be much more helpful to farmers than they have been. The minister says, give a farmer too much information and he may grow too much.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I did not say that at all.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister will not tell the farmer where there are opportunities for him, because he may grow too much.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I said if we do not want them to over-produce-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister had the floor; he might now listen for a while. The point I want to make is that the government of this country ought to give the farmer much more accurate information than it has given about prospects. This requires a much greater dissemination of information about the government's intentions. It is just not good enough for the minister to say, in effect, that information will not be of much help because too many farmers may take advantage of it and they may grow too much. If the minister would give the farmers the information they require, including information about government intentions, he would be performing a valuable service. I see no indication of the program the minister talked about bringing in to help the small farmer, and I see nothing but difficulties in connection with the larger farmer.
Let us consider the actions that have been taken with regard to the so-called two-price system .that the government adopted. That, of course, is a joke. This country, is involved in


an international grains arrangement which it is unable to enforce. I see no sign of any effective policy to encourage diversification to the extent that is practical and appropriate in the west.
The minister talked about the price of cattle. How many people are able to move into the cattle business under current capital conditions? What program is the government suggesting that enables any diversification or any new directions to be followed by the farmer? I did not hear the minister mention one today; I did not see any mention of it in the speech he made at Chatham.
I have not seen anything to suggest that the government has any positive measures which will enable farmers to work out some of their present difficulties in terms of diversification to the extent this is helpful. I believe there are possibilities, within certain limits, in this respect. There was no indication, for example, that the government was prepared to make appropriate loans to encourage diversification. There has been no indication that the government might be prepared to make acreage payments in a manner that would be suitable not only for bridging income gaps but for the purpose of enabling farmers to diversify.
There has been no indication of any move in connection with farm storage of grain, and no indication of cash advances being made available on commercial grains in order to encourage diversification rather than the contrary. It may be the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) will say something about these matters tonight. I hope he will say something constructive because I did not find very much that was constructive in the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I want to be serious because this is a very serious problem. I recognize that it is not an easy problem and that the same problem does not exist in all parts of the country or even in all parts of the same region. The problem requires serious consideration by Parliament.
Inflation has a part to play in this problem, as well as the effect of fighting inflation. I have not seen any proposal of constructive programs of marketing, in terms of both eastern and western agriculture, which will enable farmers to diversify to the extent which is feasible. I did not see any of these things, Mr. Speaker. I have sat in this House during the last year and a half and heard the
November 18, 1969	COMMONS
Minister of Agriculture bring forward proposals relating mainly to loans. The only result has been to increase the cost of money to the farmers concerned. The ministers responsible have a duty to explain the government's policy to the House, not just to talk about conditions between 1964 and 1968 in comparison with previous conditions.
I do not mind if the ministers spend a good deal of their time talking about the difficulties that exist in working out some of these problems but they are duty bound to come to this House, particularly at this time of great difficulty in agriculture, not with an attitude of flippancy but to explain, after five years in office and a year and a half for the Minister of Agriculture, precisely how they propose to tackle the problems that exist. They should not give excuses about having to hear representations from everybody. Many representations have been made over the years. It is high time the Minister of Agriculture told us what his program is with relation to the smaller farmer and the commercial farmer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, that the farmer is caught in the cost-price squeeze brought on by inflation. That poor fellow is not only caught in the cost-price squeeze, but the government is using as an excuse to cut back on its programs the necessity to reduce its expenditures in order to fight inflation. The farmer is not only caught directly by inflation, but also indirectly in the sense that agricultural programs are being cut back. If the minister tries to interrupt, I still say they are being cut back. The amount of assistance on feed grain moving east is being reduced. The minister cannot deny that this is so. That is only one example of the way in which the farmer is being caught directly in the price-cost squeeze, but he also catches it in the neck because of the implementation of the austerity program to fight inflation. At the same time, the minister refuses to discuss the program of restraints in this country. This is not good enough. It is not acceptable to this House and it is not acceptable to the country.
The motion put forward is well justified. I certainly support it and I hope the House will support it. I hope a minister or a spokesman for the government will today give the farmers of this country some encouragement which does not consist of a lot of palaver, jocularity and talk about the past. The government should indicate it is really prepared
DEBATES	959
Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies to face the difficulties and the House should be told of its program. I cannot condemn the Minister of Agriculture too strongly for his failure to do this. I hope that when the other minister concerned enters this debate he will not only talk about his immediate responsibility but will try to rectify some of the damage done here today by the Minister of Agriculture. Under the circumstances I hope not too many farmers in the country read what the minister has said today. I ask someone on the government side to put forward a constructive program indicating what is intended so that the farmers of this country, even with their present difficulties which are not easy to correct, can look forward to having something intelligent, interesting and sympathetic to work with.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have listened this afternoon, as have other hon. members, to a variety of speeches on the motion and the amendment before the House. I was glad to hear at last the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) who asked that we face reality and examine the problems affecting agriculture.
I must say he did not sound like members of his own party earlier today; this was not the tone used in the past by far too many politicians in his own party and others. In recent times, far too many people were interested in speaking about the agricultural situation in tones of complete optimism or in terms of unmitigated, unavoidable disaster. It was as bad and as wrong to talk about the situation in language of unrealistic optimism, to overlook information, already available, about the changing situation, persuading farmers to ill-advised courses of conduct with regard to their equipment, land assembly, and so on, as it is today to speak as though the situation has no possible solution and disaster is inevitable.
The truth lies between these extremes. The situation is indeed serious; in the eyes of some of the farmers facing it, it is overwhelming. It is important for the government and for all associated with the agricultural industry to look at the situation realistically and to give both leadership and hope to the farmers who face these difficulties most directly.
The gloom expressed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) is not helpful. Nor would it be helpful to
960	COMMONS
Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies pretend that there was no information available to counter some of the optimistic statements which were made in the past. I would refer hon. members to the outlook papers of 1967 and 1968; in each case the experts indicated that the production of grain would probably continue to outstrip sales and that increases in stocks would take place accordingly. There were some who were interested in taking an optimistic view and whose urg-ings of different courses overshadowed these forecasts. This in itself contributed to the surplus, the presence of which is so direct and so overwhelming to the farmer who faces it.
We in this government are firmly confident that there is a significant and happy place for the farmer and his farm in our society. We are satisfied that the problems which confront him can be attacked and dealt with when they are examined realistically. I should also like to say that this government stands four square behind the Canadian Wheat Board. We do not hesitate to say this flatly. We shall not use the weasel words of some hon. gentlemen opposite who say they support the Wheat Board and then point the finger of dark suspicion at something which seems, they infer, to be influencing it. Those may be proper tones for people who intend to destroy the Wheat Board, but not for those who are determined to support it.
There is no doubt about the seriousness of the situation facing the farmer. This has been recognized by the government. The government has been on record on this issue for many months past; we are on record as recognizing the problem created by the surplus, by low prices and by high costs as these seriously affect the industry in the area of grain production and, more particularly, of wheat.
I would refer hon. members to the statement made in August by my colleagues the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) which referred to the cash position of western farmers, indicating at the same time that the government would hold the price of wheat on the domestic market to that fixed under the International Grains Arrangement. This is the one price which we can, in fact, control. This statement also recognized that the government must keep a constant watch on the cash position of farmers. We were aware that though the cash advance program would provide immediate

DEBATES	November 18, 1969
cash assistance, it would not solve the cash shortage over the period of a whole year. I refer hon. gentlemen to the portion of the statement in which this is recognized.
I should like you to know, Mr. Speaker, the way in which the flow of cash advances is moving. According to the latest report I have, on November 14 the figure stood at $227 million, or slightly more, an increase of some $2.5 million over the previous week which itself represented a rise of some $5 million over the preceding week, and that was a rise of $8 million compared with the week before that. This indicates the nature of the cash flow under the cash advance arrangement.
It is important to remember that in these circumstances the farmer is facing difficulties arising from many factors around the world including the total world production situation. We should bear in mind that in the past four years world production exceeded ten billion bushels each year: It had not done so before and, indeed, it increased to that figure from an average of 8.6 billion bushels in the previous four years, a production which itself represented a new plateau.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
It is important to remember that world trading in wheat decreased last year compared with the previous year as a result of the increase in production of wheat by exporting countries, but more particularly by countries that might normally have purchased wheat from the wheat exporters. Canada's share of the world wheat market held up amazingly well under these strains. It is true that our total sales of wheat, for instance, dropped from 335 million to 305 million bushels. At the same time, total United States exports were dropping from 760 million to 543 million bushels, and Australia's exports dropped from 256 million to 195 million bushels. I do not suggest that these figures solve the farmers' problems, but they do recognize the magnitude of the task of accurately calculating sales prospects, dependent as they are on conditions all over the world.
May I repeat what the Minister of Agriculture said and which the Leader of the Opposition treated so lightly. We must do the best possible job of ascertaining market prospects and keeping the farmers informed. We must look realistically at the very fundamental question of how large a grain inventory we should carry in this country. We should also look at the results of our examination rather
November 18, 1969
than, as has happened far too often in the past, simply ignoring them.
Both the government and the Wheat Board have been working very hard to expand our sales internationally and to bolster prices. I should like to remind hon. members again that we have had a trying time in regard to world wheat prices. But this country has faith in international grain agreements. We believe they make economic sense, and that we exercised very significant restraint in the face of breaches of the agreement by some of our competitors. Eventually, when we could not persuade them to return to the minimums, on March 14 we indicated with reluctance that we had to meet their prices even though this meant going below the IGA minimums.
The result has been that the exporters of the world have seemed to learn the lesson that no one gains from that particular game. I am happy to be able to report that as a result of very hard work, and following a period when we might have been quite pessimistic, progress is now being made toward the stabilization of world wheat prices. I am confident that any future movements in price will more likely be in an upward direction.
I would also mention a few other things that have been done in the cause of improving both wheat sales and the lot of the grain producer. For example, there is now a regular form of credit such as that used in sales to Poland and China, and under which government liability now stands at $200 million. An additional credit facility has been made available for sales by the Canadian Wheat Board. The sum of $6 million is included in the estimates of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to enable lower interest rates to be used in areas where commercial sales cannot be made at regular rates. By using this facility recently a sale of 5.5 million bushels was made to the Philippines, which was a re-entry by Canada into an important market. Even more recently there was a sale of 7.5 million bushels to Peru.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Lundrigan:: Mr. Speaker, before you call it six o'clock, so that the minister does not mislead the House would he indicate in his remarks this evening whether it is the disclosed or undisclosed policy of the government to re-introduce the poverty-box?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock I do now leave the Chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have been looking at some of the specific things which the government has done for the grains industry. I have not done so with the view of suggesting that they have solved the problem, but rather to make the very clear statement that there is in this area a large problem to be examined and dealt with and we must rebut the claim which some people, particularly those opposite, will spread about the problem itself when they suggest that the government does not care. Nothing could be further from the truth. That the government does care has been demonstrated by these first steps. It will continue to demonstrate this attitude. It is important that the farmers understand and appreciate this fact, and that they have the appropriate amount of hope.
Included in the things the government has done of importance are the food aid programs which this year will be in excess of $85 million with the bulk of that amendment being in wheat and flour. This part of the program is conducted in this way for reasons that have to do with the grain problem rather than for reasons directly related to the interests of the recipients. I could also mention the payments which are made to the Wheat Board under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, which it is estimated this year will amount to $72 million. This is a direct transfer from the treasury to the grain operation. It has gone on quietly for many years but the program is now being stepped-up.
I could refer to the transportation system which has taken up so much of our time in the past year or so, and the development of the block system-that imaginative forward step in the movement of grain from the local elevator to the terminal. Where the block system has been put into effect, it has worked extremely well and gives every indication of living up to its promise in allowing the expedition of the movement of much more grain than was possible under the previous helter-skelter system. The block system is now in effect in over half the prairie region and will be in full effect before the opening of the navigation season.
I could refer to the creation of the Canada Grains Council which itself is directly related to the examination of the serious problems facing agriculture, and the hope that it can bring together the whole of the grain industry

November 18, 1969
962	COMMONS
Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies to examine these problems. I could refer to such lesser items, yet important to individual farmers, as deferred delivery payments which were allowed those farmers who did not make their full five-bushel delivery last year. This program represents an important equity matter to them.
This question of equity leads me to recall for hon. members the fact that the quota system requires a thorough examination. I should like to remind hon. members, particularly the Conservatives, that when the Bracken commission was sitting in 1957-58 the commissioner indicated that the quota system, which was designed to do certain social things, failed almost intentionally to do certain economic things. If you look at his report you will find that he said a quota system such as this could not be in existence and could not be used over a protracted period of time without causing intolerable distortion.
After he had said that there was a period when the quota system was not a crucial mat'.er because of the movement of grain. We now have to again face up to those words and examine the system to see how it can in fact be revised in order to avoid economic distortions. It is in that context-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. minister but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the minister shall continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Otto Emil Lang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank hon. members for the opportunity to conclude my remarks. It is in that context that we will have to look at the question of oats and barley and the extent to which they should be fully on quota and fully controlled as Wheat Board grains. I would remind hon. members that when they refer to distress selling of these grains under the Wheat Board, it is by and large, a transfer of benefit from one type of agricultural producer to another and is itself reflected in certain distortions in the cattle industry. For instance, the price of feeder cattle, which is high compared with the price of finished animals, is perhaps a distortion; but it indicates that the producer of meat does indeed benefit from these distressed prices. No one says the prices are tolerable at their low level; they are in themselves a sign of the serious situation which faces the farmer.


It is important for us to create conditions which will not lead the grains producer to dispose of his inventory of feed grains at prices at which he could not possibly replace that inventory. It is in this context of quotas and these fundamental questions that we will have to look at the question of how best to handle rapeseed, flax, and so on. We will also have to look at these questions from the point of view of enforcement problems in regard to quotas. We all know that the quota system has been badly breached in the prairie region in terms of producers complying with it. It seems to me that in the immediate future we must encourage farmers to follow the rules such as they are, even while they are being re-examined. A breach of the rules leads without doubt to unfair distortions in favour of those who break them, and at the expense of those who do not. It is, therefore, a very important matter economically to many farmers.
In conclusion I should like to say just a few words about prospects. We will hear more about this matter before the month is out. Present indications are that this year's sales of grains will meet or exceed last year's totals. Barley sales abroad will surely go above last year's total, and wheat sales could and should, indeed, be somewhat higher depending on certain specific developments. But this-I wish to emphasize this point- does not mean that the problem of the surplus is a quickly vanishing one, because we are all aware of and must remember the size of the surplus on the farms and in the elevator system.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
This means-and I return to where I began-that we will continue to do everything we possibly can in our sales effort. I believe the Wheat Board has been doing a good job, indeed a very good job, but they will join with me in agreeing that we must make an effort to do even better. I believe the trade commissioners within the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce who are posted all over the world have been serving very well indeed the cause of the Wheat Board and the farmer in selling grain, but they will join with me in agreeing that they should do even better. When this has all been done and when we have looked at our prospects for sales, we must realistically examine the consequences in terms of future production because surely no one will challenge the logic of the statement that over any period of years production and sales must be brought
November 18. 1969	COMMONS
into equilibrium. When you have done everything you can in respect of sales, you must look at the production in that light.
This examination of production possibilities will lead to other consequences. It will help the agricultural community, and that great community which is dependent upon the agricultural community, to see the problem in proper perspective. I do not think anyone will have any doubt that in examining the problems facing the grain industry we must not hide from the facts. We must be prepared to look at every inefficiency in the handling and transportation systems and we must work to remove those inefficiencies. Then removal is more vital now because of the economic situation in which the grain industry finds itself.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the minister? I do not wish to misunderstand him. I believe he said that the matter of barley and oats under quotas must be looked at, and the question of barley and oats being Wheat Board grains. Does he mean they should be taken from the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board, or does he mean they should be turned over to the feed grains trade? I think he should clarify that statement.


Otto Emil Lang: I believe I should repeat what I think I said. In relation to barley and oats we must look at the extent to which the quota regulations should be varied. With regard to flax and rapeseed we must look at serious questions such as whether they should be dealt with in another fashion.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to ask a question of the minister. In view of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) welched on his promise to give us some figures on the net income, I wonder whether the minister from Saskatoon-Hum-boldt would be willing to do that.


Otto Emil Lang: I have many figures here, but I do not have the time to go through them. I am sure the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) will be responding to the challenge of the Minister of Agriculture to do his homework himself and we will have some comment on his figures.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I was sorry to hear the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) in concluding his remarks say that he would return to where he began, because he started from nowhere and returned to nowhere. The remarks on
DEBATES	963
Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies this subject from both the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt have been repeated ad nauseam in the past. Not one iota of real evidence of a policy to promote adequate marketing, the distribution of food and agricultural products and the adoption of effective international policies with respect to agricultural commodity arrangements has been brought forward.
If the Minister of Agriculture wishes to ask me a question I will try to answer it, but if he does not stand up and catch the Speaker's eye I will not pay any attention to him. Frankly, there was nothing to pay attention to this afternoon when he was on his feet; therefore I do not intend to pay any attention to him when he is in his seat.
Coming from the east and having been associated with the west, I have no hesitation in supposing wholeheartedly the motion of the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Dan-forth), seconded by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam), that this House has lost confidence in the Minister of Agriculture and that the government has failed and neglected to initiate and promote adequate marketing and distribution of food and agricultural products and the adoption of effective international policies.
This is not the old game of musical chairs when one could quote figures of what happened in 1955, 1963, 1965 or 1968. Those elections have been fought and the people have made their judgment. We are now in the year 1969. This government has been in power five years. We on this side of the House, Canadians across the country and especially the farming community are still awaiting declarations of policy from the government which instituted Ihe great task force which investigated almost every segment of the agricultural industry, and which called the agricultural conference which met in Ottawa not too long ago. There has been time for even this government to adopt policies so that the average Canadian from coast to coast would know what is going to happen to the farmer.
In fact, the subject of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Kent-Essex is the concern of many people not only in this House but all across the nation. Notwithstanding the empty seats and spaces across the way, it surely involves all of us. Whether a man lives in the city or in the country he has to be concerned with the whole framework of the nation, which starts with the farming community from coast to coast.
November 18, 1969
964	COMMONS
Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies
When the Minister of Agriculture started, because of his interest in agriculture and the fact that he comes from the west I almost started to have some sympathy for him, because like Job and the afflictions of Job it is very difficult for a minister of agriculture in this land with conflicting policies from coast to coast to administer his department. I thought perhaps we should not be too hard on the minister, but I was saddened when he spoke not one iota about this problem, apart from trying to rebut my colleague the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker). Really, the minister should try to leave that to somebody else.
Instead of telling us what is in the future, the minister quoted the same old stories I have heard for four or five years. The basic question is not the gross income of farmers. I do not care about my gross income and I do not think the Minister of Agriculture concerns himself about his gross income. The figure which must be considered is that of gross expense. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) realizes that the relevant figure is the net income, the money a person has in his pocketbook. If you do not have any money in your pocketbook, what is the use of talking about gross sales? I suggest it is a gross insult to this House to suggest this is an answer that makes up for the vacuum of ideas in the head of the Minister of Agriculture.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Therefore, I lost my sympathy for the minister because instead of being like Job with the afflictions of many, he is more like Moses in the bullrushes-and not even Moses in the bullrushes, but rather "Bud" in the bull-rushes, caught in the weeds and experiencing the rare and transitory applause of the few members who stayed to listen to him. This is what he does instead of giving us policies and programs that will make the agricultural community, which is the backbone of Canada, move ahead.
There are opposite members from farming areas whom I think secretly in their heart of hearts would agree with me, if they were not afraid of being caught by their party whip, that the farmer in Canada is forgotten by the cabinet which is preoccupied and dominated by constitutions of all sorts, civil rights, no matter how good or bad, and camouflage. Frankly, I suggest to the Canadian people that the farmers are getting mighty restless while the government is still thinking of theories of federalism and is afraid to practise some of them. It is preoccupied with bluff and


bluster before television, but when its members come to the House they are silent with regard to policy. That is not the type of government that the people of Canada elected in June of 1968 to lead us on to new plateaus and vistas. Instead of that, "Bud" in the bull-rushes is staying in the background, inactive and with no policy.
Ever since I have been here, whenever we have had a debate on agriculture it has been a patchwork one. I suggest that even the Minister without Portfolio, who at least tried to come to grips with a few basic issues, gave us facts and statistics of what the government has tried to do on an ad hoc basis, putting its thumb in the dyke like the little Dutch boy. The government is trying to cure this problem by giving a little advance here and helping out the farmer there. But these are only reaction policies, reflex actions. There has not been any positive policy to begin with; that is where the real problem lies. The government has not stopped to ask itself some basic questions and to set out some basic objectives of an agricultural policy for this country.
The government has not even posed the question: What is the place of the family farm in this country? It has not asked itself what should be done with the surplus wheat and the blossoming and expanding production of soft cereals in markets where former importers are now exporters of grain. Is there going to be freedom for the farms, or shall we let the government control and dictate policies? What are the trends of farm production for the future? What do we do with export excess? What international policies do we have, if any? Can we produce without subsidies? This is a very urgent problem in the east.
Do we have production in some areas that is to the detriment of other areas? Do we produce for and distribute to the developing nations sometimes to the detriment of their own production? These are some of the questions that should be asked by the government, which should develop policies in answer to them. But no, those questions have not even been put.
We all agree that the country is changing, indeed the world is changing. Hopefully, men will land on the moon at one o'clock this morning, and yet we are still talking about the policies and fighting the election battles of 1962, 1963, and 1965. We are not talking about future policies with a view to helping us elevate our sights-not as high as the moon: we do not want to get to the moon; the cow
November 18, 1969
jumped over the moon years ago and people may have gone over the moon in expectation of what this government would produce after June, 1968. As the leader of our party said today, all we want is the Minister of Agriculture to at least come to the House and be candid with us and with all Canadians from coast to coast, as was the Minister without Portfolio who started to tell us about the problems and the difficulties of agriculture.
Men on this side of the House know as well as the minister does and as their geographical mates do, even though they may be political enemies, that there are problems in agriculture which may not be insurmountable but which are difficult to solve at this time of change and transition. There is a movement from the farms to the urban areas; there is consolidation of little units into big units; there is an advancing technology which has developed production beyond our dreams of 20 years ago. But even allowing for this transition and change, agricultural policies cannot be turned on and off, as was said in the pathetic statement made by the minister today with regard to further changes.
I could make a whole speech about the minister's sentence in which he said there will be cut-backs in agriculture because of the present policy of austerity. I suggest that it is penny wise and pound foolish to strike at such a basic industry as agriculture and make cut-backs in this area when it takes many years to develop a milk herd, production facilities for grain, drying facilities or any other element of agriculture. One does not start a program one year because there is a surplus or a deficit in the national budget and then change the whole program next year because, owing to the munificence of the Minister of Finance there is a little extra money available with which to help the farmers.
The two announcements made recently have caused confusion and concern in the agricultural community. I refer to the turning on and turning off of policies and to the two most recent statements on agriculture made by this government. One statement was with regard to the dairy policy which was to become effective on April 1, 1969, and the second was with regard to the hog premium policy which was to become effective on March 31, 1969. In the case of the dairy policy, farmers across this country were given one day in which to readjust to the new policy. So far as the hog premium policy was concerned, they were given the grand total of six days before the policy became effective.
965
Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies
I am not arguing the right or wrong of either of these policy changes. What I am saying is that even if you are a Member of Parliament trying to organize your mixed-up life between the House of Commons and your constituency, between being here, in your constituency, in your office and attending committee meetings, you have to plan a little. If you are a business man, you also have to plan, so why expect something else from the farmer? He has to plan also. He has to plan a longer time ahead than just season to season. But in two basic elements of agriculture, the dairy industry and the hog industry, the farmer was given one day to adjust to the new policy with regard to the former and six days to adjust to the latter. I suggest that this does not show the concern that we have heard professed by members opposite, and we cannot believe them when they say they have a sense of reality about the agricultural situation in Canada.
In the few minutes I have remaining to me I should like to direct my remarks, not to the over-all situation in the west because there will be others more familiar with the intimate details concerning the west, but to the problems confronting farmers in the east, be it Ontario, Quebec or the four Atlantic provinces. There are in these areas farmers who are going through the same transitional period and the same changes. The figures here and there may differ greatly; they may involve a few acres to a few hundred acres as compared with a few hundred acres to a few thousand acres in the west, but the relative problem remains the same. It is the same for the man who is trying to work the land. These men are not afraid of the challenge of change. They are prepared to meet it. But they do not want that challenge of change compounded by confusion within the Department of Agriculture, by constant reviews by either the task force on agriculture, committees or all the other study groups, let alone by the retreats in policy which we heard announced today or the two changes in policy to which I referred a moment ago.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
But because of these elements there is very deep concern in the east, and in the far east, with respect to three particular matters. One of these is the feed grains policy about which the minister made an announcement a few weeks ago. The second is the question of export markets, which is one of the basic areas to which the motion is directed, and the third is the question of imports into Canada

S66	COMMONS
Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies which affects farmers in the east, in the central parts of Canada and elsewhere. We would like to know just what the future will be for the farmer on P.E.I. growing potatoes, for the farmer in the Saint John valley, and the farmer in the Annapolis valley, which I have the honour to represent. Where do we go with respect to poultry, eggs, and potatoes, not to mention apples?
Dealing first with feed grains, I do not suppose there is any other policy in agriculture that involves as many political cross-currents as the feed freight assistance act whereby the eastern producer gets feed grain from the west so that he can develop an industry in the east. In the 28 years since that policy was developed in 1941, a viable livestock industry with all the products inherent therein has been developed in the east, and so much so in the province of Nova Scotia that livestock and products, including poultry, make up 80 per cent of the total farm income and form the basis for any further expansion.
There are conflicting problems involved. You have the western producer to consider, the Ontario corn producer and the eastern farmer who must have transportation help known as feed freight assistance. A viable policy has been developed, and even though it has involved political cross-currents it is fundamental to the east. If we are to have any meaning behind the purpose of regional development-which is one of the two things a certain gentleman parroted around the country in June, 1968-we must realize we have to walk carefully before change is made in any fundamental policy such as that respecting eastern feed grains. Unfortunately, confusion has developed in the Department of Agriculture, and among certain farmers, between the question of feed freight assistance and a viable land use development policy.
The result is that some people in Ottawa think that since eastern farmers are arguing about a land use development policy, designed to utilize the land in more progressive ways, they may discontinue or discard the eastern feed grains policy. If that ever happens, and if some of the inklings recently dropped by the minister bear fruit, there would be a backward, negative reaction in tbe eastern farming community, so great that a whole new department of regional economic expansion would be required to take care of that problem alone.
However, it appears that we will not have any viable land use development policy for some time, because everything is being cut

DEBATES	November 18, 1969
back by the government. But let us not confuse that issue-particularly when we consider that we have so much land use in the west that the result is that grain is piled up sky-high-with feed freight assistance for viable industries that are producing such a large amount of farm income in the east, particularly in Nova Scotia.
There is another area I know something about, Mr. Speaker. It concerns export markets, and here I have particular reference to the apple industry in the east. It covers other commodities but I am more acquainted with the apple situation. Here I refer to national marketing policies. Again the minister has dropped a few tidbits to the effect that some time some statements may be made on national marketing policies.
We need some direction, not only on national marketing policies within the country designed to control cut-throat competition between one part of the country and another but also on external marketing wherein this country must face the subsidized products of other nations. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian producer is meeting subsidized products from France, Germany, Italy-you name the country and it has its subsidized products. I want to know what policies the government has to encourage and develop export assistance for our producers in meeting competition in outside markets. Another element which causes concern in the east is the importation of concentrates, either in the form of apple-paste or tomato-paste-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired, unless he has consent to continue. Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon:. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the House for allowing me this consideration, and I will not trespass too long on it. Instead of addressing the House on the large apple and poultry industries in my riding, and the effect which imports have on them, I wish to conclude by suggesting that when we come to engage in an agricultural debate in this House we should stop playing musical chairs with old figures.
This House awaits with interest the definir tion of new policies. If the Minister ;lqf Agriculture will stop playing musical chair? with old figures and past battles, and instead develop new policies to meet some of the
November 18, 1969	COMMONS
problems that have been increasing in perplexity over the years, he may be pleasantly surprised at the reaction from this side of the House. There is not a member on this side, or in fact in any part of the House, who does not appreciate that we are talking about a basic industry, agriculture, and that it is no good seeking short-term partisan political gain when talking about something so fundamental to our country. All Canadians, whether they live in the cities or on the farms, have a vital interest in the agricultural policies that the government should be announcing and which we are awaiting.


Albert B. Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to discuss agricultural problems and policy, as I have done at every opportunity since I became a Member of Parliament in June, 1968. I can agree with many things that have been said by the mover of the motion, the mover of the amendment, and by some other opposition speakers. But I must take strenuous exception to a statement made by the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth) who early in his remarks said he was moving his motion "on behalf of the farmers of Canada." What an unmitigated presumption! He cannot produce any mandate from the farmers of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Albert B. Douglas: He certainly is not speaking for me, and I am one of the farmers of Canada; and he is not speaking for a great many other farmers whom I know. I was also surprised to hear the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) speak so disparagingly of myself, a backbencher on the government side. At other times, when it suits him, he poses as the protector and champion of the backbencher. He sought to give the impression that I never got on my feet in this House. As some hon. members know, I have spoken out in this chamber on numerous occasions on behalf of my fellow farmers. However, I am not surprised that he is not aware of this, because I do not recall his presence in the House at any time when I was speaking. In fact he is not here tonight, and about the only time he is present nowadays is when he has something to say himself.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert wept crocodile tears because some farmers were selling their wheat at reduced prices.
I believe he used the figure of 50 cents per bushel. Mr. Speaker, I was farming in the early thirties when the Conservatives were in 21362-62J
DEBATES	967
Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies power both in Ottawa and Regina. Nobody came to my yard to pick up my wheat at 50 cents per bushel I hauled many loads of wheat, with horses, five miles to the elevator and received less than 30 cents per bushel.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: You are pretty old.


Albert B. Douglas: I am. It is true that the Bennett government established the Wheat Board on its deathbed in 1935. But it was set up on an ineffectual, voluntary basis, on a renewable five-year term. It remained for succeeding Liberal governments to make the Wheat Board effective by requiring all wheat to be marketed through it, and later giving it responsibility for barley and oats. In recent years, too, a Liberal government put the Wheat Board on a permanent basis. Mr. Speaker, the farmers of western Canada recognize that these are the actions of a government and a party that is fully committed to the Wheat Board system of orderly marketing. I was pleased to hear the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) this afternoon reaffirm that stand.
The opposition further damages its credibility as a possible alternative government by condemning this Government in such sweeping generalities in the motion we are discussing today. The mover of the motion had no alternatives to present. It is the easiest thing in the world to court popularity with those people who are in difficulty, by loudly criticizing the government. This is one of the favourite indoor sports of many people. It is quite another thing to propose workable and practical solutions. These were notably absent so far today from opposition speakers.
My remaining remarks will be directed to the grain producing sector of the agricultural economy. It is the area of agriculture that has the greatest problems. The situation is not good, but to say that it is worse than ever before, or worse than it was in the thirties, is completely absurd. In 1967-68 we exported 336 million bushels of wheat. In the 13-year period, 1950-51 to 1962-63, this total was exceeded in only four of those years, 1951, 1952, 1960 and 1961, two years under a Liberal government and two years under a Conservative government. In 1968-69 our exports dropped to an estimated 306 million bushels, which is about 26 or 27 per cent of the total exported by the four main world wheat exporters that year. That is about the same percentage of the world wheat trade which we experienced from 1959 to 1963.
968	COMMONS
Alleged. Lack of Agricultural Policies
Most farmers are encouraged because of the appointment of the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang) as minister with exclusive responsibility for the Wheat Board-the first time a minister has been given exclusive responsibility for the Wheat Board. This was the immediate action of the government in response to the statement made in the Speech from the Throne that steps would be taken to maximize sales of grain. The Wheat Board says it is doing everything possible to sell grain, and I know the new minister will give it his undivided assistance and encouragement.
The government has taken the advice of farmers and farm organizations and appointed a farmer, Mr. Charles Gibbings, to the Wheat Board as of last July 1. If there was any need to have a farmer's viewpoint heard within the councils of the Wheat Board, we certainly have it now. This was an extremely commendable appointment and it demonstrates the government's concern about the needs and wishes of farmers.
As on previous occasions, I am going to take this opportunity not only to praise the government for some of the many positive things it has done, and is doing, such as doubling cash advances, making them available on unharvested grain, making interim payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, crop insurance programs and stimulating credit sales of grain, but also to offer what I believe to be constructive criticism of various policies.
I should like to refer to the deferred delivery plan, under which farmers who were prevented from delivering the promised five-bushel quota last year were to be given permits to deliver the balance during this crop year. When the plan was first announced it provided that no farmer could deliver more than one bushel per specified acre, no matter how far short of the five-bushels he might have been. That unjustifiable and unfair restriction was removed and I learned just this morning that the limit has been set at two bushels. Let this be the opening shot in my campaign to have this arbitrary restriction removed.
In many remote areas on out-of-the-way branch lines, the elevators were almost constantly plugged throughout the year. Farmers who were at some distance from their elevator, who had no phone or who happened to be ill on the wrong day, had great difficulty getting their grain in. Remember that at many of those points the quotas were still at one,

DEBATES	November 18, 1969
two and three bushels in June and even into July. I find it completely understandable and believable that many farmers had grain on hand but were unable to deliver even three bushels per acre. Now these same farmers are being arbitrarily cut off at a maximum of two bushels.
They had already been three-time losers, in comparison with the majority of farmers who were able to sell the five-bushel quota before the end of July because (1) they lost the use of the money they should have received for several months; (2) they now take over 20 cents a bushel less on their initial payment, and (3) they had a much larger storage problem than their more fortunate neighbours. I think that the last that should be done is to allow them to deliver the full amount they were short of five bushels on July 31, and to assure them that they will ultimately get at least as good a price for wheat delivered in 1969-70 as they would have had they been able to deliver it in 1968-69.


An hon. Member:: What does the minister say to that?


Albert B. Douglas: Another point I wish to mention has to do with the current supplementary quotas on durum and barley, and any new supplementary quotas which may be announced. Last year such quotas were unceremoniously cut off at a predetermined date, even though many farmers did not have an opportunity to deliver their grain because of the lack of space at their delivery point. They were understandably incensed at losing this eagerly anticipated income opportunity because of the vagaries of boxcar distribution.
I protested this insensitive attitude most vigorously last year, and I was afraid there might be a repetition this year. However, I am pleased to note that the Wheat Board has now agreed to extend the durum quota to the end of July and has decided to suspend, perhaps temporarily, the special quota on feed barley, which may be reinstated later this year when barley stocks become depleted. I like to think that my representations in this matter have had some effect, possibly through thie new minister in charge of the Wheat Board.
I would like to revert to the deferred delivery plan for a moment and register my objection to deductions from the cheques for these deferred deliveries, to be applied on cash advances, when there was no liability existing on account of cash advances as of July 31,
November 18, 1969	COMMONS
1969. These deductions are a further discrimination against those who were prevented from delivering their five-bushel quota last July. It might take a slight amendment to the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, but I understand it is to be opened up very shortly anyway for amendments having to do with advances on unharvested grain; therefore, this small amendment should cause little difficulty.
I should now like to make a few remarks about box car allocation. I think the authorities responsible, mainly the railways, did a terribly poor job in this regard last year. There was the excuse last year that the tough and damp grain upset their procedures, but so far this year there is no such excuse. When I am critical of the railways in this regard I am not alone. When the agricultural committee interviewed the Canadian Wheat Board in Winnipeg on April 18, 1968, 1 asked the chief commissioner if he thought the railways should take some blame for the poor distribution of box cars last year. He said, and I quote from page 1257 of Report No. 32 of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee on Agriculture:


Mr. McNamara:: I certainly do. We cannot direct the railways on where to put their cars. We have no power. We can direct the distribution of the cars between the elevator companies and the stations and I certainly want to go on record that I am not congratulating the railways on their distribution of cars between stations but, in the over-all, we cannot direct them on this.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
In my opinion, confusion and discrimination still exist in the distribution of box cars. As some hon. members know, I asked for and received a meeting with top railroad officials. This was discussed last evening during the adjournment debate on a question raised by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Sko-berg). I attempted, unsuccessfully, to correct the quotation the hon. member used. The quotation listed some of the people who were present at that meeting. It mentioned the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. It mentioned members of parliament from the prairies, including myself, and some prairie Senators. The omission 1 wished to correct was the fact that one Member of Parliament, the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner) was also at the meeting. The railways were represented by four of then-top executives, including Mr. McMillan, president of Canadian National Railways and Mr. DEBATES	S69
Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies Gossage, vice-president of Canadian Pacific Railway, in charge of rail operations.
It is true that no opposition members were there. I believe we had a very frank and beneficial exchange of opinions and ideas, probably much more so than would have been the case if opposition members had been present. I think there have been indications in the past two weeks that some improvements are now in prospect, and indeed may already be evident in some areas.
The block system which will soon cover the prairies may be an improvement, but I think we farmers should not be under any delusion that the block system is designed to allocate box cars more fairly between points and between farmers. It may do what it is meant to do, namely, make better use of our rail system and our country and terminal elevator systems. I hope it does, because this will benefit farmers generally. However, farmers are individuals and require, deserve and expect fair treatment. I intend to do my best to see they receive that kind of treatment. If discrimination and hardship continue to be visited upon individual farmers and individual communities, even under the block system, I will renew my request for a transport controller.
We need a national policy for Canadian agriculture. It is long overdue. The report of the task force on agriculture is due within a few weeks. The government would be subject to justifiable criticism if it proclaimed a comprehensive farm policy before this task force makes its report and before the new Canada Grains Council has a chance to make any recommendations. I am sure the opposition would be foremost in such criticism. I look forward to some significant policy announcements by the government in the next few months.
Also needed are more reliable forecasts of production goals and some realistic programs to assist farmers to diversify in order to meet these goals. I was pleased to hear today from the ministers that steps are being taken to provide this guidance and assistance. I renew my plea to the government to support the price of wheat at $1.95J for export as well as domestic consumption. Agriculture is in great difficulty, mostly because of world conditions, but I do not think it is quite as bad as this exaggerated motion tries to indicate. I will not support the motion, Mr. Speaker, or the amendment.


Mr. Ricard:: We knew that before you started.
November 18, 1969

Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, citation 144 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition states:
It is a rule in both Houses of Parliament that a member must address the House orally, and not read from a written, previously prepared speech, for the reason that, "if the practice of reading speeches should prevail, members might read speeches that were written by other people, and the time of the House be taken up in considering the arguments of persons who were not deserving of their attention."
We have listened, Mr. Speaker, to a paper-tiger.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) is rising on a point of order.


Albert B. Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to my notes fairly closely, but I would challenge anyone else to read them. I wrote them myself; no one else wrote them.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) on a number of occasions state what in my opinion is probably a fairly good assessment of the problems of agriculture. I have never seen the particular hon. member put his vote where his mouth is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Arnold Peters: If the hon. member knows these things are wrong, obviously he should not stand as he has tonight and whitewash the department. I have no objection to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) doing that, Mr. Speaker. I remember when he was a colleague of mine. We were both opposition members and both spokesmen for agriculture. I always listened carefully to the Minister of Agriculture as he understood many of the problems of agriculture in Canada. His difficulty now is that he is taking instructions from a department. He is not really facing the problems of agriculture in Canada today; he is selling policies that have been developed in the department for which he is responsible.
The Minister of Agriculture could do a great service to this country if he made a break with tradition and decided to raise in this House a number of problems which he knows exist. If he honestly listened to the arguments surrounding the problems he raised, he could formulate a new program. The last speaker stated there is a problem in the world today, especially in western

Canada, of having more produce than we can sell.
It has often been suggested that the problem in Canada is not producing wheat, but selling it. This has been a fact since the 1920s. I am sure the minister and the hon. member for Assiniboia know this. What is being done about it? I have listened to these problems being discussed for 10 or 11 years. I have often heard the silly remark used by the previous speaker, that if we cannot solve the problem any other way, we will appoint a transport controller. Why have we not appointed one? Every time we had a problem with boxcars in the past we appointed a transport controller, and when the problem was solved he was dismissed. If this has always solved the problem, why the hell do we not have a permanent one?
This is a small problem, but I am sure the Minister of Agriculture and the former member for Assiniboia talked a great deal about box cars. I am sure there have been more discussion in this House on the subject of box cars and the inequality to western farmers caused by the inability of the railroads to have the box cars at the right place at the right time than there has been on any other subject. The hon. member represents a riding in western Canada. He says that if the problem cannot be solved in any other way, he will agree to the appointment of a transport controller. What kind of representation is that for western Canada?


An hon. Member:: Just a big bubble.


William Arnold Peters: It is obvious the hon. member will vote with the government. Why? I am not sure why. I really would like to know why. There are many problems in agriculture, Mr. Speaker. The problem we are faced with today is that we have a surplus. We have often had a surplus. I was surprised to learn that Ireland has a surplus of agricultural commodities. I understand they are selling butter to Chile at 11.8 cents a pound. The problems of agriculture are not the same as those in industry and other fields. The problems in agriculture are over-production and inability to sell.
The Minister of Agriculture has known about these problems for a long time. I am sure the minister responsible for the Wheat Board also knows of them. If he does not know of them, he need only turn to his desk-mate who for years has been connected with the selling of grain. These are the people who make their total fortunes from selling grain.
November 18, 1969	COMMONS
It is a complicated problem. Obviously there will be trouble attempting to sell grain at a given price in a glutted market. However, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the new department, whatever it is called, have been coasting in this respect.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I think everyone would agree that we should put some money into our efforts to sell agricultural commodities. We should be honest about what we do with wheat. The Wheat Board does not sell wheat; James Richardson & Sons sells wheat. The brokers sell it, but the Wheat Board does not sell it. In my opinion, McNamara never sold a bushel of wheat in his life, though he has sold other things. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) is a good salesman. It seems to me he might well do as other ministers have done, including a former minister of trade and commerce now sitting to my right, the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees), and call together the people responsible across the world for the operation of our trade. When it was last decided to put on such a campaign, sales were made. It is true there was a lot of mumbo-jumbo about who actually made the sales, but we did embark upon a policy of salesmanship and it was successful.
We shall always have bumper crops periodically in Canada, and the more plentiful harvests will probably fail to coincide with years in which the largest sales are made. We must therefore find some way of equalizing the returns.


An hon. Member:: Both the ministers have gone out.


William Arnold Peters: They can go out and have a conference. Their way of solving this problem was to pay the farmer a cash advance. The hon. member for Assiniboia said he would recommend that they go back to last year's quotas, and that he would press for this. He is not being honest. He has already done so, and the Wheat Board has told him to go to hell. I got this information from his own paper, the Assiniboia Times. We are now dealing with dilemmas which face all governments, not only the government in office. I suggest the minister would do well to turn his attention to solving some of the long-term difficulties. His department will give him all kinds of reasons why nothing can be changed, but I put it to him that he should examine some completely new propositions.
DEBATES	971
Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies
One of these would involve the provincial governments. If hon. members believe that agriculture is in trouble only in western Canada, they are wrong. The same difficulties arise from coast to coast, stemming from our ability to over-produce and our failure to sell. The agriculture committee travelled from one part of Canada to another, and during these journeys, I, as a member, learned of the great change which has taken place in eastern agriculture from the individual farm unit to the agro-industrial complex.
The family farm was in trouble because the farmer could not get enough for his produce to pay the cost of producing it. When the cream cheque is not providing enough to pay for the farm, or when the cheque for fluid milk is not large enough to enable a farmer to keep going, the whole industry is in desperate straits. There are, I suppose, some farmers who can carry a certain proportion of the burden of a low income by cutting their standard of living still further, but the big businesses are geared to producing at a high level of efficiency for markets which offer them a certain price-and if this price changes, the industry is in an extremely difficult situation.
Take the broiler industry and consider its relationship to egg production. Quebec controls the production of broilers and Ontario controls the production of eggs. The interests of egg producers in one province can be played against those of the broiler producers in the other, to the point at which the agencies which have been set up can no longer make a reasonable profit. I was surprised to learn that in Quebec they are not interested in establishing marketing boards for the various commodity groups. The provincial minister of agriculture said he was not interested in establishing a marketing board but that he would support any proposition which the federal government might have to put forward in this field.
Surely, the minister has heard similar stories from the conferences which have been held. Surely he is aware that this bugaboo about the constitution is not the barrier it used to be. We have learned that this is the case, and we shall tell him so if he allows the committee to make a report. If he is willing to bring in marketing legislation on a national scale, the provinces will accept it. This is the only way in which we shall be able to operate effectively.
We, the people of Canada, should be responsible for the orderly marketing of our
November 18, 1969
972	COMMONS
Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies agricultural produce. Today, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) indicated we should cut back production if a market did not appear to exist. But how in hell do we cut back? Suppose a wheat farmer has a thousand acres lying idle: the minister says he should plant only 100 acres because a good market does not appear to be likely. So far no provision has been made for a guaranteed annual wage, and unless he puts in a crop, this farmer will be on welfare.
Already the Wheat Board is selling wheat at prices which will not pay for the gasoline and the costs of putting the crop in and taking it off. Meanwhile, much of the grain remains on the farms. It may be cash in the bank, but the farmer would like to spend some of it; he is not getting enough cash to carry on. The minister is advising him to take land out of production. But is he telling us, at the same time, that he intends to announce a greenbank program? Almost every country in circumstances similar to ours has decided to embark on programs designed to take certain agricultural land out of production with provision for its use later if that should be in the national interest.
No such program has been announced here. In the meantime, who will keep our farmers if they do not plant grain? Who will pay back the cash advances we made available this year on top of the cash advances which were extended last year, advances which in many cases have yet to be repaid? The government would have us believe that these cash advances are a wonderful thing. I suppose it is a wonderful thing I should be able to go to Household Finance and borrow money, but I would do that only if it were really necessary. In the long run there is nothing particularly beneficial about getting cash advances if one has no way of paying back the money.
The only reason farmers get these cash advances is that they would be unable to keep going at all without them. The minister knows these things. I listened to him talk about them for years when he was on this side of the House. Now, apparently, he finds it easier to have the deputy minister and the departmental officials give him advice as to how he should run his department than for him to determine what is really in the interest of Canadian agriculture and make policies accordingly.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) decided there should be an austerity program and that some programs should be cut. One of the first things to suffer will be the agricultural


fairs throughout the rural communities, which are the show places of agriculture. The minister is also going to suspend grants to the 4-H clubs, which are junior farmers' clubs. These clubs teach our farmers of tomorrow the skills and crafts to enable them to operate farms. If the minister beheads all the farmers, he will certainly solve their problems for them, though the nation would hardly be a contented one. However, every few years the public have an opportunity to make then-decision. Revolutionary ideas of this nature would produce counter-revolutionary ideas, and the result would not be as anticipated.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Let us not talk about what this person did or that person did, about the lean years and the fat years. As far as farmers are concerned, every year is a lean year. I have not heard one farmer admit that times were good. Even if times were good, the farmers would not admit it because they know that the next year will not be good. Looking back over the past 50 years our farmers have not been wrong yet.
I suggest to the minister that long-range programs are required. The minister's policy in regard to the cream producers and farm separated milk has resulted in half of the small farms in Canada going out of operation. In my own area even a farmer on an unproductive piece of land cannot be driven off his farm. You cannot help him, neither can you hurt him very much. You just cannot get rid of him.
Almost $2 billion has been lent to the farmers for the purpose of developing economic farm units. I suggest we have an obligation to ensure that the products the farmers produce are sold at a reasonable profit, and that farmers are able to operate viable units. Let us talk not about yesterday but about tomorrow. One of the worth-while things that the minister did was to organize the agricultural congress. At this congress the minister heard about the problems of the farmers and how they could be solved. In spite of this, not one solution has been presented to the members of the House for their support. I suggest this is what the minister should be doing in the very near future.


Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, now that we are debating agriculture I observe it is opposition day again. I have been engaged in agriculture all my life, and having listened to this debate it seems to me that the abilities of an organized group of
November 18, 1969
individuals who through the years have been the backbone of Canada are being downgraded. Hon. members suggest that since the farmers do not know what to do, we should tell them. They suggest that the farmers overproduce because we tell them to; that they are unable to appraise a given situation and have to come to us for guidance.
What the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has been trying to do for a year or so now is to give the farmers an opportunity to express their problems. He invited them to the agricultural congress. He has visited agricultural communities. The agricultural committee has traipsed around Saskatchewan walking in the fields and talking to farmers. We have seen financial statements of farmers and we are aware of their problems. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has visited the west, where he was pelted with wheat and shown obscene signs. I was talking to a young man from Saskatchewan the other day who told me that those involved are still apologizing to Canada for some of the actions that took place during the Prime Minister's visit. These people were not necessarily farmers. In fact, I would be prepared to say that they were not farmers but agitators who claimed they supported the farmers.
Agriculture today is experiencing a revolution; indeed, it has been for the last five or six years. The farmers have realized that technological advances have made over-production possible. They also realize external aid has meant that the underdeveloped, needy countries have been enabled to produce the agricultural products they need. The farmers know there is a world wheat problem and that something must be done about it.
Certain sectors of the agricultural industry have done something about this problem. I should like to inform the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) that the broiler industry in Quebec is not controlled as it is in Ontario. Every province but Quebec has a marketing system for broilers. The price of these broilers is higher in the rest of Canada than in Quebec simply because there is no Quebec marketing board and broilers are being over-produced. Broiler growers in the rest of Canada are operating viable farm units. This means that banks are prepared to lend them money. No longer are they so dependent on farm improvement loans or the Farm Credit Corporation. In consultation with government officials they have evolved a broiler industry that pays. The same can be said of the egg producers. A few years ago
Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies there was over-production and the price was low. Today eggs fetch a good price, and this is because the egg producers got together and solved their particular problems.
I recognize that hon. members of the opposition are sincere and dedicated to the agricultural industry of Canada. I refer particularly to the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth). I say this, not because he is bigger than I but because I meet him in the agricultural committee and I went to Saskatchewan with him, along with the hon. member for Timiskaming.
The Minister of Agriculture cannot be expected to shoulder all of the problems of the agricultural industry. But he does want to talk over his policies with the farmers to see whether they are appropriate. As hon. members know, the government is proposing to introduce some national marketing legislation, and it has been criticized for not bringing it in sooner. I wonder whether hon. members realize why this legislation has not yet been presented to the House. The reason is that the plan is still being discussed throughout the length and breadth of the land among the farmers themselves. How many members of the opposition can show me a copy of the draft of the national chicken marketing commission act which has been presented to Department of Agriculture officials for their consideration?
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


M. Ervin Pringle: How many hon. members have investigated that aspect? This matter will be considered by the government in a very short time. How many hon. members have visited these people?
Let us consider the situation facing the hog industry. I have heard talk about cutting off hog subsidies. This was never considered a hog subsidy. Very good breeders in my riding have told me they never considered it to be a subsidy; it was an incentive or bonus to breeders who improved the quality of their hogs. That is all it was. If you produce a better hog, you get more money. The idea of subsidizing a hog grower for producing a poor product is simply outdated. You do not subsidize a chicken grower who produces eggs at a loss but makes a profit because the government picks up the tab. That idea has gone by the board. The same argument applies to the turkey industry.
Let us now consider the problem facing the grain industry. I realize it is a tough one. I

November 18, 19S9
974	COMMONS
Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies intend to refer to the supply-management program. We should try to produce for a market. It was stated earlier that we lacked the ability to sell our product, that we overproduce and undersell. That is the phrase used by the hon. friends. There is another phrase we can use: we over-produce and under-consume. There is just no way you can shove food down the throats of people. We keep referring to the fact that a great percentage of the population of the world is starving and hungry. We realize this. Members on this side of the House are just as responsible for this situation as anyone else. You are members of a political party, Members of Parliament, and when and if you come up with a really bright idea and turn on a 500-watt light which lights the way to a proper distribution of world food, without wrecking the economy of underdeveloped and other countries, you will be surprised at the reception you will get.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


M. Ervin Pringle: I received a letter just the other day from an old colleague of mine who is in the chicken business in Spain. One of the first things he said was: Jerry, I am in Spain and we have a problem here regarding the over-production of broilers and eggs. Would you get a hold of some of your marketing board acts and the natural produce marketing acts and send them to me so that we can find out if we can do something about this?
Only a couple of weeks ago I received a reply to my letter, saying that in Spain they had invoked a marketing act and a marketing board in order to handle this surplus. I was told today that there was a surplus, believe it or not, of chickens in India. Of course, these chickens are perhaps not too good by our standards. I am not sure they are particularly edible, but there is a surplus. There are surpluses everywhere because we over-produce and under-consume. The main problem is created by an under-consumption of the products we produce. We should produce to a market.
We have a peculiar situation in the House of Commons today. I do not intend to take up much more time because I know there are others who want to speak, but let me liken this situation to what takes place on a football field. On an opposition day hon. members on this side seem to pick on agriculture, and there is no greater political football than the situation in which our agricultural industry 

finds itself. This bothers me because I am a great friend of many of those who do a great job to produce food for people here. Unfortunately, you sit here and tell them they are doing everything wrong. There are problems, but as long as you insist on telling them they do everything wrong the problems will continue.
It is surprising that a number of members in the opposition who represent grain farmers keep telling them they do not know what they are doing. They insist that the government should be telling these people what they must do in order to operate their businesses successfully. This whole business reminds me of a Grey Cup game; we have interceptions, we have piling-on and we have interference. The only thing we do not have is a scoreboard, and we will probably get that before the evening is over.
Let me refer to an article published in the Western Producer. It states in part, under the heading "Favourable report for UFA despite farm income problem", that their financial position was reported by the United Farmers board of directors at the opening session as having been assisted by sales of $24 million, which is $2,635,000 more than the year before. Let me refer to another article which appeared in the Western Producer which refers to what Mr. Turner, president of the Wheat Pool, had to say, as follows:
To those who say the board should have sold more last year he pointed to the high world production and lower world trade in wheat and said that in the face of these adverse conditions Canada's exports actually represented an increased percentage of the total in 1968-69 over the year before.
Again I should like to commend the hon. member for Kent-Essex for bringing this subject to the attention of the House. I could not possibly agree with the wording of his motion. I would not except him to commend the government; although I am new here, I do not think that is done by anyone in the opposition. As a member of the agriculture committee I know we have a big job ahead of us this year. We must do what we can. When we are planning our program of work I hope we will not do it in this chamber. We should go to the farmers and have the farmers come to us. In this way I think we will be able to work out a program to make the agricultural industry viable again. Perhaps we can elevate this industry to an advanced position through technology. In this way perhaps we can increase the income of those who participate in agriculture.' .	3	ii b
November 18, 1969


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate, in a very modest way, in this debate. I heard a number of speeches this afternoon, some of which were more brilliant than others. As in any other debate, many things were said, and we always hope that, by the end of the day, solutions that may prove helpful to the Canadian farmers, will have been found.
First of all, may I say that I believe I am the second opposition member from Quebec to speak today. I deplore the fact that a large number of government members from that province have not seen fit to take part in this debate.
o (9:30 p.m.)
Several members from different regions have spoken. I would have hoped to see other government members from Quebec take part in this debate instead of implying that the situation of farmers in Quebec is far better than that of the farmers in the rest of the country.
I do not usually criticize for the sake of criticizing, but it seems to me that the people in Quebec had reason to believe at one time that Quebec members would have made every effort to make the Minister of Agriculture understand that in their province the situation is not better than in the rest of Canada.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Order, please. The hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy) is rising on a question of privilege.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member for Joliette. I just returned from Montreal, and I have therefore not been able to participate in the debate this afternoon. Since I have not heard the speeches that have been made, I must say at any rate that I have met farmers-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please, the hon. member for Joliette.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I accept the comments of my good friend, the member for Laval, but even though the absence of a government member was justified, there were 55 others here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Roch La Salle: I have no fault to find with the member for Laval.
In any case, I clearly have the impression that Quebec farmers will keep on worrying
Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies about them representation and questioning the commitments made during an election campaign, namely that they would be given the consideration they deserve in Canada.
I would like, for a few minutes, to go back 20 years when I was working in a slaughter house, which gave me the opportunity to meet many farmers and to talk with them. Things were not easy in those days. The difficulties were many, and we would always hope that our leaders and our governments would find solutions capable of improving the lot of farmers.
This was a time-many will remember it better than I-when many farmers, on the occasion of the Christmas and New Year's festivities-some might think it is funny, but it was nevertheless more serious for others- would slaughter one of their cows to feed their families.
And if we consider what has happened in the last 20 years, we notice that most of the farmers have not improved their lot, very much, since on account of the present policy, the farmer has to sell for instance not only one cow occasionally but must get rid of the whole herd.
This debate gives us the opportunity to express certain opinions and to ask the minister to consider more thoroughly possible solutions to the problems of the agricultural community. Some will say it is not an easy task, but one must not infer therefrom that it is an impossible one. I am not so unkind as to say that the minister is the only one responsible for the present state of affairs, but he will surely need the advice of his experts and will have to resort to the solutions that all hon. members are prepared to bring forward.
I say with pleasure to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) that we have heard for a long time about a new dairy policy providing price support for certain products, but nothing tangible is ever done.
In the province of Quebec the situation is uncertain, but it must not be better in New Brunswick where people have to sell potatoes at 60 cents for 75 pounds. I wonder how the potato producers will be able to pull themselves out of that again this year. Try as they may to make the potato producers and other farmers believe that they will eventually adopt a price policy, I believe they will have to act as soon as possible if they want their position to improve.
May I bring to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) the situation of the
November 18, 1969

Alleged Lack of Agricultural Policies tobacco growers. We have talked about several areas of production but the growers of cigarette tobacco, whether in, Ontario or in Quebec, are facing serious difficulties which slow down the development of this very important industry and I would ask the Minister of Agriculture to discuss the matter thoroughly with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) and to make him soften his stand.
Incidentally, I would like to commend the Minister of Agriculture who last year granted additional subsidies to improve the soils and to increase the acreage devoted to growing tobacco in some areas of the country. On the other hand, I am very much concerned, and so are the tobacco growers, about the stand taken by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is the second time I stress the point for I believe this industry is of major importance for some areas in Canada.
In my constituency there are more than 95 per cent of the cigarette tobacco growers of the whole province of Quebec, this means that it is an area more important still than Ontario in this respect, in spite of the great number of major tobacco producers in the latter province. While it is one of the very few productions able to survive without any government assistance, the attitude displayed by the minister during this past year is bound to be of great concern to us since the future of this industry is at stake.
I hope that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cote) will answer a request I made not so long ago when I asked him how much money he was getting from that industry.
[DOT] (9:4C p.m.)
Of course we are willing to help the Minister of National Health and Welfare fight against abuses which, unfortunately, are not restricted to the use of cigarettes.
All hon. members agree that abuses must be checked, but there is no conclusive proof that cigarettes cause cancer. Several other products would probably have the same effect. I dare hope that the Minister of Agriculture will see to it that tobacco growers no longer have cause for worry, that they can count not only on the government but on all hon. members to continue operating in an industry that enables many Canadian citizens to earn a living.
I would also like to say a few words on the responsibilities of the Canadian Dairy Commission. For a long time, the milk producers

have asked for an emergency debate, but the government did not think it was advisable to hold it. Personally, I agree entirely with the dairy producers who asked that their government explain clearly the policy of the Commission.
It is unfortunate to note that the Canadian Dairy Commission has been entrusted with the announcement of some kind of policy that is every year a bit more harsh and drastic. It is even suggested that there are 2,000 or 2,500 milk producers too many, but the officials have not yet had the courage to say it quite clearly, for reasons of political expediency.
However, the Canadian Dairy Commission is acting as the mouthpiece of the government, and I wonder if we cannot demand that our leaders have at least the courage and the honesty to explain clearly the dairy policy and to make the producers-however small- understand that they can no longer maintain their activity.


An hon. Member:: What do you think of it?


Roch La Salle: What do I think of it? I think that the existence of a surplus was too easily admitted and that nobody thought of using it by providing all the school boys of our country with free milk.
Furthermore, why should we not attempt to process this milk to feed cattle, as was done successfully in the United States? In Canada, we talked about it a year ago but nothing was done. I wonder if the government intends to do something in that respect. If it were simply a matter for an individual member of a rural riding to make such a recommendation, I would feel privileged to suggest it. As the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce must be very interested in the development of the tobacco industry, I wonder what will become of that support price policy and the restrictions on imports. To talk about it is not enough, action should follow.
I am deeply convinced that one of the ways to help the producers would be to limit our imports of truck-farm products. The committee on agriculture on which sit a number of government members, recognized that fact. It was noted, for instance, that on the south side we had 50,000 acres of humus-a black dirt very good for truck gardening-of which
15,000	acres only are in cultivation. It goes without saying that a policy restricting imports of such products would enable Quebecers to till the soil to its full capacity and thus lead a more decent life.
November 18, 1969



The Acling Speaker (Mr. Bechard): It being 9.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 58 (9), to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith any questions necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Bechard): All
those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Bechard): All
those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Bechard): In my
opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Call in the members.
The House divided on the amendment (Mr. Gleave) which was negatived on the following
division: [DOT] (9:50 p.m.)	YEAS Messrs:
Aiken	Knowles (Winnipeg
Baldwin	North Centre)
Barnett	Knowles (Nor folk-
Benjamin	Haldimand)
Bigg	Lambert (Edmonton
Brewin	West)
Burton	Lap rise
Cadieu (Meadow Lake) Lewis	
Coates	Lundrigan
Code	MacDonald (Egmont)
Comeau	MacEwan
Crouse	Maclnnis
Danforth	Maclnnis Mrs.
Dinsdale	MacLean
Douglas (Nanaimo-	Macquarrie
Co wichan- The	McCleave
Islands)	McCutcheon
Downey	McIntosh
Fairweather	McQuaid
Flemming	Mather
Forrestall	Matte
Fortin	Moore
Gleave	Muir (Lisgar)
Godin	Nielsen
Grills	Noble
Hales	Nowlan
Harding	Orlikow
Harkness	Peddle
Hees	Peters
Howard (Skeena)	Ricard
Howe	Ritchie
Rodrigue
Rondeau
Rose
Rynard
Saltsman
Schumacher
Scott
Simpson
Skoberg
Skoreyko
Southam
Allmand
Badanai
Barrett
Basford
Bechard
Benson
Blair
Borrie
Breau
Brown
Cadieux (Labelle)
Cafik
Cantin
Chappell
Chretien
Clermont
Corbin
Crossman
Danson
Davis
Deachman
Deakon
De Bane
Douglas (Assiniboia)
Duquet
Ethier
Forget
Foster
Francis
Gendron
Gervais
Gibson
Givens
Gray
Groos
Guay
(St. Boniface) Guay (Levis) Guilbault Haidasz Hogarth Honey Hopkins
Howard (Okanagan
Boundary)
Hymmen
Isabelle
Laflamme
Laing
Lang
Langlois
Laniel
Leblanc (Laurier) LeBlanc (Rimouski) Lefebvre
Division
Stanfield
Stewart (Marquette) Tetrault
Thomas (Moncton)
Thompson
Thomson
Valade
Winch
Woolliams
Yewchuk-78.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Legault
Lessard (LaSalle) Lessard
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Lind
Loiselle
Macdonald (Rosedale)
MacEachen
Mackasey
McBride
Mcllraith
McNulty
Mahoney
Major
Marceau
Murphy
Noel
Olson
Orange
Osier
Otto
Ouellet
Penner
Pepin
Pilon
Pringle
Prud'homme
Reid
Richard
Richardson
Robinson
Rochon
Rock
Roy (Timmins)
Roy (Laval)
Ryan
Smerchanski Smith (Saint-Jean) Stafford Stanbury
Stewart (Cochrane) Stewart (Okanagan -Kootenay)
Sulatycky
Sullivan
Thomas (Maisonneuve)
Tolmie
Trudeau
Trudel
Turner (London East)
Walker
Watson
Weatherhead
Whicher
Yanakis-106.

November 18, 1969
Division


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is now on the main motion. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of hon. members that we proceed with the division without the call of the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I	declare the motion lost.
November 18, 1969	COMMONS



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, before we adjourn could I just confirm the order of business for tomorrow. As the first item we would call the Ways and Means motion, item No. 2, to be followed by the resolution standing in my name, item No. 30, in regard to the Canada Elections Act. As the third item of business we would call item No. 29, with respect to the National Parks Act.
DEBATES	97S
Business of the House [Translation]


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I paired off with the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Comtois); had I voted, I would have supported the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after ten o'clock this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
It being twenty minutes after ten o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Wednesday, November 19, 1969