1969-05-01

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning the failure of the Postmaster General to table in this house the report of the consulting firm of Kates Peat Marwick and Company which was commissioned to study the workings of his department, and especially his action in discussing this matter with a reporter before making it available to members of this house.
In this morning's Financial Post the following appears:
Communications Minister Eric Kierans is scheduled to table a remarkable document next week in the Commons.
There follows a commentary, and evidently an interpretation of this document by the minister. This growing tendency of members of the ministry to communicate to persons and groups outside this house information which should be properly conveyed to hon. members amounts to an erosion of the respect properly due from the executive to the people's representatives.
That this is not the first failure of the Postmaster General to give parliament information available to him is indicated by the fact that an earlier report of the same consulting firm was presented to the minister on November 19, 1968 and has not yet been tabled in the house or made available to members. On general principle I protest that such practices by ministers breach the privileges of parliament.
Any blockage in the flow of information to parliament in reference to the Post Office, a department about which there is currently such widespread and justifiable criticism and dissatisfaction among the Canadian public, is particularly reprehensible and indeed inexcusable.


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communications):: As hon. members are aware, no
29180-520J
one is more critical of the Post Office and of its operations than those who work for the Post Office. We examine its operations from a variety of different points of view. We intend to table the results of some of these studies.
The purpose of these various investigations and task forces is to enable us to find out our weaknesses and improve our service. We have already tabled some of these reports, some of which even criticize our own stamp designs. One of the reports mentioned when Mr. Baxter came in to see me concerned the environment in which the Post Office will have to operate throughout the next 25 years. I have read this report carefully. The firm commissioned to prepare it also analysed the probable impact of a changing environment on the present operation of the Post Office. In answering the questions put by Mr. Baxter I was armed with this type of information. I did say to Mr. Baxter that we intended to table this report. What is holding it up is this: We are getting it translated and I expect it will be completed by next week.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs-Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull).
[Editor's Note: The text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to announce a policy to make available for research and other public use as large a portion of the records of the Canadian government prior to July 1, 1939 as would be consistent with the national interest. The cabinet secretariat and the departments and agencies of government are being asked to transfer to the Public Archives
May 1. 1969
8200	COMMONS
Release of Old Documents to Archives official records which are more than 30 years old to be made available to the public under the normal rules of access in force in the Public Archives.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)

Certain records will be exempted from public access, particularly those the release of which might adversely affect Canada's external relations, violate the right of privacy of individuals, or adversely affect the national security. However, it is the intention that a vast portion of Canada's records prior to mid-1939 will be transferred to the Public Archives during the current year, and that annual transfers be made in subsequent years.
While certain of the records to be made available to the public have already been transferred to the Public Archives, the majority are still in the hands of the cabinet secretariat and the various departments and agencies of government. The volume of files is such that it will take some time to screen and arrange for an orderly flow of documents to the Archives. Within these practical limitations, however, every effort will be made to provide public access to these papers as promptly as possible, beginning on July 1, 1969.
The general rule will be that, with the exceptions noted, all records over 30 years old will be transferred to the Archives and made available to the public. In addition, departments and agencies will be encouraged to transfer to the Archives records less than 30 years old, in so far as this would be consistent with the efficient operation of the departments or agencies involved. Although these more recent records would remain under the control of the minister concerned, they could be made available to the public under terms and conditions to be established by the responsible minister in consultation with the Dominion Archivist. As for records less than 30 years old and which are retained in the custody of departments and agencies, controlled access may be permitted in special cases, again under terms and conditions to be established by the minister in consultation with the Dominion Archivist.

Because of the nature of cabinet and cabinet committee documents and minutes, they will in no case be made available for public examination until they are 30 years old. Former Prime Ministers and ministers will,


of course, be given access on request to such of those records as originated during their various periods of office, in order to refresh their memories.
Of particular interest in future years, beginning in 1970, will be the release of annual portions of records of the cabinet war committee for the period 1940 to 1945. In 1974, records of the deliberations of the cabinet will begin to be made available, the first formal recording of its proceedings having begun in early 1944.
In announcing this policy I should like to express the government's belief that it will meet with the approval of Canadian scholars, members of learned societies and others interested in the history of Canadian government. In a broader sense, it exemplifies the government's desire to stimulate interest and participation in the affairs of government by Canadians generally.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my approval of the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who was kind and considerate enough to consult me, and I believe others, about this proposal which I hope will facilitate the work of scholars in our country. I do not know whether it will have any adverse effect upon journalists like Mr. Wilson and Mr. Westell, but subject to that sort of consideration I think it will certainly be widely approved in the country at large.


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure many members of the house will welcome the announcement made today by the Prime Minister on this very important subject. We feel that it is a step in the right direction that is considerably overdue. As some may recall, a bill was presented by a member on this side of the house at a former session urging something very much in the nature of what has now been put forward. While it is late and meagre, we do feel that action has been taken in the right direction.


Mr. Real Caouetle (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, we, in the Ralliement Creditiste, approve the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who has just announced a new policy to make government papers, 30 years old or more, available for research purposes.
Mr. Speaker, the policy will enable men of letters and members of scientific societies in Canada to do their work much more easily and to write an accurate history of Canada.

May 1. 1969


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I rise for two purposes. The first is to table an exchange which took place at a press briefing given by the United States State Department spokesman on February 11, 1969, relating to the Canadian government's announcement of its intention to negotiate with the representatives of Peking for an exchange of diplomats; the second is to make a brief report, as requested by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), on the representations made by our ambassador in Lagos to the Nigerian government.
Representations Mr. Malone made included a reiteration of our concern at the reports of bombings of non-military targets in the rebel area, the question of a cease fire and ways of improving relief deliveries. General Gowon shared our concern at the reports of bombings of civilians and reaffirmed that strict orders had been given to avoid, where possible, civilian casualties. I am pleased to note that there has been a notable absence of reports of bombings for some time. As to a cease fire, it was confirmed that the situation with regard to a cease fire and a negotiated settlement remained unchanged. As I have told the house on many occasions, until conditions and terms exist which are acceptable to both disputants, prospects for an early cessation of hostilities will remain remote. With regard to relief, the High Commissioner reiterated the government's support for efforts to conclude agreed arrangements for relief deliveries by day into the Uli and Obilago airstrips.
I was also asked by the Leader of the Opposition about possible United Nations involvement. In that regard I believe it would be useful for the house to have the following excerpt from a press conference given by the Secretary-General of the United Nations on April 17 of this year. I quote:
-the United Nations cannot be involved in a crisis situation which is declared by the member state concerned to be an internal matter under Article 2 (7). This point of view is endorsed and supported by the whole Organization of African Unity. So, in the face of this attitude by the Organization of African Unity, I do not believe that any member of the United Nations has any desire to inscribe the item, "The Situation in Nigeria", before a principal organ of the United Nations.
External Affairs
If I may anticipate something, if any member state were to bring this item, "The Situation in Nigeria", before the Security Council or the United Nations General Assembly, I am sure that the item would not be inscribed on the agenda. So it does not make any difference whether any member state tries to inscribe this on the agenda or the Secretary General tries to inscribe it on the agenda. From a realistic point of view, any such attempt would not succeed because of the knowledge that the Organization of African Unity is against such a course as the inscription of an item on the agenda of either the Security Council or the United Nations General Assembly.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Secretary of State for External Affairs for the information he has given to the house about suggestions made on behalf of the government of Canada to the government of Nigeria and for the statement he made about the United Nations. I cannot help feeling that here we have a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. As a member of the Commonwealth and of a group of civilized nations, it seems to me that Canada has a greater responsibility towards those suffering and dying in Nigeria than has so far been discharged. It is estimated that more than a million people have died as a result of that war.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the government of this country should exercise its diligence in trying to organize, in consultation with other countries and particularly Commonwealth countries, an effort to terminate the war, bring about a ceasefire and a cessation of shipments of arms. They should make a real effort to terminate the suffering and dying that is going on in that country.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
I am not minimizing the difficulties which exist, Mr. Speaker. I suggest in all seriousness that what is happening in Nigeria, the number who are dying as a direct result of the war is a very sad commentary indeed on the civilized nations of this world, of which this country has been proud to be part, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that his statement is totally unsatisfactory to those who are really concerned with seeking a solution to the problem in Nigeria and Biafra and seeking some alleviation of the terrible suffering by the people in Biafra.
First I wish to say to him, Mr. Speaker, that while I have the greatest respect for the Secretary General of the United Nations, his
May 1, 1969
8202	COMMONS DEBATES
Inquiry into Non-Medical uses of Drugs word is not yet the last word on everything concerning that organization. Indeed I remind the Secretary of State for External Affairs that just about two years ago the Secretary General of the United Nations made a certain decision with regard to UNEF in the Middle East. Both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs at that time did not hesitate to criticize that decision and action.
I am not satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that because the Secretary General of the United Nations, with his great experience and knowledge, says that something should be done a certain way, that this is the way it must be. I am not satisfied that it means that Canada or any other member of the United Nations! should not make some attempt to have this matter discussed in the international forum. They should search for a possible cessation of the terrible fighting in Nigeria.
I did not have a copy of the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but as I listened I noted the fact that the Secretary General of the United Nations spoke about the Security Council and the United Nations General Assembly. I remind the minister that my colleagues and myself have asked him many times to inscribe this subject, not on the agenda of the Security General or General Assembly, but on the agenda of the Third Committee of the United Nations which deals with humanitarian, cultural and other matters. In my humble opinion, this matter should be put on the agenda of the Third Committee and discussed. This would be the starting point for an international consideration of the problem.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I am totally dissatisfied with the approach of our ambassador in Lagos. He has offered help under certain conditions. Canada is able to make assistance available now through various organizations for the building of the new airstrip which they are attempting to build in Biafra. There are also other ways to alleviate the suffering of those people.
I have said from time to time, and I now repeat the fact, that the civilized world has not reacted to the terrible fratricidal war in that country, the fact that a conflict like that can go on for two years-in two months it will be two years-with 1 million to 2 million people dying, mainly of hunger, and the civilized world keeps its hands off. All this reminds me of many instances in history where this kind of barbarity was permitted to go on, and everybody called non-intervention,

with the result that the barbarity ended in colossal difficulties for the world as a whole. One of the matters of which the government cannot be proud is the constant excuses for inaction that the government has given in the case of the terrible war in Nigeria.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I believe everybody is deeply affected by what is happening in Nigeria.
However, everyone must at the same time recognize that the internal policy of that country is not the concern of Canada nor that of the United States.
Although some people protest because Canada does not go to Nigeria to re-establish peace and ask Nigeria to accept the Biafrans as they are, there are not many to protest, for example, against Russia invading Czechoslovakia and crushing those who want to be free.
Mr. Speaker, I say again that we would like to see an end to the Nigerian war. However, it does not come to an end and the only thing Canada can do, in my opinion, is to put before the United Nations an agreement proposal between the Biafrans and the Nigerian people. Their domestic policy is their own business.
In fact, we would not accept that these people interfere in ours. We are ourselves involved in domestic feuds, without bloodshed yet, but what assurance do we have that we will not be facing such situations in the future.
I say again that these countries' domestic policy is their own business, and that Canada, as a so-called peaceful nation, can encourage them to settle their differences and advise them, but it not desirable to interfere directly in their domestic policy, because that is no concern of ours.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the government plans to establish a committee of inquiry to examine into and make recommendations respecting the non-medical use of drugs and related substances in Canada.
The establishment of this committee of inquiry reflects the grave concern felt by the government at the expanding proportions of
May 1, 1969

the use of drugs and related substances for non-medical purposes. This committee will consist of five members and be directed to pursue the following objects:	(a) to marshal from available sources, both in Canada and abroad, data and information comprising the present fund of knowledge concerning the non-medical use of sedative, stimulant, tran-quilizing, hallucinogenic and other psychotropic drugs or substances;
(b)	to report on the current state of medical knowledge respecting the effect of the drugs and substances referred to in (a);
(c)	to inquire into and report on the motivation underlying the non-medical use referred to in (a);
(d)	to inquire into and report on the social, economic, educational and philosophical factors relating to the use for non-medical purposes of the drugs and substances referred to in (a) and in particular on the extent of the phenomenon, the social factors that have led to it, the age groups involved, and problems of communication; and
(e)	to inquire into and recommend with respect to the ways or means by which the federal government can act, alone or in its relations with government at other levels, in the reduction of the dimensions of the problems involved in such use.
The committee will have the authority contained in Part 2 of the Inquiries Act and be assisted, as required, by officials of appropriate departments and agencies of government. It will be authorized to invite, receive and consider submissions from organizations and individuals.
It is anticipated that the committee will make an official report of its progress within six months of its establishment and periodically thereafter, with a final report to be presented within two years.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to show our commendation of the move made by the minister. I think this is a necessary and worth-while endeavour to set up this committee. I believe also the reporting which is supposed to commence in six months is a good move. We will certainly follow the actions of the committee with interest.
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-
[DOT]way): Mr. Speaker, we in this party also welcome the news that a committee of inquiry is to be established. Across this country there is a great deal of concern about the use of drugs
Private Bills
of this kind. Unfortunately very little hard evidence is available yet to substantiate some of the claims made in connection with certain drugs. I believe the time is long overdue for this investigation. I would suggest however, in view of the fact that this inquiry committee is just being set up now it would be a very desirable thing if the minister would delay passage of Bill S-15, or at least those sections having to do with hallucinogenic drugs, particularly marijuana, until such time as the evidence on which the legislation is based is in.
A number of us are not by any means convinced there is evidence available yet to support severe sentences such as are envisaged in this legislation, particularly in respect of marijuana. I am not in favour of the widespread use of marijuana, but I feel we would be in a much better position to proceed with such legislation if this committee of inquiry would report before the legislation is passed.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Philip G. Givens (York West) moved:: That the petitions of The Canada North-west Land Company (Limited), of Nova Scotia Savings & Loan Company, of Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and that of Thomas Ledwell Doyle, of the City of Moncton, New Brunswick and six other persons, praying for the passing of an Act incorporating "Atlantic Mutual Life Assurance Company" and, in French, "La Compagnie mutuelle d'assurance-vie Atlantique", filed after the time limit under Standing Order 90, be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders together with the Twelfth and Thirteenth Reports of the Clerk of Petitions thereon presented to the House on Friday, April 25, 1969 and Thursday, May 1, 1969 for any recommendations the Committee deems advisable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask the house to agree to a motion regarding Bell Canada. Late yesterday, Bell Canada issued its quarterly report showing that it has exceeded for the second time the 6.8 per cent limit placed on its

May 1, 1969
Indian Affairs
return on invested capital by the federal government's regulatory board. The 7 per cent reported by Bell Canada is a clear case not only of disrespect for the legal process, but also of continued exploitation of the Canadian taxpayer. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Schreyer):
That the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications he authorized to meet forthwith and proceed as quickly as possible to investigate, analyse, and hear from officials of Bell Canada on their apparent disregard of the rate of return limits placed on them by the government's regulatory agency.


Mr. Speaker:: According to the terms of Standing Order 43 this motion requires unanimous consent of the house. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put to the house.



INDIAN AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
should give them all an opportunity to be heard.
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: In light of what the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has said, I do not think we should interrupt the established proceedings for today.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Let it be shown that the Liberals object.



IMMIGRATION


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to inquire whether the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) intends to make a statement to this house as a result of his exchange with the moderator of the United Church and certain allegations made by the moderator and his reply.



LOCAL GOVERNMENT ON INDIAN RESERVES- DEBATING TIME

['Mr. Speaker, it had been my impression that the statement which I tabled in the house today had in fact been made by the Secretary of State for the United States, himself, because this was what was in my mind when I answered the questions the other day. On inquiry I found that the secretary of state himself had not made any statement whatever on this subject, and therefore I thought I should table the statement that came from the state department, presumably representing the views of the secretary of state even if he was not the spokesman.']
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, had it not been for the fact that today is an allotted day the house normally at five o'clock would have proceeded to deal with the item of business Notices of Motions. The first such item had only one minute remaining to it. In other words, a vote likely would have taken place with regard to the production of a document entitled "Local Government on Indian Reserves".
In view of the fact that here in Ottawa this week there is a meeting of native Indian delegations from all across Canada, I wonder whether the house would be agreeable to making a special order to deal with that item at five o'clock and add to the balance of the day any time so taken by the vote on that motion, so that it would not interfere with the allotted day debate. I would so request.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I think we would be willing to accept this, provided any order made contains a provision that any time required to take the vote would be added to the time for the debate now proceeding under the appropriate Standing Order. It is my understanding there are so many people with complaints against the government's agricultural policy that we


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether this is a proper point of order. It seems to me that the hon. member might wish to ask this question during the question period. I realize that by that time we would have passed the period for motions although the consent of the house could then be obtained to revert to motions. However, the point having been made perhaps the minister might reply.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minisier of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I did have an exchange of telegrams with the moderator of the United Church. I think both documents speak for themselves and that further comment on my part is unnecessary.



Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) reiterated on at least two occasions his intention to table a statement by the Secretary of State for the United States, Mr. Rogers, dealing with Canada's negotiations and attitude on the recognition of China. He stated that Mr. Rogers statement had been published. He has tabled a state department
May 1, 1969

release of February 11 without identifying it as a statement by Mr. Rogers. I would ask if it is in fact the Rogers statement to which he referred on two occasions or whether it is a statement by a subordinate official. If it is a statement by a subordinate official, I ask him now if he will table the Rogers statement if in fact the Rogers statement exists at all. I also ask him again whether there was a note from the United States expressing grave concern at Canada's move and whether he will inform the house concerning its contents and his government's reply if any.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it had been my impression that the statement which I tabled in the house today had in fact been made by the Secretary of State for the United States, himself, because this was what was in my mind when I answered the questions the other day. On inquiry I found that the secretary of state himself had not made any statement whatever on this subject, and therefore I thought I should table the statement that came from the state department, presumably representing the views of the secretary of state even if he was not the spokesman.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might say a few words about the order of business for tomorrow and next week. I think there might be general agreement that any recorded division required on the amendments to the Criminal Code be not held tomorrow, but rather that the divisions be postponed until Monday next. If this is agreeable to the house it might be possible to make such an order. That is, should the consideration of any amendments at the report stage of Bill C-150 be concluded tomorrow, any recorded division required thereon shall be deferred until Monday next. As I say, perhaps if there is general agreement that could be made an order of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Inquiries of the Ministry



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but in his absence I will direct it to the Minister without Portfolio from Port Arthur. I should like to ask him whether it is his intention to introduce legislation in the month of June to amend or repeal the Indian Act, or is it merely the intention to issue a general statement of government policy in June? I ask this question, sir, in view of the various statements made by the minister on this subject both in the house and at this week's conference.


Hon. Robert Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: The whole review of our policy with regard to the Indian people is the subject of intense examination now. As the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has stated in the house on previous occasions, that policy, including any reference to the Indian Act or any component part of it, will be made known within a few weeks time, we hope and expect in the month of June.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since it seems to be very difficult to get a straight answer to what was intended to be a straight question, can the minister say whether it is the intention of the department to repeal or amend the Indian Act, or is it the intention simply to make a statement of policy during the month of June?


Robert Knight Andras: No final decision on that matter has yet been made.



RESOURCES TO PREPARE RESEARCH MATERIAL ON ACT AMENDMENT

Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister and the department accept the proposal of the representatives of the Indian people that they should be given the resources necessary for research to allow them to prepare and submit a draft Indian Act, rather than merely to comment on a draft that may be presented to them by the department?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, this proposal was made

May 1. 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry by the Indian representatives attending the consultation meetings here in Ottawa yesterday and it is under serious examination. An answer will be made shortly.


Frank Howard: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister would not consider it a better course to deal first with the legitimate grievances of the native people before starting to play around with amending any laws?



MEETING OF INDIAN DELEGATES WITH STANDING COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the cancellation of the meeting between the Indian delegates attending the conference in Ottawa and the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, will there be a later opportunity before the departure of this group from Ottawa to meet with the committee?


Robert Knight Andras: When the delegation met with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development at the beginning of this conference on Monday morning, the minister, I think quite appropriately, made it quite clear that the agenda, the format, the items for discussion and the meetings with everybody concerned were to be decisions made by the Indian delegates themselves. When the matter of meeting with the standing committee was referred to them yesterday afternoon, they chose to defer a decision on that. I think we would have to consult with the chairman of the committee and the Indian delegates themselves as to whether they wish to meet with the committee before the end of the session. It would be entirely up to them and subject to the convenience of the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



GOVERNMENT POLICY ON TREATY RIGHTS

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have one further supplementary question. Will the minister give a firm commitment-to the same sort of applause, I hope-as to the government's policy concerning treaty rights before the Indian people are asked to prepare or approve a draft Indian Act, and if so, when can we expect that kind of firm commitment from the government?


Robert Knight Andras: I think we can give a firm commitment

that the treaty rights of Indians, their feelings about treaty rights, and other such matters, are the subject of intense examination. Their feelings have been made very well known to the government, and a major portion of the review of the policy that is under way.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the minister a question with reference to treaty rights. Can he say whether the review and consideration that is taking place would include the bringing of Indian treaties before parliament-treaties that were made between the Indians and the British Crown prior to Confederation, so that the Indian rights under those sacred treaties shall be upheld, to use the words of some treaties, "so long as the sun shines and the rivers flow?"


Robert Knight Andras: I do not think I can elaborate on the answer I just gave except to say that this is a difficult and grievous problem that has been with us for at least a hundred years and through the tenure of the right hon. gentleman's term of office. I think he introduced certain measures which were commendable, and we are trying to do our best to do the same.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) always applauds. At some time he will be identified by the Prime Minister.
When the minister said that these treaty rights have been under consideration or in doubt for a hundred years, would he not agree that it was within very recent years that the Supreme Court of Canada decided that the treaties made previous to Confederation were not binding on the government of Canada or the people?


Robert Knight Andras: I do not think I could elaborate any further, except to say again that the subject is under intense examination.
I think that the policy statements which will come in a few weeks' time will clarify the matter and answer the right hon. gentleman's question.


John George Diefenbaker: They are meaningless.



THE MINISTRY


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my
May 1. 1969

question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the resignation of the former minister of transport took effect at midnight last night, has a Minister of Transport been appointed, and if not, how soon does the Prime Minister expect such an appointment to be made? In the interim period what minister will be responsible for matters relating to transport and housing.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Minister without Portfolio who was acting minister remains acting minister, Mr. Speaker, until I make an appointment.



HOUSING


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the government proposes to raise the ceiling on the mortgages that are outstanding and on the amount of money that can be lent by the treasury to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, is it the intention of the government to ask parliament for any additional appropriations for housing over and above those that are now outlined in the estimates?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not know the answer to the question. I will consider it and see if it will be necessary to present additional estimates to the house.



AGRICULTURE


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct to the Minister of Agriculture another question which has been asked to the four members from the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area-and I am sure of them-at a meeting with the farmers.
Could the minister tell the house whether it is his intention to allow the C.F.U. in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area to be officially accredited as the negotiation unit for questions regarding our area, especially as far as the guaranteed income of farmers is concerned?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the hon. member's question could not be asked during the debate which is to begin within a moment. If it is urgent, however, we could answer it immediately. But I point out to the
Inquiries of the Ministry hon. member that it would be better to wait for the debate to start.


Mr. Gauthier:: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker. [English]



IMMIGRATION


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the continuing charges that Canada's immigration policy operates in certain areas on secret guidelines, which is, as termed by the moderator of the United Church an immoral and intolerable evasion of public responsibility, and the minister's public reply that such statements are ill-founded and erroneous to the point of irresponsibility, will the minister inform the house as to what actually is the policy of the Department of Manpower and Immigration with regard to U.S. immigrants?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the policy has been made clear on a number of occasions and I am afraid it would not be possible to deal with it on the orders of the day. We do admit members of the armed services of other countries. If such persons apply in this country and satisfy normal immigration criteria they are admitted regardless of military status. Since January, 1968 a number of such persons have been admitted.
The hon. member should bear in mind that until January, 1968, no member of the armed forces of any country could be admitted without discharge papers. With respect to applicants at the border or overseas, the immigration officer is expected to exercise overall discretion in determining admissibility.


Robert Norman Thompson: In view of the seriousness of the charges being made, would the minister consider issuing a white paper or some document explaining the background in more detail than he has yet given, and table it in this house?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The estimates of my
department were under consideration in the house not so long ago and we did have an opportunity to discuss the question on that

May 1, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry occasion. I was prepared to answer all inquiries. The estimates of the department will be before the committee very shortly and I will be delighted to answer any questions on this subject, and particularly to deal with the unfounded charges contained in the telegram from the moderator of the United Church.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister one or two questions. I should like to ask him, first, whether in view of the fact that he has made a statement to the press by way of a press release, and has in the past refused to make a statement on the subject on motions, he would now be ready to make such a statement in the house, provided hon. members were prepared to revert immediately to motions? If the minister is not ready to do this now, will he undertake to make such a statement on motions tomorrow?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not think it is good procedure to expect a statement in the house on the occasion of a reply to a telegram.


David Lewis: In view of the fact that the minister made one statement about these alleged guidelines on March 5, to which his reply to the moderator of the United Church referred, and another statement in a press release yesterday, I ask him again whether he proposes to disregard the rights of parliament and the right of the people-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is, of course, not an admissible question.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: The minister indicated the other day that he would not make a statement with regard to this policy. Then he issued a press release. Surely he is prepared to read that press release in the house and table it so that it may become a parliamentary document? Surely a statement in this house should prevail over a press release?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The press release should not be developed into an historic document. It was merely a copy of the reply I made to the moderator of the United Church. The telegram from the moderator has been made public and I felt that the reply ought to be made public, too. It was made public in the form of a press release. I would be delighted to table copies of the press release. I believe they have been made available, but I will be delighted to table them.



CRIMINAL CODE


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
In view of the great number of requests from thousands of Canadians of all classes and religions, would the Prime Minister look into the possibility of calling a referendum on the famed omnibus bill?



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: I have a question for the Minister of Regional and Economic Expansion, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister now inform the house when an announcement may be expected concerning the proposed regional development program for Newfoundland

I hope the hon. gentleman does not think I said "Prince Edward Island" this time-bearing in mind the serious financial difficulties facing that province? I ask this question in all sincerity because this is a very critical situation.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has asked his question.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister is ready, now, to answer the question I put to him. Perhaps I could repeat it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I gather the minister is now ready to reply to the question put to him by the hon. member a few moments ago. I assume he heard it.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, my
department is in constant touch with the Newfoundland government to find the best ways possible of helping the province and promoting its economic development.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: am glad to know the minister is alert to this serious problem. My supplementary question is based on a statement made in Newfoundland yesterday by the premier of that province to the effect that if he does not get some
May 1. 1969

action from the minister and from the department soon he will withdraw his support of the Liberal party-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not the first time he has said that.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: Can the minister assure us that when he does arrive at the nature of the program of development for Newfoundland he will honour the house with his statement first, before giving it to Canada's only living war lord of Confederation?



AIR CANADA


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: have a question for the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. In view of the reported suggestion by one of the parties concerned that the Department of Labour be the catalyst initiating future talks concerning the Air Canada dispute, would the minister tell us whether he intends to follow this suggestion in order that the parties may resume negotiations as soon as possible?


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: As I have indicated on one or two occasions the Department of Labour would be very pleased to be a medium of communication through which both parties could resume negotiations. The appropriate time however at which to resume these negotiations, and the moment at which I intend to provide this medium of communication, is when both sides have convinced me, either privately or in writing, that such talks would be fruitful. In other words, if both parties retain such rigid positions as they have so far shown on monetary issues, talks at this moment would in my opinion serve no purpose.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Has the minister received requests from the parties concerned to set a time for continuing negotiations?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: There has been no formal request either from union or management for any assistance from the Department of Labour since the talks broke off last Sunday. If they were to contact me I would be very pleased, but I reiterate to them that it is no use having talks unless there is some modification by both sides of the positions they established so firmly on Sunday evening.
Inquiries of the Ministry CONSUMER AFFAIRS



HEARING AIDS-INQUIRY AS TO AVAILABILITY OF REPORT

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: My question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Nearly two weeks ago I directed to the minister a question prompted by the action of an Ontario judge in convicting a hearing aid dealer for defrauding the public by selling $45 hearing aids for $360. I inquired when the minister's investigation into the hearing aid racket would be completed. In the minister's absence the question was taken as notice by his Parliamentary Secretary. I wonder whether the hon. gentleman is now ready to answer.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: As I indicated in a written answer to a question on the order paper, I hoped to have a report ready by June. However, I am now advised that I shall probably not receive it by June due to the large number of associations and groups organized on behalf of the hard of hearing, which wanted to submit briefs and prepare submissions for consideration by the people working on the report.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister.
Since he would not even consider replying to the question asked by the hon. member for Temiscamingue, can he tell us whether a referendum on the omnibus bill would have the same effect as the one that was held by his excellent friend the former President of the French republic?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question is hypothetical and therefore out of order.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)



CANADA DAY


Mr. Colin Gibson (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. In view of the urgent need to advance national unity and display our Canadian flag, will the Secretary of State announce a holiday in June or July to be

May 1, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry known as Canada Day, as requested by Kinsmen's Clubs and other agencies throughout Canada?



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In the water act that is to be brought in shortly, is it the intention of the government to include provisions concerning pollution control?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, it is our intention to bring the water act into the house for first reading before the end of the session. Hon. members will then see what government policy has seen fit to include in the measure.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A supplementary question. Does the government intend in one way or another to take the lead in a pollution control program for this country?



IMMIGRATION


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whil-by):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration arising from an earlier answer he gave. Do I take it from the minister's answer that he would be glad to appear before the Labour, Manpower and Immigration committee to answer any suggestion that this negates his earlier commitment to the house to submit a statement to it based on his current review of immigration policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question appears to me to be an argument, but perhaps the minister might like to reply to it to the extent that it is a question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to appear before the committee and subject myself to any questions. That does not rule out the possibility of a statement being made in the house when the review that I have undertaken has been examined and a decision reached by the government.


John Edward Broadbent: A further supplementary question. Could the minister indicate with any degree of precision when this review will be completed?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: My hon. friend knows that reviews have uncertain terminal dates.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In a recent speech made in Seattle the Minister of Fisheries suggested that each nation's authority over its commercial fishing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that too many members are getting into the habit of prefacing their questions with references to statements made outside the house or reported in the press. According to the rules, questions have to be asked directly. If hon. members would go to the trouble of reading the precedents, particularly Beauchesne, as to the form questions ought to take, they would see it is out of order and not in proper form to ask questions in this way. The hon. member should ask his question directly.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of the pronouncement of the Minister of Fisheries, has the Secretary of State for External Affairs made representations to the United Nations in support of a continental shelf fisheries policy?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of the law of the sea in all its aspects is before the United Nations in various committees. There the Canadian point of view was expressed on a number of questions. The question of jurisdiction over fisheries, as the hon. member knows, is now a very active one in Canada. Indeed, the Minister of Fisheries has proposed that there should be some new laws and international approaches to this subject, and I hope that they will get widespread support, including the support of hon. members opposite.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question. Is it the minister's intention to make representations to the Warsaw meeting of the 14-country international commission on the northwest Atlantic fisheries, which meets in June,
May 1. 1969

requesting support tor a continental shelf fisheries policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If we are dealing with an event which will take place in the month of June, I would think that the question might be placed on the order paper.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, since the minister has been speaking about activity, I wonder when we may expect the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to announce the appointment of the commission relating to prices which was forecast as long ago as last December and about which I have asked umpteen times in the house, but with no result?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as I have said a number of times, I welcome the interest and support of the Leader of the Opposition in regard to this commission, which I hope to announce shortly.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Hyl Chappell (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. To further speed up the processing of passport applications, would he take advantage of the availability of students for summer employment and place the department temporarily on a two or three shift basis?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have been talking with the administration about measures of this kind. There are some very real difficulties involved, because of the limitations on a number of key personnel, in the proposal to have shifts. We have already moved to an overtime basis and I have asked the director to consider whether he could move to at least a two shift basis. This is under serious consideration.


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, today is May Day and I should like to address my question to the Prime Minister. It arises from the May Day message of His Holiness Pope Paul VI, calling upon civil governments
Inquiries of the Ministry everywhere to seek to stop the exploitation of man by man. Has the Prime Minister sufficient feeling about this matter to want to respond in some appropriate way?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have sufficient feeling about it to respond, and I hope that we will have the support of the hon. member's party when we take further steps to open up negotiations with Vatican representatives.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether his comment a moment ago indicates that the government of Canada has decided to proceed with an exchange of representatives with the Vatican.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the house knows, we opened this question for debate some months ago in this country and have received representations from all sides. What I indicated a moment ago was that I welcomed this additional support from the N.D.P.


James Aloysius McGrath: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister what is the score in this debate at the present time?


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Did Canada receive a note from the United States expressing strong reservations with regard to Canada's intention to open relations with China, and was that note replied to by the minister or any official of the government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in reply to a similar question, I would have to check the records. The Secretary of State of the United States made oral representations to me and I gave the Canadian government point of view. Even if such representations did exist, I would not table them, of course; they would be privileged documents.


Robert Muir: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister be so kind as to check the records, as he suggested, and to advise the house and the Canadian people?
8212	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry tTranslation]


[Stage Direction]
REPRESENTATIONS about abortion and HOMOSEXUALITY
Mr. Andre Foriin (Loibiniere):: I would like to put a question to the Prime Minister. Did he receive a petition signed by more than 70,000 family heads concerning abortion and homosexuality?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I did not receive such a petition, Mr. Speaker, for the whole debate is taking place in the house. In my opinion, the members were elected to represent the people and it is their duty to express their views.


André-Gilles Fortin: I would like to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As it is very likely that the Prime Minister will receive this petition, does he intend to read it at least?


[Stage Direction]
APPOINTMENT OF OMBUDSMAN Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and it is direct. When does the minister expect to introduce legislation to establish the office of ombudsman? I ask him now because yesterday an ombudsman was appointed in Quebec and last week one was appointed in Hawaii. I think the federal government should follow suit.
Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member certainly gets around. The whole review of the rights of the citizen against the administration and the bureaucracy is being pursued actively by the department from the point of view of administrative law and the structure to implement it. I cannot add anything more at present.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General. Did his recently appointed design advisory committee advise him on the department's current official cancellation message which notes the 20th anniversary of NATO, or did this commemoration stem directly and solely from the minister's enthusiasm?

DEBATES	May 1, 1969



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and is supplementary to others which have been asked this afternoon. Considering the seriousness of the minister's charge, that the moderator of the United Church of Canada has indulged in irresponsibilities, and in view of the minister's offer to appear before the committee when his estimates are considered, would he also favour an invitation being extended to Dr. McClure, so that he may appear before that committee as well?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, that is up to the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I asked whether the minister would favour the invitation being given.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio from Port Arthur relating to questions already asked on several occasions. In view of the serious situation that has developed in attempts to obtain new legislation dealing with Indians, who are reluctant and hesitant about accepting legislation prepared by the government, would the minister and his colleagues1 consider making use of Standing Order 68 (1) which provides that a bill may be introduced upon a motion to appoint a committee to prepare and bring it in? If the Indian people are given an opportunity to be consulted and to engage in research, we might be able to bring forward legislation within a short time by this means.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, part of the review is consideration of the best methods of providing opportunities for consultation between the parties. The hon. member's suggestion is worthy and will be given full consideration.
May 1, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	8213
Inquiries of the Ministry
CANADIAN BROADCASTING	the ability to make judgments and decisions
CORPORATION	on their own.



&quot;DON MESSER'S JUBILEE&quot;-STATEMENT BY MINISTER OUTLINING REASONS FOR DISCONTINUANCE

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Has the C.B.C. decided to stop fiddling around and leave that to a master entertainer?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I had a conversation with officials of the C.B.C. and I can now state the reply. It is that the C.B.C.'s decision to discontinue the program on the nation-wide network was made after a careful review of several factors, including the diminishing size and nature of the program's audience, the desirability of change to improve the over-all schedule and the potential of the program "Singalong Jubilee" from Halifax which will have a more flexible format. While the C.B.C. recognizes the great contribution made by the Don Messer program over the years, it feels that the proposed change is in the best interest of the over-all network schedule. That was the C.B.C.'s answer, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.



COMMUNICATIONS


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General. Does his department intend to make representations to the Canadian Transport Commission and bring to its attention the failure of Bell Telephone to limit its profit to the 6.8 per cent authorized by the Board of Transport Commissioners, or will it ask Bell to reduce the rates it charges customers?


Eric William Kierans: No, Mr. Speaker.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister's department oppose the application of Bell Telephone to the Canadian Transport Commission to increase its profit margin to 9 per cent?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, the C.T.C. was given power by this house. It is the appropriate body to make decisions. Its members have


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister of Communications not consider that he has a responsibility to the house and to this country to see that the order of the Board of Transport Commissioners is carried out?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the question as asked is argumentative.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I put the question another way. Since the profit margin for Bell Telephone has been set at 6.8 per cent, does the minister intend to take any action about that ceiling being violated?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, parliament has entrusted the Canadian Transport Commission with power, authority and responsibility in this matter. If the house wishes to take away that power and responsibility I suppose an appropriate bill would have to be introduced.



REQUEST FOR PERSONNEL OF COMMITTEE INQUIRING INTO NON-MEDICAL USES

Mr. R. L. Whiling (Hallon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the: Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is he now in a position to name the members of the commission who are to study the use and abuse of drugs?


Mr. Maclnnis:: He ought to be.


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker, not at the moment. The government is actually considering the membership of the inquiry. I hope in the near future to be in a position to advise the hon. member and the house about the composition of the committee of inquiry.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It relates to the statement he made on Tuesday about a program to provide summer employment for students. Are steps being taken to allocate students for farm assistance to offset the shortage created by the cut-back in foreign students who would otherwise be

May 1, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry available under the auspices of the International Exchange Association?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we have continued the agricultural exchange program but we have reduced the numbers involved because we want to provide employment opportunities for Canadian students. The concrete step we are taking is to make these job offers that become available first to our Canadian students so that they will have the first chance.



EXTERNAL AID


Mr. Lome Nysfrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of reports of increased starvation in Biafra resulting from the fall of the city of Umuahia and in light of indications that there is likely to be a long war, has the government of Canada any new proposals to alleviate the increased starvation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member is asking for a rather general statement. We have almost reached the end of the question period. Perhaps the hon. member might put his question in such a way as to invite the minister to make a statement on another occasion.


Mr. Rene Mafte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice but I see that he just left his seat.



AIR CANADA


Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour which is supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacEwan) relating to the Air Canada strike. Will the minister say whether he has received letters and telegrams from the Canadian people asking him to take action on the strike, and settle it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the question as asked is proper. I do not think it is proper to ask simply whether

the minister has received letters, telegrams or representations.


William Warren Allmand: May I rephrase the question, Mr. Speaker?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I received three telegrams suggesting that I join the New Democratic party, one suggesting that I was a communist, three others, I believe, suggesting compulsory arbitration, and several serious telegrams from other groups of people. Certain union groups within Air Canada are protesting the use of non-union personnel within the company. That, I think, is hardly conducive to good industrial relations for the future within the company.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Are
we to take it from the minister's answer, Mr. Speaker, that he will be activated and stimulated in proportion to the number of letters and telegrams he receives from Canadians in such a national emergency?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It will take more than a telegram to get me to join the N.D.P.



THE MINISTRY


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Is he now prepared to appoint the hon. member for York West to the cabinet?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member has asked that question. It is such a refreshing change from the endless questions he has asked about Devco. I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition and the friends of the United Mine Workers have finally exercised greater control over the members of the Conservative party, particularly the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. I understand the union has scorned his destructive attitude toward-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago Your Honour suggested a proper course of conduct to a member of the opposition. I suggest the answer given by the Prime Minister was possibly amusing-I do not know.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Did you think the question was serious?
May 1, 1969


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I was about to rise at the time Your Honour made the suggestion to the hon. member to suggest very seriously that ministers and the Prime Minister might set an example to the rest of us in the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister asking whether my question was serious or not? If he does not think the appointment of the hon. member for York West is a serious matter and if he does not believe me, then he should ask the member for York West.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question period expired some moments ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to add to the point of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition. I do so by drawing Your Honour's attention to a portion of Standing Order 39(1). It deals with this question and I quote an important part of it:
-but in putting any such question or in replying to the same no argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the same;-
I submit that Your Honour is perfectly right in calling on members who ask questions to comply with that part of the Standing Order, and I think ministers should be asked to do the same.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether there is any point in pursuing the matter much further? It is obvious the rules apply to members on both sides of the house, either members of the opposition or members on the government side asking questions of ministers. I am sure hon. members realize that the rules, and particularly the rule referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, apply to cabinet ministers. I thank hon. members who from day to day try to assist the Chair respecting this rule.



TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS


James Aloysius McGrath: Before the orders of the day are called, Mr. Speaker, would you permit me to direct a question to the government house leader concerning the business of the house? In view of the fact that the motions for concurrence have not been passed by the house in regard
Business of Supply
to two reports, the fifth and sixth, of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications and, more particularly, as the Transport and Communications Committee has not met since early last week, will the government house leader inform the house when he intends to bring forward these two measures for debate?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, it is of obvious importance to the house and parliament generally for the current debate on Bill C-150 to be brought to an end. The equivalent of 15 sitting days has been devoted to the second reading and report stage of the omnibus bill. Until the filibuster on this matter can be brought to an end, it is impossible to plan any of the future business of the house for the balance of this session.


James Aloysius McGrath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, each time this question is directed to the government house leader he refers to a filibuster. It is a legitimate debate. I remind the house leader that many Liberal members have participated in that debate, as well as members of the opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think we should call orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. H. W. Danforlh (Kent-Essex) moved:: That in the opinion of this house the government has failed to deal with the seriously deteriorating net income for Canadian agriculture, as a result of which farmers in all parts of Canada are unable to obtain the necessary operating capital to finance the 1969-70 crop year.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, before the debate begins I wish to advise Your Honour there have been discussions among members with regard to the course of conduct of this debate. I am happy to propose now for the consideration of the house an amendment to the appropriate Standing Order so that the length of speeches would be limited in this way: The first speaker for each party to have 20 minutes and thereafter each speaker to be limited to 10 minutes. This would permit a wider participation in the debate. I am sure it would not

May 1, 1969
Business of Supply
detract from the strength and value of the debate. It may well be that the house will accept this proposal.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I take it that the members of the opposition would like to hear from my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, at some length with respect to the government's proposals. I wonder whether the proposed amendment could be amended by stipulating that the minister might be given the opportunity to speak for 40 minutes and otherwise the rule would apply as suggested by the hon. member?


Gerald William Baldwin: I recognize the seriousness of the subject, but this proposal would probably prevent three members of the minister's own party from having the opportunity to speak. The whole purpose is to have wider participation. I am sure the minister would be glad to give members of his party who would be brave enough to participate in the debate an opportunity to say what he otherwise would have said in the additional 30 minutes.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I misunderstood the motion. My understanding was that the opposition wanted to hear the government's proposals in this regard. I regret the fact that my colleague is not to be given the extra time.


Gerald William Baldwin: He is entitled to 30 minutes in the debate as the Standing Order is now. Surely he can contract the 30 minutes to 20 minutes. This is all we are asking. If this cannot be accepted, the proposition must fail.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The Minister of Agriculture is prepared to agree to this. I must say I regret that his time is to be cut down in this way, but we are prepared to agree.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to those concerned in this part of the house. Could we agree on 30 minutes for the first spokesman of the Conservative Party, 30 minutes for the minister, 20 minutes for the spokesmen of the other two parties and 10 minutes for the balance of the speakers?


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, the motion of non-confidence before the house this afternoon was not drafted without a great deal of serious consideration of all of its implications. Certainly there is no conceivable op-

portunity to defeat the government with its numerical superiority in the house at this time. But if the motion serves to draw to Your Honour's attention and that of hon. members opposite the very serious plight of all segments of the agricultural industry today, it will have served its purpose.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I am supported in moving this motion, Mr. Speaker, by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam). The reason I asked for his support, which was granted quite eagerly, was to emphasize that this problem exists in all parts of Canada, from the east coast to the west coast. It is a problem on which public attention has been focused because of the dire position of the wheat growers and grain growers of western Canada and of the farmers of eastern Canada, but the economic problem is not confined to them.
I was rather alarmed, indeed shocked, to learn when travelling in the west that a minister or ministers of the Crown in meeting with farmers there had implied that one of the reasons no solutions were being put forward by the government to alleviate the farmers' economic problems was that they could not obtain the understanding, the consideration or the sympathy of eastern Canada. I reject that theory in its entirety. It is the old one of divide and conquer. We in eastern Canada are very much aware of the problems in the west. The only major difference is that many farmers in the west are unable to dispose of their crops while farmers in eastern Canada, although they can sell their crops, in many instances must sell them below the cost of production. Therefore Canadian farmers in general are directly concerned with the government's agricultural policy, and they have every right to be concerned because it directly affects their livelihood.
Many grave criticisms have been expressed by leaders of agricultural groups about the lack of policy of the government, about the confused policies of the government, about agricultural policies that seem to be working toward opposite ends. Surely after almost seven years in office the government should be able to indicate to the great agricultural industry where it thinks its place should be in our economic life, what its long-term and short-term goals should be, and what the future is for the young Canadian farmer. These are questions that should be answered.
May 1, 1969

But whenever questions have been asked in the house over the last few months by members of opposition parties we have heard the old refrain that agriculture has never had it so good, that production has increased, that many new products are being produced, that the gross national income is higher than it has ever been, that inventories on farms are at their highest in history. And then there was the ridiculous observation by a former minister of agriculture when he attempted to indicate how good things were for Canadian farmers by saying that never before had the farmers of this nation borrowed so much money.
In answering these allegations I draw the attention of hon. members opposite to the steady parade of farmers to the banks and other lending institutions, seeking money not only to run their operations but to live on and to clothe and educate their families. I draw the attention of hon. members opposite to the growing total of accounts receivable held by business firms dealing with farmers. I draw their attention to the rural and weekly newspapers where they will find page after page after page of paid announcements of sales of farm machinery and livestock by countless farmers who have simply said, "We have had enough and we must get out." I draw their attention to the drop in sales experienced by businesses connected with farming, to the drop in sales of fertilizer in certain areas, to the drop in sales of new farm machinery, new farm equipment, chemicals and all the other things that are normal to the agricultural business. Surely the farmers of this nation deserve an indication from the government either that they are no longer considered a viable part of the Canadian economy or that the government will take its full responsibility toward them by saying, "We feel you are indispensable; we will take the responsibility of providing an economic climate for you that will enable you to derive from your capital investment and labour a return comparable with that received by all other segments of the economy."
To indicate the tremendous confusion in the government's approach to agriculture I shall deal with a few specific commodities. I shall not deal with wheat and feed grains because some of my colleagues and members of other parties no doubt will do so. As an example, look at the dairy industry. Here is an industry in which there is a tremendous investment. By its very nature it must be considered in the context of a long-term economic plan, but
Business of Supply
within the last five years we have had five separate and distinct government policies for that industry.
We have a National Dairy Commission whose sole purpose seems to be to curtail Canadian production so that it will just meet the demands of our domestic market. But when we travel across the country we see thousands of pounds of imported butter simply because some sections of the country are unable to provide for their own needs. A quota system was set up that was supposed to put farmers on an equal basis from coast to coast. But quotas totalling millions of pounds have now been transferred from the west, an area that does not produce all its own dairy requirements, to eastern Canada where we normally produce more than we consume. This does not seem justifiable, practical or reasonable. In addition, the way subsidies are being implemented means that many small dairy businesses are being forced out of business, and it is becoming financially impossible for a young farmer to enter that business.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
What about the greenhouse industry? We had a pronouncement by the minister that this industry was in difficulty and that people should be encouraged to leave it. We are not dealing with just hundreds of thousands of dollars in this industry. We are dealing with an industry in which millions of dollars are invested. This industry was based on government action. The fact that the government has not placed tariffs against the importation of specialized food has made it practically impossible economically for the industry to develop in a profitable way. In its desire to have cheaper food and bring down the cost of living the government is jeopardizing this entire industry.
What about the tobacco industry? Here we have a multi-million dollar industry which has brought untold wealth to the provinces in which this product is grown. We have the impossible situation of one government department spending thousands of dollars in experimental work in order to increase production and quality while another department of the government issues propaganda designed to stop the use of this product and curtail the industry. Here the government has a golden opportunity. By shifting its emphasis in research, surely to goodness it could provide methods by which, if there are dangerous components in tobacco, they could be removed to the benefit of the industry, the government and the people.

May 1. 1969
Business of Supply
What about the poultry industry? In Canada we have a poultry industry which is endeavouring by the organization of national commissions to regiment and control the marketing of its produce in an orderly fashion. This is being done at the request of the provincial and federal governments. We know right now that, unless the government proposes to change its policy, importations of poultry, eggs and other allied products will flood into this country from other nations and take up any slack in our market.
Let us look at the canning industry. We had a strong viable canning industry from coast to coast. We were proud of the quality of the pack and proud of the fact that the industry provided an income for hundreds of farmers and their families in almost every province of this nation. What has happened? The government has allowed the importation, especially of fruits and some vegetables, into this country to a degree that is forcing the industry right out of business. We are told that we must allow this because of our agreements and tariff commitments. The fact is that the government in every instance has failed to take any step to protect Canadian industry.
It is not good enough to make excuses. It is not good enough to procrastinate until the damage is done. It is not good enough to come into the house and say, "We cannot, because". I point out that every nation in the world today with excess products is selling them and a lot of this surplus is coming into Canada. Surely it is time we took our place among the trading nations of the world and traded on our terms and not just on their terms.
There was a task force hearing. Government policy was held up because we were to have a congress to which the task force would report. I have a great deal of admiration for the work the task force has done. I compliment those responsible for setting up the congress and for the manner in which the meetings where carried on. One thing that disturbs me, however, is the fact that the task force seemed to be directed wholly to the one proposition of getting the government completely out of agriculture and letting it stand on its own feet.
I have before me a book about the size of Eaton's or Simpsons-Sears fall and winter catalogue. It contains 385 pages devoted entirely to the government's involvement in agriculture. Now we see at all levels of government a move toward complete abandonment. We are now at cross-purposes. We

heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) get up in the house and announce a change in hog premiums. This was good; it was asked for by the industry. We were told it was designed to increase the quality of hogs in Canada. It was acceptable and reasonable. I take issue with it, however, because within 90 days the minister announced another policy which was not based on the report of the task force and was not announced after the congress met. It was not done in consultation with the industry. It was designed solely not to increase the efficiency of the hog producers but simply to save the government X million dollars for no other reason than that it wished to have nothing to do with the agricultural industry.
This brings me to the subject of tariffs. It has always been a source of amazement to me and to other hon. members that whenever a tariff question comes up and one of our industries finds itself in economic chaos the government merely says it is aware of the problem. We are told by members of the government that they have listened to the representations and are in sympathy with them but cannot do anything. They tell us there are agreements and that we must wait upon the Gatt threaty. We have to wait for its conclusion, we have to wait for its inception, we have to wait for its deliberations. We must wait. This is not good enough.
Last fall we were involved with the problem of Ontario corn. That was a serious situation. Of course the industry made representations and I must say, in all fairness, that the minister was most sympathetic. But for nine weeks the minister took no action. It is true that he caused meetings to be held. He did confer with officials in the United States where the corn was coming from which was causing us trouble. The minister made a deal with the United States whereby in exchange for the dropping of the duty on seven tariff items coming into Canada they would undertake to protect us from importation of cheap corn. Seven to one-that was not good enough. What the farmers and the people of the nation did not know was that the implementation of this protection in respect of corn would only be in effect for seven weeks. As of January 1 it expired. We are right back where we were. Unless action is taken immediately we will be in the same trouble this year.
Let us compare this situation with the actions other nations take against us. Whenever we encroach on the privileges and
May 1, 1969

rights of producers of other nations they do not wait weeks or months; they do not even wait for hours. When we go into their markets we find that, with perhaps an eight-hour warning, conditions are changed and we are faced with a tariff increase which means an almost complete ban on importation of our products. We on this side contend that it cannot always be that way. We believe that trade must be a two-way street. If we are treated in this fashion, surely we have the right to treat others in the same way. Why must our farmers always pay for the mistakes of others in respect of international agreements?
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I now come to the matter of credit. The only policy of any major proportion which the government has initiated in its entire life has been the increasing of credit to farmers. The increase of credit to farmers does not solve any of our major problems. All it does is increase their debt, increase land values, increase the value of the machinery they must buy, and place them in a position in which it is almost impossible to survive. And what does the government do? After initiating greater credit it established a policy, as it indicated in the house and at the congress, to put off the land what is calls inefficient and small farmers. Such a policy defeats the purpose for which credit was initiated in the first place.
Syndicate loans were supposed to be the answer. We were going to have larger corporate farms subsidized by government money which would be used to establish viable economic units. What does the implementation of the new estate tax do? It takes away the farmer's incentive to build up a corporate farm. This is why the farmers of this nation have no confidence in the government. This is why the farmers of this nation say that the government has no policy, or a confused policy. This is why the farmers of this nation cannot and will not make any money under these conditions. Surely the time is now for the government to act. Surely the government knows what is going on in the west and what is going on in the east. It knows how bad farmers' credit ratings are.
The farmers of this nation are sick to death of investigations, delegations, deliberations, conversations, and procrastination. Is it not time that we had some legislation? Even hon. members opposite must realize how serious the situation is and how urgent it is that solutions be applied now. This must be done
Business of Supply
if a great segment of the Canadian economy is not to fall into economic chaos and fade into oblivion. I commend this motion to hon. members.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, on completion of what I wish to say in the new few minutes I will propose an amendment to the motion now before the house. But first I should like to say that I agree with the motion. I think it is time that we had a full discussion of the situation of Canadian farmers. The government and members on this side of the house must seriously consider the situation of the farmers, what is to be their place in the affairs of the nation and, perhaps even more important, whether some segments of the industry will have a place as owner-producers in this country.
One of the most important documents dealing with the situation of farmers in Canada was prepared by a group set up by the government of Ontario. Its title was, "The Challenge of Abundance". The challenge of abundance is really the challenge that faces the people of this nation in regard to farming and agriculture as we come to the end of the 1960's and in a few months move into the 1970's1. The problem is not that the farmer is unable to produce food as cheaply as he did 30 years ago. The fact of the matter is that he produces it for much less in terms of real and constant dollars. It is not that he does not have the know-how and the savvy. He is second to none anywhere in the world in his know-how, savvy, and understanding of the land, of the tools he uses, and of the economic climate in which he operates.
The real problem is to be found in the heading of the report to which I have referred-the challenge of abundance. The real problem is what our society is going to do with the knowledge, the know-how, the resources and the people we have at our beck and call. It is they who make us potentially one of the best fed nations in the world. I do not say that this is true for every Canadian. I suspect that as. I speak here this afternoon there are millions of Canadians who do not have all the food they want and all the proteins they need for their health. I suppose that there are many expectant mothers who do not have the food that is essential for their health. I suppose there are many children in this country who are not as well fed as those who live in well to do, middle class, homes. So there is this contrast. I will in no way

May 1, 1969
Business of Supply
attempt to describe what is happening in other parts of the world.
What is happening to our farmers as we face this challenge of abundance? One of the first things that happened after I came here as a member of the house last fall was the arrival of an array of tractors in front of the House of Commons, driven by the corn growers of Ontario. I spoke to some of their owners who were large producers. They do not lack the know-how with regard to the production of corn. What they sadly lack is a net income which would enable them to continue to operate effectively as producers.
As the previous speaker said, a solution has not been found. The representatives of the com growers are still making requests to appear before the Standing Committee on Agriculture to state their position. I am sure they would not want to spend the time and effort to come here to appear before that committee unless their problems still existed. I suspect that in southern Ontario there is a a time bomb that will go off one of these days right in the lap of the government. Perhaps I am wrong; we will wait and see.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The Standing Committee on Agriculture has just returned from a trip to western Canada. We travelled right across that western land to Vancouver Island and we had an opportunity to see what was happening in the western part of this nation. I hope that in due course we shall do the same in the east. What did we see? We saw the same situation that was described in the Ontario report concerning the state of affairs in Ontario. We saw evidence of the challenge of abundance. People came before us representing the farming industry. Farmers came before us. I suspect that the tree fruits industry of British Columbia could produce a great deal more than it is producing at present. But the industry has organized supply management and is successfully maintaining a level of income for its people. We talked to very efficient egg producers. One of them had a blackboard upon which he put his costs. I believe the facts he put before us were true. I have been on many farms; he looked to me like an honest, family farm operator. He showed he was losing two cents a dozen on every dozen of eggs he moved off his farm.
We went to other places. We saw a barn with the number "8" on it. It was part of a factory operation. New forms of agriculture are developing today; we are moving into a

phase of factory operations. We were told about one concern which had plansi to move to the coast and set up a factory designed to produce 25,000 hogs per year. Mr. Speaker, we need a factory operation to produce hogs in Canada like we need a hole in the head. Farmers in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec and the Maritimes have shown they are entirely capable of producing the amount of pork needed in Canada.
Then we came back and looked at the prairies. The house has been told of the situation which exists on the prairies. We split up into groups and went from farm to farm. We saw the actual situation there, not statistics.-[DOT] wheat piling up and not being moved to markets, farmers with inadequate incomes whose financial position made it doubtful that they could go ahead and put in another crop. What is worse, they really did not know what they should put in, what would be demanded of them by the people of Canada or the markets of the world. These farmers are operating in a no man's land so far as policy is concerned. The big question was: Where do we go from here?
I spoke of the challenge of abundance. I am convinced that we must develop a policy as a people which does not leave our farmers in a never-never-land wondering what their future is to be. I have often expressed concern about farm credit policies and the means by which young people can take up farming. But really, Mr. Speaker, the primary question is: Why should they? What is their future likely to be? Is it certain or uncertain? This is the real problem. The government and the people of Canada must realize that there is an emergency on the prairies as well as a situation which calls for long-term planning. The government must recognize that it cannot leave the problem as it now exists unanswered or regard it simply as a piece of unfinished business. We must produce both emergency and long-term solutions. Indeed, we have no choice.
The least we can do at the moment is establish a two-price system for wheat sold on the domestic market for human consumption so that farmers may receive a minimum of $3 per bushel for all wheat used in Canada for human consumption, and provide that the premium per bushed received over and above the International Grains Agreement price in the current crop year be distributed to all permit holders on the basis of the unit quota. This would at least recognize the fact that the grain farmer is a part of this nation and
May 1, 1969

entitled to treatment at least as good as that accorded to industry, which is protected by tariffs, or to the dairy industry which is protected by subsidies.
In addition, I believe we must recognize there is an emergency that must be dealt with immediately. Cash has to go into the hands of these farmers if they are to carry on business and if the social structure is not to collapse- I am thinking of the schools, roads and churches in the small communities of western Canada. There is much more at stake here than simply the livelihood and business operations of individual farmers.
The president of the Saskatchewan Farmers' Union stated in the west last week that it would take $175 million in federal aid to prevent the collapse of the grain industry in western Canada. I suspect he is right but I do not expect that the government will make such an amount available. I would have to be a flaming optimist to do so, having lived in the west and having watched this government for some time.
Nevertheless I should like to place before the house and the government the concrete proposal that as an emergency measure the government immediately make to all grain farmers an income deficiency payment of 20 cents a bushel on all wheat marketed in the 1967-68 grain crop year so as to put purchasing power in the hands of the farmers of western Canada. The maximum amount which any farmer might receive would be based on a 5,000 bushel delivery to the Canadian Wheat Board in the crop year to which I have referred. This policy should apply also to oats and barley in cases where a grower has delivered these grains rather than wheat.
This would not be enough but it would certainly help to meet the situation which is now at crisis point. I see in this chamber some of the men who toured Saskatchewan from farm to farm during the trip we made in the west, and they will surely agree with me. In the long term we shall be obliged to look at different solutions. We shall have to assess what the market actually is and study the channels open to us for the disposal of our wheat. I believe we should move away from the straight commercial approach we have followed up to now and turn to bilateral sales, to barter.
We must find out who needs this food and devise ways by which it may reach them. This means right here in Canada, in my book, and it applies also to those who live beyond our borders but who are none the less part of
Business of Supply
the human race. Hitler is supposed to have said that if he won the war and isolated North America, the people there would smother in their own fat. Unless we look outside our borders, we may do this. We are rich. But even rich people do not live alone; they have a host of other people to cater to their needs and serve them.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
We must also be very concerned about the policy of the Canadian Dairy Commission in regard to the small dairy producers. Their needs are being neglected. They are being squeezed out. I have received letters from producers in my constituency asking for consideration of their problem, but according to the replies I have received from the commission this type of producer cannot be assisted under the regulations. I say to the government: This is not good enough.
I know one small grain producer in western Canada who is also a cow-calf man who produces some calves that go to feed lots in western Canada. He has to depend on his returns from the cream industry as well as from his calves in order to survive. Yet this state of affairs in western Canada today is being ignored. Representatives of the government of Manitoba attended one of the meetings of the standing committee and claimed that dairy producers were being discriminated against, that quotas were being transferred east.


Mr. Harding:: The minister denies it but it is true.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: He may deny it. I am not
interested in where quotas are transferred to. What interests me is that the needs of this type of producer are being totally ignored by the dairy commission. The minister must remember that western Canada does not have a one-crop economy; there are cattle farms, livestock farms, grain farms and mixed farms. The Meadow Lake area is not just a grain producing area; neither is Saskatoon-Biggar. Let the government remember this and look at farming in its totality instead of following the bits and pieces approach that has unfortunately been taken up to now.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), the following subamendment:
That the motion be amended by inserting therein, immediately after the words "Canadian agriculture," the following words:
"which in the prairie provinces is due in the main to declining grain prices and reduced delivery quotas."

May 1, 1969
Business of Supply [Translation]


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on the non-confidence motion of the Progressive Conservative party, which reads as follows:
That in the opinion of this house the government has failed to deal with the seriously deteriorating net income of Canadian agriculture-
I would also like to talk about the amendment of the New Democratic party which refers to the situation of agriculture in the Prairies.
I shall deal with the subject in general, while acknowledging the merits of the amendment of the New Democratic party. The subject is a current issue in our regions. Had it been possible, we would have liked to add the following words to the amendment: and has neglected to recognize the right of farmers to be consulted about government policies which are always arrived at unilaterally.
As soon as the dairy policy of the current year was announced, I warned the minister that it would give rise to protests.
Today, Mr. Speaker, since our allotted time is 20 minutes, I will not refer to certain notes which I had jotted down, in order to deal exclusively with the protests. I will speak only about the farmers of my area.
In my opinion, the government has the obvious proof that the farmers are really unhappy, and rightly so, under the circumstances. We have heard that the farmers' income has decreased. This will not please them. If any producer were dealt with in this manner, strikes would necessarily occur.
Fortunately, farmers are not completely given to protests and do not react as others in various fields. I congratulate them for holding on. I hope that the government will finally review its position and that the commissioners of the Canadian Dairy Commission will take my comments into account, because I note that since the minister's last statements on the farm policy, nothing has changed.
It is impossible to exert any influence on the Canadian Wheat Board, and make it understand that there are some marginal cases. The only thing that matters is the administration of the law.
Mr. Speaker, I think that we shall have to use judgment as far as the interpretation of the legislation is concerned instead of enforcing it indiscriminately. It is rather easy to enforce a legislation; it is more difficult to
[Mr. Gleave.I
interpret it in such a way as to be fair with everyone.
Of course, we are the spokesmen of the farmers. They do send us their complaints. Some among them believe that we have the right to discuss the government policy. I shall point out to them that we do not have any more rights to do so than the back-benchers on the government side. The policy is all settled when it reaches us, without the opposition parties having been consulted. We are obliged to bear with the dictatorship of the department.
Then, when we go into our ridings, we are the ones who get it.
As a matter of fact, I have received so far more than 100 letters. I shall quote a few taken at random. They show not only to the minister but also to the Canadian Dairy Commission-since we are interested in industrial milk-the merits of our recommendations.
This is a letter dated April 18, sent to me by Mr. Jean-Baptiste Laprise, of Albanel, Quebec, and I quote:
Sir, as you have always defended the farmer in the past, I am asking you to do everything possible to intercede with the Prime Minister, Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Olson, who is primarily responsible for the new dairy policy which is for us, farmers, a disaster, an enormous reduction in our income which we cannot accept, considering the increasing cost of living, so that the latter will amend his dairy policy which, in my view, does not make sense.
I have before me another letter, this time from Saint-Felicien, which proves that I got some from almost all parishes. Here is what that letter says, and I quote:
Dear Sir:
Recently, I learned of the new dairy policy of the federal government for the year 1969-70 and I was taken aback by its lack of seriousness.
With the increase-
The letter goes on in the same vein and bears the signature of Mr. Rosaire Lavertu, of Saint-Felicien, Quebec.
I have here another letter, Mr. Lucien Le-clerc, of Albanel, which I shall read also:
Sir:
I am extremely displeased with the new agricultural policy for 1969-
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
A similar letter is signed by Mr. Hilarion Charbonneau, R.R. No. 5, Mistassini.
And another one from Mistassini is signed by Mr. Florent Imbeault, Range No. 4.
May 1, 1969

I am quoting these letters to prove to the minister that protests have been made and if he does not receive any himself I think that I shall send him photostat copies of these letters, for his information.
Here is another letter from Albanel signed by Messrs. Henri and Lionel Marcil, and I quote:
I ask you to support the milk producers and their claims against the dairy policy... of the government.
And finally this one from Girardville, another agricultural centre, and I quote:
Dear Sir:
Now that I have examined the new dairy policy for the year 1969-70, I must tell you that I am very disappointed and I wonder what will become of us.
They want more efficiency on our part and first quality products-*
I have here a three-page letter which does not contain only sweet words, signed by Mr. Maurice Blais, from Albanel, and another from Sainte-Hedwidge, an agricultural area, signed by Messrs. Ulric and Armand Paradis, who protest along the same lines as also do Messrs. Edouard Fortin, Benoit Lavoie and Joseph Bouchard, from Albanel, as well as Mr. Elie Langlois, from Sainte-Hedwidge. They all think it is nonsense to reduce income while the cost of living is spiralling.
Mr. Speaker, the best supporting evidence of my allegations is the meeting held in Saint-Jerome on Monday, April 28, 1969, to which the farmers had invited the area's four members of parliament. The conclusions of that meeting prompted me to direct questions today to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson).
Here is the wording of the document submitted on the occasion of that meeting, and I quote:
To the members of parliament,
The farmers of the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area were simply dismayed upon the announcement of the federal dairy policy for 1969-1970.
Such a policy meant above all for them a reduction of their incomes while almost every day they have to put up with an increase in their production costs or in the cost of living.
They disavow such a policy which they consider backward and discriminatory. The document we submitted today is a working document which we beg you to analyze thoroughly and which, we expect, you will use as a guideline for the steps to be taken in order to amend that policy, to the satisfaction of the manufacturing milk producers of the area, the province and the country.
The Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean farmers are happy that you have agreed to meet them and hear their grievances.
29180-521J
Business of Supply
That document is signed by Xavier Fortin of the Saguenay Federation of C.F.U., Leopold Harvey of the Manufacturing Milk Producers Union, J. Arthur Guay, of the Saguenay Cooperatives, Paul-fimile Gagnon, president of the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean Dairy Co-operative Association.
And we are given tables which show the decrease, for instance, in the production of a farmer who usually produces 50,000 pounds of milk per year. Last year, his gross income was $3,945, whereas this year he will only make $3,735; this represents a loss of $210.
Looking at another table, we see that the producer upon whom a quota of 100,000 pounds is imposed, and who produces 200,000 pounds, will lose $420'. As for the producer whose quota is 250,000 pounds, and who produces 400,000 pounds, he too will lose. Each one of them has added to his herds. For three years now, there has been a clamor over television and radio for economic units, for quality production. That is what our farmers have done.
Today, because our farmers have worked well, they are being punished. The one upon whom a quota of 250,000 pounds was imposed, and who produces 400,000 pounds, will lose $740' this year. The other whose quota is 250,000 pounds, and who produces 350,000 will lose $430.
Mr. Speaker, all these tables were given to us at the meeting last Monday. Those people added the following text to their report:
In the light of those examples, we note that:
1.	The policy ensures a decrease in income for every category of producers, whether they be small, medium or large.
2.	The subsidy quotas remain the same: this penalizes the most productive producer, because his surpluses of milk, above his quota, will cost 52c. to be exported instead of 21c. like last year.
3.	The subsidies remain the same, paralyzing the efforts of the producer who had hoped to increase his production and productivity enough to enable him to live off his farm.
4.	The present policy will eliminate many manufacturing milk producers, but the federal government does not announce any parallel policy allowing the farmer to make a reconversion or, in some cases, to get out of agriculture with any possibilities of integration into the labour market.
5.	The federal government does not care about the farmers or the recommendations made by national agencies representing producers, in the formulation of its policies. For instance, how can the federal government announce a policy designed to assure $4.85 per hundredweight of milk for 1969-70, the same as for 1968-69, when for the same amount of milk the price of finished products remain the same and subsidies are decreased.
Business of Supply

May 1, 1969
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
6.	The present policy gives a good idea of the will of the government to abandon gradually the subsidy policy for manufacturing milk, and without taking any steps to insure maintenance of prices to producers.
7.	The decrease of the subsidy means nothing else but a reduction of the amounts the Agricultural Prices Stabilization Board has decided to affect to the dairy industry.
8 Once more, the federal government has found the means of balancing its budget at the expense of one of the least privileged classes of society, when tremendous expenditures are allowed, because they are allegedly inevitable, for national defence purposes. Agriculture is also an essential sector of the economic life of a country.
9. The federal government allocates only 3 per cent of its budget to agriculture compared to 10 per cent in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, it seems it is high time tor the government, which is always anxious to follow the lead of the United States in the field of agriculture, to do so in this case.
And this year, the federal government finds that 3 per cent is too much and cuts it.
Our position as to the dairy policy of the federal government:
1.	Producers agree on control of their production; they also agree to provide for the needs of the market. They do not accept control without planning, which is cause that often, the best producers give up the job while the less enterprising ones stick to it.
Here is one question among others.
What is the specific purpose of the state when it grants subsidy quotas? Is it trying to arbitrarily discourage producers or to organize production on a rational basis?
2.	We are not against the elimination of a certain number of farmers, but we want those who will remain in business to know where they stand.
And the second question:
What has the federal government done to give orientation to the manufacturing milk producers? And what is your program for the next five (5) years?
3.	We are not against the elimination of a certain number of manufacturing producers.
Those, in some cases, will operate a conversion of their farming and, in other cases, will give up farming. We say that one who has to convert his farming must get satisfactory help to do it.
Mr. Speaker, I have not got the time to read in full this wonderful document because I know that my time is about to expire, but I wish to quote, in conclusion, what is added by the farmers:
We ask for a minimum price of $5.35 per hundred weight of manufacturing milk based on a test of 3.5 pounds of fat. This price represents the $4.85 price announced in 1968-1969, plus a reasonable

percentage taking into account the increase in 1968-1969 of the production costs and the cost of living.
And with these words I end my speech, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity afforded by this debate today for two reasons. First, I think it is useful to have an opportunity provided to members of this house, after they have had a chance of assessing the situation with respect to agriculture, to give the government the benefit of their views as to what kind of policy, taking into account all of the consequences of adopting that policy and what would be most acceptable to the farming community. Second, I think it is useful because it is well for us to give consideration to the substance of the motion in such a way that we put it in perspective.
I know a little about this because I used to sit on the other side of the house. It is very easy to complain about everything without having to assume the responsibility for finding and administering solutions. I do not criticize members of the opposition, farm organizations or anyone else for taking that course, but I think it is fair and reasonable to say that when you have the responsibility for implementing policies you must look at the situation with a slightly different perspective.
At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say I concur in one statement that has been made so far in this debate, namely, the tremendous value of agriculture to the economy. There is no question in anyone's mind about that. We then go to the next stage and try to analyse the problem in sufficient depth so that we understand the root cause of the problem depressing the agricultural economy today.
I noted that the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) borrowed the phrase, "the challenge of abundance", the task force in Ontario. I believe the greatest underlying reason for the present price structure and the low prices of many agricultural commodities in Canada today is the tremendous potential production in almost any commodity. It is so great, that whether it is cereals, dairy products, oil seeds or whatever, if there is an effort on the part of Canadian farmers to produce that product, in a very short time it will be in a surplus position which automatically damages the price structure. For some time after that we then continue to produce against the surplus. There are one or two commodities in the country that
May 1. 1969

are exceptions to that rule, but generally speaking I think it applies.
I am sure hon. members will agree we not only have a tremendous capacity to produce as much as there is effective demand for but substantially more than that. Indeed, this is what has happened in Canada with many commodities. I might also say it is not only in Canada that this has happened. If one looks at the figures compiled recently by the
O.E.C.D., one will see this production pattern taking place, in cereals and dairy products particularly, in many other countries of the world. The serious problem of over-production is also common to many fruits and vegetables. I wanted to say that at the outset, Mr. Speaker, because I do not want anyone to accuse me of saying that the farmers never had it so good. There are problems. We recognize those problems.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The motion this afternoon refers to "the seriously deteriorating net income for Canadian agriculture." It indicates that as a result farmers in all parts of Canada are "unable to obtain the necessary operating capital to finance the 1969-70 crop year." As I said, I think one would be less than realistic if one did not recognize that there are problems of farm income. These problems, of course, must be faced by agriculture from year to year, in many cases from commodity to commodity, depending on certain national aspects of the situation and also on the international context of affairs. However, to assert that farm income has seriously deteriorated and that Canadian farmers will be unable to finance their operations may, I suggest, in relation to recent history, not be quite consistent with the facts.
Unfortunately we do not have net farm income figures from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics for the first quarter of this year. However, we do have those for 1968, or at least we have a preliminary estimate. This estimate indicates that net farm income in Canada for 1968 will be about $170 million more than in 1967. In the absence of data in respect of farm income for the first quarter of this year, perhaps the best indicator of the present position of farmers is current farm prices. I am the first to admit that this is not always directly related to farm income, but I am sure hon. members will realize that there is a relationship. So I would like to place before the house certain information in respect of prices of various farm commodities in
Business of Supply
order that hon. members may judge for themselves whether the income situation is deteriorating in what is claimed is a serious, almost disastrous manner.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, the problem we get into is that I am sure that in any year since Confederation one could single out some commodity in some area, and sometimes more than one commodity in more than one area, and show that there was a very serious situation. But what I am trying to do in the few minutes I have available is to outline the whole of the picture, or as much of it as I can, respecting farm prices so that it will be in perspective.
Dealing first with livestock products, and I deal with them first simply because livestock and livestock products represent a total of 55 per cent of the income of farmers, as of today choice steers were selling in Toronto at $32.50 a hundredweight, up $3 or almost 10 per cent over a month ago, and up $5.20 per hundredweight over a year ago. I do not hear my hon. friends opposite cheering that, and at least that is something positive and good within the economy.


Mr. Korchinslti:: What about wheat?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I will get to wheat in a moment. For Grade A hogs the increases are not as great on a percentage basis but they are still significant. Grade A hogs today at Toronto were quoted at $32.25 compared with $31.08 a month ago, and $27.55 a year ago. This represents an increase over a year ago of $4.70 per hundredweight, or about 17 per cent. Eggs currently are returning 45.5 cents for Grade A to producers-this is at Toronto- compared with 33.5 cents on May 1, 1968.


Stanley James Korchinski: Not in Saskatchewan.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not know whether the hon. member for Mackenzie is very interested in agriculture, Mr. Speaker, but at least he should keep his peace long enough so that he can hear some of the facts. If he has anything to contribute later, hon. members might be interested.
I do not intend to detail all the other commodities but, for example, apples are bringing higher prices than they did a year ago. Com is up over May of last year, and butter is higher than it was a year ago. Cheddar cheese is one of the others that is up, just to mention a few. Since hon. members are interested perhaps I would quote some figures.
Lambs at Toronto on May 1, 1964-that is after the Conservatives had their chance to

May 1, 1969
Business of Supply
do something-were selling at $29 per hundredweight. On May 1, 1969, they are selling for $35.50. Grade A eggs, as I pointed out, are returning 45.5 cents to producers at Toronto and on May 1, 1964, they were selling for 29.5 cents. So far as apples are concerned, a box of fancy McIntosh apples was selling on May 1, 1964, at $4.38 and is now selling at $7.88. At that time butter was selling at 54.3 cents a pound and today the producer gets 68.2 cents a pound. Cheddar cheese on May 1, 1964, was selling at 35.3 cents per pound and today it is 46 cents a pound. On May 1, 1964, choice steers were selling in Toronto at $24.25 per hundredweight. By May 1, 1968, they had gone up to $27.25, by April 1 of this year to $29.50, and on May 1 had reached $32.50. I think these things should be drawn to the attention of hon. members-


Stanley James Korchinski: Tell us about wheat.


Mr. Clermont:: We have agriculture in eastern Canada too, and we want to hear about it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could we have order in the house? It is difficult enough to hear what the minister is saying, but it is even more difficult with cross-interjections.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Turning to cereals, Mr. Speaker, the situation isi somewhat different, but it is inconsistent with the statement that farmers will be unable to finance the 1969 crop year. For example, the government took action last fall to double the amount made available to farmers in western Canada who had been unable to market their cereal grains. The extent to which farmers have appreciated this action is indicated by the extent to which they have taken advantage of it. To date this year some 83,000 farmers have received cash advances totalling $148 million-


Stanley James Korchinski: Tell usi about wheat.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member for Mackenzie could keep quiet long enough for other hon. members to hear these figures. As I was saying, to date some 83,000 farmers have received cash advances totalling $148 million. This compares with 45,000 farmers last year and an amount of $47,280,738.
The crop insurance program, which a short time ago was amended in order to provide a higher level of coverage, is proving to be, I think, somewhat of a boon this year to those who have met with crop difficulties, and has brought a measure of stability that will assist farmers in their financing. While total figures

are not yet available, it is estimated that in 1968 approximately $16 million will have been paid to farmers under crop insurance schemes'. This compares with $2.8 million a year ago.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The potato farmers of eastern Canada, particularly the Maritime provinces, this year are facing income problems brought about by heavy supplies and resulting low prices. The government has taken some steps to correct both the income and the supply situation through the institution of a starch diversion program. While to date the result in terms of price increases has not been what might be desired, the program will permit the marketing of a very significant tonnage of potatoes which otherwise could not be marketed at all. It is also encouraging to note there has been some firming up of the market price of potatoes in the last few days. So I think a review of these statistics is helpful.
Before I turn to comment on the solutions which have been suggested, perhaps I could substantiate the claim I made that Canada is not the only country in the world facing problems of this kind. For example, in the Globe and Mail of April 30 we find the heading, "Wheat Export Talks Fail In Australia." It states that an effort was made by the Australian Wheat Council and it has failed to agree on measures to restrict Australian wheat output to bring prices more in line with export demand. I am sure hon. members have read this story which is from the Financial Times of London. It reads in part as follows:
In the absence of concrete action the federal minister has appealed to farmers to exercise restraint. He said any grower would be foolish if he went blindly ahead without recognizing the problem of disposing of what he produced.
The story continues in another place as follows:
The United States has already reduced its wheat acreage allotment, and preliminary indications from Canada suggest that farmers have shown some restraint. However, without similar moves in Australia and Europe, a question mark must remain over the present international wheat price structure.
Since that story about Australia came out there has been another one. This is from the Globe and Mail and is a reprint from the New York Times service dated May 1. The headline is "Australia Announces Wheat Quota". It says:
The Australian government last night announced its first wheat production restrictions as a result of the world glut and record Australian crops.
May 1. 1969

Farther along it says:
The coming season was expected to break last season's production records, but the government could not afford more credit advances on production and storage facilities could not cope with any greater production.
So that is no great comfort; it does not add very much to the income of Canadian producers. But it does put the problem in its proper perspective. I suggest this is the way it should be viewed.


Stanley James Korchinski: Are you going to talk about the farm income picture in Saskatchewan?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There have been some suggestions made. I should like, if I may, to deal particularly with the situation concerning wheat, but I think it is also fair at this point to talk briefly about some of the other problems that have been raised and some of the suggestions we are actively considering to deal with them. For example, there is the dairy surplus problem which has been raised by a number of hon. members. The fact is that we are providing a subsidy to the extent of $1.25 per 100 for 3.5 milk and something like $37.42 per pound for butterfat. It was discussed and agreed with the dairy industry several years ago that whatever costs were involved in taking the surplus in excess of domestic consumption and selling it on the international market-the difference between the support price and the actual price received-would be paid by the producers.


Stanley James Korchinski: The minister has dealt with every problem but the real one and that is the problem of the grain producers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I wonder
whether the hon. member for Mackenzie would agree that in all fairness we should hear the minister and, hopefully, we will have the opportunity to hear the hon. member for Mackenzie later.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In anticipating the production levels, the trends we have for the ensuing dairy year would indicate there will be very serious increases in production that will lead to unmanageable surpluses. Indeed, if the production pattern set in March for skim milk powder changes over the next 12 months we could have a production of something like 420 million pounds. We use much less than half that amount in Canada. We are having great difficulty now selling our milk powder in the international market even at 35 per cent or less of what we are paying for it at
Business of Supply
the support price. What we hope will be the result of the policy we announced a few days ago is that we can maintain the same level as last year, that is, a $3.60 pay-out by the dairies based on 20 per cent powder and 65 cents for butterfat plus $1.25 which brings it to $4.85. We have to calculate and anticipate the cost of disposing of the surplus. We hope that by raising it to 26 cents for quota milk and 52 cents for over-quota milk as a disincentive to produce over-quota we will bring production in line with the demand. So this is the reason.
I know it is not the most palatable kind of thing, but I think we have a responsibility to look into the future and try to rationalize the industry in line with effective demand.
The second point is that two speakers today, the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth) and I believe the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), raised as one of the problems involved in the dairy policy the matter of regional quotas and the fact that the prairie provinces, for example, were bringing in from other provinces a certain amount of butterfat and also milk powder. It was suggested there is something unjust about our not setting up regional quotas for dairy products. I remind these gentlemen that I have had representations for a long time from the maritime provinces urging that we do this for that area in respect of butter and milk powder from Ontario and Quebec. The question I must ask is whether this is simply for dairy products or are they willing to accept regional quotas and restrictions of this kind in respect of the marketing of other products. For example, would Manitoba like action of this kind in respect of eggs when they export a very large percentage of their total production? Would Prince Edward Island like to accept that policy in respect of potatoes when they export a very high percentage of their total production?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I see that the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar would like to pose a question. I remind him that the minister has the floor and it is up to the minister whether or not he will receive a question at this time.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am sorry, but I do not have time to answer questions now. If there is any time at the end I shall be glad to try to answer them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar is rising on a question of privilege.

May 1, 1969
Business of Supply


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out to the minister-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is not a point of order to point out to the minister-


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, the minister referred specifically to myself. I merely wanted to point out to him that I placed the emphasis not on regions but on discrimination against the small cream shipper in western Canada.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Whether or not that is the interpretation, I understood the hon. member to suggest there was something manifestly wrong with dairy products going from one region to another. However, this is the principle that is involved. It is easy for him to take any particular area, pick out some particular commodity and say that we should have regional restrictions so that the whole market there can be guaranteed for the producers.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I have not said that.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Perhaps the hon. member has not been saying that but many people have; the hon. member for Kent-Essex certainly has.


Harold Warren Danforth: No.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If we are going to set up regional quotas of that kind and restrict the market, if we are going to have legislation to make that possible, then it will not only be confined to such products as suit people in any particular region of the country. Right now we have been engaged in discussions with the provinces to see whether we cannot find a satisfactory basis for setting up national marketing legislation. Of course this is one of the problems that has been raised. However, the situation differs in different parts of the country. The maritimes would accept it for dairy products but not for potatoes. Manitoba would probably accept it for dairy products but not for eggs. Alberta would accept it for certain commodities, but I am sure it would not accept it for its beef, almost all of which is marketed some place in Canada.
I hope that together with the provincial governments, which under the constitution are responsible for supply management and quota control, we will be able to reach an arrangement so that the producers themselves will have a greater and more effective voice in the marketplace. I am convinced that if the producers have a more effective voice in the marketplace, for example, with regard to

potatoes, the prices would not have to be as low in the maritimes as they are today. The two provincial governments which are primarily involved, namely, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, are attempting to introduce the necessary legislation. We hope that we can find some way in which this can be complemented by national legislation so that the end result will be effective. I see I am running out of time.


Mr. Horner:: You have not said anything yet.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The only people who think I have not said anything must have their ears closed because I have been pointing out the general problems as I see them and putting them in perspective.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am waiting for solutions.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: These are not all of the problems. There are many serious problems in agriculture. I am sure the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) will agree that we are not having much of a problem with beef marketing these days.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You think not?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The question has been raised whether or not we should introduce a two-price system for wheat. When I sat on the other side of the house I said many times that I agree with that principle as long as other countries do it. We have the right to do it in self-defence.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In Alberta we have been waiting for the implementation of that principle for ten years.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I made this proposal to the Conservative government when they were in office. I did so time and time again.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We adopted the principle.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I still agree that we have the right to adopt the principle in self-defence. But I know also that it carries with it some problems. If we were to do this we would have to set up tariffs which do not exist today, with respect to bakery products, for example. There is no tariff on bread coming from the United States. We would have to set one up or we would put our bakers out of business. I am sure that my hon. friend across the way realizes this. We also have to consider what would be most advantageous on balance.


Stanley James Korchinski: Acreage payments.
May 1, 1969


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We have to consider the fact that only about 10 per cent of our wheat crop is used for domestic consumption.


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


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon in the short time allotted to me I intended to speak about some of the problems in western Canada, particularly in western agriculture, but after listening to the rosy picture painted by the minister I am wondering whether we are talking about the same part of Canada. In its recent tour of western Canada the Standing Committee on Agriculture heard expressed again and again what has been apparent to all western members for some time-the concern which exists in that part of the country today about the lack of grain sales and the corresponding desperate need for cash with which to carry on the necessary farm operations in the new crop year, operations which, by the way, will be commencing with the advent of spring weather.
The minister quoted figures to show that farm income for 1968 was reasonably high. He failed to mention that the cash advances last fall contributed to the income figure. He also mentioned that the number of cash advance payments made to the farmers last fall had doubled. The need for this money only proved that western agriculture is indeed experiencing a crisis. To compound the problem, this spring the final payments on wheat, oats and barley were almost the smallest ever. They will not be sufficient to pay the grocery bills from the first of January until the time farmers receive their cheques.
Because of the glut of wheat on the farms and in the elevators of the country our farmers have been advised by the task force on agriculture to switch their production from wheat to other crops. To our harried farmers this advice poses some serious problems. First, there is the very real danger that in switching to other crops they will only compound the problem by producing embarrassing surpluses in other cereal grains. Second, by reducing in favour of other than cereal grains wheat acreage, the quota on which the farmer may deliver his wheat is reduced, making it even more difficult for him to reduce the surplus wheat which he already has in store.
Business of Supply
In view of the assistance which farmers have rendered the national economy by providing a much needed balance of payments in our foreign exchange, particularly in 1963 when, according to the Governor of the Bank of Canada, they thus averted an economic crisis-I think the foreign exchange thus gained amounted to $480 million or more- and in further consideration of the loss of wheat delivery quota that would result from any reduction of wheat acreage that is sown in other than cereal crops, surely it is incumbent upon the government at this time to assist farmers in their efforts to reduce the wheat acreage. This can be done, as has been done in the past, by a wheat acreage reduction payment. It can be achieved by making a payment to the farmers for each acre on which wheat is not sown, based on the 196768 permit book record, up to a maximum which the government considers necessary to achieve a wheat crop of manageable proportions. At the same time this would provide the farmers with necessary funds to help finance their spring operations. The land taken out of wheat production would either have to be left fallow or be sown to grass or forage crops in order to achieve this objective.
I feel that this action is not only justified on the basis of past experience but essential to the national well-being in that many of our competent farmers are being forced to the wall because of their inability to finance on a six-bushel quota that is now extended to a two-year period. With large stocks of unsold grain upon which cash advances were taken in order to pay harvest expenses, our farmers are entering a new crop season with their hands tied for lack of working capital.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I hope the government will give consideration to the proposal I have put forward, one which has been endorsed by farm leaders and farm organizations as a means of bringing temporary assistance to our farmers and of enabling them to finance the production of this year's crop. At the same time, I wish to point out that the regaining of our lost share of the world wheat market must remain the primary objective not only of our wheat marketing agencies but of the government itself. After all, it is the government which has the power not only to bring some flexibility to our marketing program but also to allow extensions of credit which could make all the difference in effecting sales. At best, the wheat
8230

May 1, 1969
Business of Supply
acreage reduction payment proposal could be regarded only as an interim provision designed to assist western agriculture to maintain the stability necessary to overcome a period of extreme stress.
Having regard to the mounting cost of farm operations because of inflation, something for which the Canadian farmer can in no way be held responsible, I believe it is not only fair but in the best interests of the nation that further continuing compensation be provided to our farmers for helping to bear the brunt of the government's cheap food policy. There are many ways in which this can be done by means of government action. Surely the government has people who are smart enough to figure out ways and means of assisting our farmers through this difficult period. If not, it is time they allowed someone else to run the country.
The government should take another look at the value of our special crops in terms of reducing wheat acreage, and should provide the oilseed industry with long overdue protection against the flow of cheap vegetable oil and oilseed entering this country at prices which bear no relationship to the cost of production. This situation could be resolved by placing on the imported product either a value comparable with that placed on United States cottonseed oil or, as an absolute minimum, one equal to the Canadian price for soya beans. Sunflower seed growers in Manitoba and soya bean growers in Ontario will then have at least a chance to compete with a foreign product which is obviously being delivered in Canada at prices below an acceptable cost of production.
The hardship at present being experienced on the prairies is not just a figment of someone's imagination, and I am sure the minister must be aware of this despite the rosy picture he has painted. For the benefit of his colleagues' in the government I think I should emphasize that a combination of circumstances beyond the control of our farmers has created a situation in which many of those engaged in agriculture in the west find themselves in a precarious position.
Briefly, these circumstances were as follows: First, there was a disastrous loss of markets which left Canadian producers with 20 per cent of the export market whereas they had previously held 40 per cent. Favourable whether conditions throughout the world's wheat producing countries and, indeed, in countries which do not normally enter the export market, added millions of

bushels to the world wheat surplus. An unusually wet harvest caused further problems for Canadian farmers inasmuch as an estimated 350 million bushels of grain were harvested in a tough or damp condition. Our farmers did a Herculean job attempting to dry their grain, assisted to some extent by the grain handling facilities made available to them. There is no doubt, however, that a significant amount of this out of condition grain was lost as a result of spoilage, particularly in areas where frost had affected the quality. The cost of handling this, grain has been out of proportion to usual harvesting expenses and has added a further burden to an industry short of cash.
For six long months, representatives of our national farm organizations, federal members, provincial premiers and other western leaders have been seeking an assurance from the government that something would be done to alleviate the effects of hardship on the prairies owing to loss of grain sales. Time is now running out for those farmers who desperately need help to finance their spring operations. Surely the minister will not shrug this off as opposition propaganda.


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


George Robson Muir: I just have a few more words to say and I will be finished.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree to allow the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Robson Muir: 
Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make on this motion. Statements have been made recently both inside and outside the house to the effect that the government is showing indifference and disregard with respect to farmers and agriculture in Canada. I should like to take a few moments in which to set the record straight. The time spent in this house on agriculture since the session began last September amounts to more than has been spent on any other sector of our economy or on any other subject. The debate today only continues this tradition.
We have passed a lot of legislation having to do with agriculture. I can name many of these measures. There was the measure providing for increased cash advances, and the figure was then raised for the special purpose of enabling farmers to dry grain. There was the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Farm Credit Corporation Act, the Farm Syndicates Credit Act, the measures concerned with pests and pesticide control and compensation to farmers for losses caused through the contamination of their crops or animals.
As a farmer and a private member on the government side of the house I think it is incumbent on me to draw attention to some of the services and assistance which are being provided on a continuing and in many cases an expanding basis for the farmers of Canada. A few of these services, I am quick to admit, were instituted by Conservative governments during those brief periods since 1930 in which the people of Canada entrusted them with the affairs of our country. But most of them were initiated by Liberal governments and are being continued and improved by the present government. Most fair-minded farmers will, I believe, be willing to agree that this is so.
I believe the Liberal government is guilty of not doing a better job of letting people know what has been done and what is being done. May I take just a minute or two, Mr. Speaker, to set out some of the services and assistance now being provided to the farmers of Canada.
They include a tremendous program of research and information, the inspection and grading of new products, marketing and production research, the programs of pest and disease control. The prices of a variety of products, including wool, eggs and hogs, have been stabilized at a cost of about $140 million a year if one includes the dairy division. There is the Canadian Livestock Feed Board
29180-522J
Business of Supply
which protects both our livestock and the feed grain industry. The Wheat Board has now been placed on a permanent basis as the result of the action of the Liberal government. The Board of Grain Commissioners provides services connected with the grading and inspection of our grain. The Prairie Farm Assistance Act provides assistance to farmers who have suffered partial or complete crop failure, to an average cost of about $9 million a year.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Then there is P.F.R.A. which provides for irrigation, community pasture projects, dams and so on. There is crop insurance, on which the federal government pays half the administration costs and 25 per cent of the premium costs. Then there are grants to a multitude of agricultural associations, such as the seed growers, the 4-H movement, livestock associations, plowing associations, various fairs and what have you. This represents a total expenditure of at least $300 million per year by way of assistance to farmers in all parts of the country.
Then there is the Canada Grains Council which was recently established by the government and which I think augers well for the future. Then there is the Canadian Congress on Agriculture and, last but not least, the tour of the western provinces just concluded by the agricultural committee of the House of Commons.
Then we have the emergency wheat reserves legislation which last year put at least $37 million into the coffers: of the Wheat Board. Over the years it has put in amounts varying from 5.9 cents a bushel to 12.9 cents a bushel. These payments have been made ever since the Liberal party inaugurated that program in 1956 under the wheat reserves act. This year there was also put into the coffers of the Wheat Board at least $7 million on account of the support the government provided for the price of wheat during the 11 month period in 1967-68 when there was no effective international grains arrangement. If you add those two figures together, Mr. Speaker, a sum of at least $44 million or $45 million has been provided compared with the total final payment on wheat to the farmers of $60 million. In other words, if it had not been for those two payments to the Wheat Board in 1967-68, the final payment on wheat last month would have been not 12 5 cents a bushel but 4 or 5 cents a bushel.

May 1, 1969
Business of Supply


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is the farmers? own money coming back to them.


Albert B. Douglas: This storage payment comes from the pockets of the taxpayers of Canada, as does the floor price for wheat which cost $7 million.
The motion before us refers to the deteriorating net income of Canadian farmers. I hope you will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, if I refer in particular to the severe financial crisis in western agriculture but that is the area with which I am most familiar, one in which I think I can claim some experience and, I hope, at least a little knowledge.
Let me first outline some of the events leading up to the present situation. Farm marketings of wheat for export have varied a great deal in the past ten years, from the crop year 1958-59 to 1967-68 inclusive. In the first five years of that period exports of wheat and flour averaged 323 million bushels per year. During the next four years the average was 520 million bushels per year. Last year, the tenth year in this period, exports dropped to 335 million bushels.
On the strength of the forecasts and predictions made over the past several years by Canadian and international food experts, economists, government officials and politicians of various political parties, grain farmers have increased their efficiency in the production of grain. They have enlarged their units to make them more economical. They have purchased larger and more modern machinery and have built new and better grain storage facilities. In so doing, and on the strength of the advice that they received, many of them have gone into debt. Now, as a result of reduced markets, falling prices and rising costs, they find themselves unable to meet their debt obligations in a great many cases. They also find themselves short of cash to pay their operating expenses.
At one time farm requirements were relatively small. Merchants and machinery dealers 40 or 50 years ago used to extend credit to the farmers, and this helped them to finance their most modest requirements. This is no longer possible. The service industry has been forced to go on a cash basis to a large extent. Farm inputs have a much wider variety and a much greater volume now. I believe it is incumbent on the people of Canada to come to the rescue of our food producers and the industry that has contributed and does contribute far more to Canada than the ratio that its numerical proportion has to our

national economy, as well as to our export trade. Agriculture is still one of Canada's most important industries, and maintaining this industry in a healthy condition is essential in order to keep our national economy from faltering, as history shows is the inevitable result of depressed conditions in the agricultural sector.
Before I enumerate some suggestions I should like to make, may I briefly expand on one suggestion. I refer to the so-called two-price system for wheat. I believe there is an overwhelming argument in favour of some such system which would give farmers a fairer return on at least that part of wheat production that is used for domestic human consumption. Other sectors of the economy, such as the manufacturers, professional people and labour, have effective methods of increasing their incomes, but these methods are not available to the farmers. Wheat prices are very little higher than they were 20 years ago, whereas the price of commodities and services required by the farmers has practically doubled in the same period. Therefore a special domestic price for wheat is amply justified.
There are, however, some possible difficulties associated with such a two-price system. For example, there is the possibility of our being accused of dumping. Other countries might impose sanctions on Canadian exports in other sectors of our economy if they successfully proved that we were dumping our agricultural products or selling them in other markets at a lower figure than we sell them at home.
There is also the question of bread imports. At the present time I am given to believe that in certain cities near the United States border U.S. bread sells at less than the price of Canadian bread. If we increase our bread prices and the United States does not, there will be a problem to be faced there. We might also expect to have policing problems with a two-piece wheat system, with a price differential of $1, so far as millers and other processors are concerned. In addition, the costs of administration naturally go up because a two-price system would have to be carefully administered. There would also be what to my mind is the most serious problem of deciding how to distribute the proceeds of a two-price system for wheat. I do not think the wheat producers themselves have agreed on how the proceeds should be distributed among them.
May 1. 1969

I have consistently spoken in favour of a two-price system for wheat at every opportunity, especially since I became involved in federal politics about a year ago. In my first speech in the house I called on the government to give early and sympathetic consideration to some such system of paying the wheat farmers a fair price for domestic wheat. I have mentioned this many times since and I renew my plea today.
My first suggestion, which is most necessary in order to find both a long and a short term solution to the farm income problem, is that sales efforts by all agencies concerned with marketing farm products should be increased by making maximum use of all selling techniques in both the domestic and export markets. To that end the government should support and strengthen the Wheat Board system of marketing by making whatever legislative changes may be necessary to allow the Canadian Wheat Board to expand its export sales.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Albert B. Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the house would give me permission to conclude my remarks?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member does not have unanimous consent.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In fairness, Mr. Speaker, one of our members was given a minute extra, so it might be appropriate for the hon. member to have the same courtesy.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Albert B. Douglas: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members. I suggest that the government support the floor price of wheat at the level of the minimums of the International Grains Arrangement. I suggest also that the government introduce a wheat acreage reduction program which would compensate farmers reducing their wheat acreage, with greater incentive to be given to those who convert that acreage to pasture and for the growing of forage crops. Greater incentives should also be given to farmers farming in areas in which grades of wheat low in protein are produced. Also, the government should provide farmers with higher returns for wheat used for human consumption in Canada by authorizing the Canadian
Business of Supply
Wheat Board to charge higher prices for such wheat or by such other methods as will achieve the same result.
As an interim measure to help in alleviating the current shortage of operating funds, I suggest that the government consider making an immediate payment of ten cents per bushel, in lieu of the two price system, on wheat delivered in the 1967-68 crop year. As hon. members will see, I am less optimistic than was the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) who mentioned 20' cents per bushel. I suggest that the immediate payment ought to be ten cents per bushel, with a minimum payment of $250 to any farmer and a maximum of $500 per bona fide farm operator.
My further suggestions are that the government institute a special program of assistance on an interim basis to farmers operating small, uneconomic units; that the government provide for more research into the problems of agricultural markets and forecasting as well as into the problems of alternate uses for farm products; that the government continue and expand its support for credit sales of farm products; that the government take steps to prevent any increase in the tolls charged on the St. Lawrence seaway; that the government consider the advisability of placing the Canadian Wheat Board under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture and that the Wheat Board be asked to review the operation of its quota system with a view to making it more equitable and effective.
I shall suggest, too, that the government ought to take steps to insure the equitable distribution of box cars and the best possible use of our grain handling and transportation system; that the government continue to promote the improvement and use of the Hudson Bay route; that the government investigate the alleged dumping of vegetable oil on the Canadian market and take the necessary action to prevent it, and that the government take all necessary action to restrain rising costs and prices of products and services used in agricultural production.
My other recommendations are that the government take steps to provide for some direct producer representation on the Canadian Wheat Board and that the creditors extend extra time to farmers required to repay loans made under the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the Farm Credit Corporation Act. Of course, I am speaking of those farmers who will find it difficult to meet their payments this spring. These suggestions,

May 1, 1969
Business of Supply
Mr. Speaker, may or may not form part of the recommendations contained in an early report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
My concluding remarks, Mr. Speaker, are to tell hon. members that an emergency situation is facing Canadian agriculture.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Why didn't the hon. member say that in the first ten minutes of his speech?


Albert B. Douglas: The emergency situation facing Canadian agriculture has been brought about through no fault of the industry. Its roots lie, in part at least, in national policy that has existed almost since Confederation. I have suggested some constructive measures that the government might adopt. I am fully confident that the government will take early and effective action, and for that reason I will not support the motion.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I agreed to allow the hon. member extra time, thinking he would take half a minute or a minute at most to finish. He has taken longer. I think we should observe the limits of debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member actually took three minutes more than his allotted time. Perhaps that may be taken into account when another hon. member seeks permission to go beyond his allotted time.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolieiie):: Mr. Speaker, I was1 very happy to learn that today's sitting would be spent on a discussion of agricultural problems and especially of the Canadian farmers' situation.
I hope that our discussion, which I trust will be objective, will lead to some solutions, so that farmers may have the security to which they are entitled and to which they have aspired for a long time.
We have already heard the comments of several government members on the matter. We are told repeatedly that the government is trying to do something, that its intentions are of the best. The situation was the same seven or eight months ago. The speeches will go on, and the previous speaker will again take the floor. As a matter, of fact, he does' not in the least think that the government has done nothing. In his opinion, it has accomplished a great deal. I agree, of course, that a government is always elected to do something.

I suggest we should ask: has the government done enough? Can it do more and better? Even with the best intentions in the world, we remain convinced that what has been done is not enough. This is obvious when we study the farmers' situation.
I will be told: This is not easy, or; we have problems. But should we let things as they are just because there is no easy solutions? Should we let matters take care of themselves in due time? Should we be satisfied by simply saying that it is difficult?
As a member from eastern Canada, and more particularly from the province of Quebec, I hope that other Quebec M.P.'s, especially those on the government side, will take advantage of this day not only to recommend to the government to do something but also to compel it to act.
One could say that, from time to time, during the meetings of the caucus, members speak louder and express their viewpoints. But I think we have today a special opportunity to tell the government what the farmers need. I believe the people are expecting that not only opposition members but government members as well will put forward strong and specific proposals whereby farm people would be appreciated once and for all and would get the recognition to which they are entitled.
Considering that one third of the Canadian labour force is related directly or indirectly to farming and has to work under intolerable conditions at the present time, and considering also that the situation is disastrous for the national economy, I think we must find solutions to the problem and ensure that they will have lasting results.
The present problems are somewhat similar to those that prevailed four or five years ago. Travelling across Canada, one finds the same conditions everywhere. No doubt that production costs have considerably increased but income is not much higher, so we are finally faced with overproduction.
I would find it hard to understand that a country as well known as ours where the workers are willing, generally, to work towards their common goal, would let 30 per cent of its population live in poverty while it experiences overproduction it is unable to consume as it should in its best interests.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I have already said and I repeat it that there were problems of consumption and production in Canada.
May 1, 1969

In my opinion, if the government must make any effort, it must try to find some formula for the consumption of that production. It will also have to consider reviewing the matter of our imports. We should also perhaps ask the government to adopt another philosophy and compel it to act differently.
It will surely have to assert itself a little more forcibly from time to time, as far as high finance is concerned. Some agreements concerning imports were concluded a few years ago and as a result of some developments, it would be advisable to review those agreements. We are back from a trip in the West. Once more we noticed that there is overproduction in that region. Both the East and the West have similar problems, that is the cost of production and income.
Because of the importance of that industry in Canada, I feel that the government should now have a guarantee policy. It should guarantee the purchase of our production and find outlets for it. Maybe the role played by the agencies which promote the sale of our products abroad should be revised. Above all, we must ensure the security of our producers.
It is now impossible, since all the hon. members who made the trip acquainted themselves with the problems of farming, not to appreciate those facts.
In the circumstances, it would be useless for me or for the other hon. members to discuss that problem for weeks. It was said a while	ago	that much	time	hasbeen devoted	to	agriculture	since	thebeginning of	this	session. In	fact,	we
have been content with wasting our time. We have passed some pieces of legislation, we have found a formula allowing our farmers to borrow on a larger scale, to get deeper into debt. They will need a long period of time to pay back their loans. We found it enough to grant them five or six extra years to reimburse the money borrowed. I do not think it fair. That is not the proper way to provide help to our farmers.
The government should establish a guaranteed price policy. I have already suggested that without any results. I had thought that we might be able to help our producers in getting labour from the Unemployment Insurance office, without depriving the unemployed from their unemployment benefits. This measure would enable the producers to get cheap labour, which would, by the way, reduce production costs.
Business of Supply
It had been felt that the idea was not so bad after all, but, I have not heard about it since.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that together we should find a solution with the sole purpose of giving back to the farmers the guarantee and the security they need.
I do not believe that in view of the importance of the question, the present government can hesitate longer.
I still believe in the objectivity of everyone of those who represent the ridings of Canada. Thus, with a firmer and more objective attitude, thanks to this day of debate, which has allowed us to study the problem together and to find rapidly a solution, the minister will be able to announce us shortly what steps he intends to take and the farmers will be satisfied.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, one of the purposes of this debate is to try to obtain from the government benches some indication of their opinion of the condition of Canadian agriculture at this time, and in particular the state of agriculture in western Canada. In this respect, the debate so far has been very confusing. Two members of the Liberal Party have spoken. One said he conceded agriculture in western Canada was in a state of emergency or crisis. The minister said he would consider the situation as "I wouldn't want to say the farmers never had it so good". This isi a grudging admission by the minister that perhaps there is a small problem.
If the minister wants my opinion as to what the situation is, I say without fear of exaggeration that it is one of crisis proportions. Surely, the minister must be aware of that. The minister does not have to take only the word of members on this side of the house. He can ask his colleague from Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) or some of his colleagues who toured western Canada with the Committee on Agriculture. I recall that two weeks ago when the Wheat Board representatives appeared before the committee, two members from eastern Canada said in so many words that they considered the situation facing western farmers to be tragic and one of emergency. Those were the words they used. Surely, they must have meant what they were saying, unless they were playing to the press gallery.
The minister should admit it is time the government took some concrete action and

May 1, 1969
Business of Supply
presented to parliament some specific proposals on how to meet this serious situation. Quite frankly, the list of proposals the hon. member for Assiniboia put on the record a few months ago are, in themselves, all right, but I daresay this is probably the third time the hon. member has circulated that list. To what avail? What point is there in a supporter of the government enumerating a list of good ideas? He reads them into the record at a committee meeting; he reads them at a Liberal constituency meeting and probably appears before the minister on bended knees. The minister says, "I would not want to say that the farmers never had it so good". The hon. member for Assiniboia may as well save his energy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Assiniboia is rising on a point of privilege.


Albert B. Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said I read this list of suggestions at a constituency convention, but that is not true.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is not a question of privilege.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Earlier this afternoon, the minister put on the record certain figures indicating the number of farmers who were taking cash advances in western Canada. I will be one of the first to say that the cash advance legislation introduced by the Conservative government in the late fiftiesi was a very worth-while piece of legislation. I think hon. members of the Conservative party will acknowledge that the C.C.F. had also been trying to impress on a former Liberal government of the late fifties that such legislation should be implemented. It was incredible that the minister would cite the figures showing how much had been taken up in cash advances as something of which to be proud. To me, that is one of the best means of showing there is a serious cash position on the prairies. The more that is taken by way of cash advances, the more we should be worrying and shuddering about the prospects for repayment.
The number of farmers in Manitoba who took advantage of the cash advance legislation last year was very small. This year, I am informed the number of farmers who have taken out cash advances has increased by a factor of 10, ten times as many as was the case in preceding years. To me, that is a sign

of danger. The minister should not point to that as a defence.
I realize part of the problem facing agriculture in the west has to do with declining international sales, plugged markets and declining prices. I suggest to the minister there are some specific steps that should be taken. The government must try to help the Canadian Wheat Board in its task of promoting the sale of Canadian wheat. I suggest the sales staff of this organization should be supplemented. How many men are actually engaged as salesmen exclusively of the Canadian Wheat Board? It is a very small number. The number should be increased, either directly under the aegis of the Wheat Board or indirectly by using Canadian trade personnel at Canadian trade bureaus overseas as supplementary agents of the Wheat Board.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
At a time of crisis, that is the least that should be done. For how long are we going to continue with a state of affairs in which the actual transactions for our entire export sales of wheat are dependent upon five or six international concerns? The minister knows to which ones I am referring-the Dreyfus Corporation, the Bungy Corporation, the Carghill Corporation of Minneapolis, and one or two others. To them, it is of little concern whether they are handling Canadian wheat or some other country's. The government has not taken the initiative to see that a Canadian corporation is established that would become engaged in precisely this kind of work. I suggest this should be done.
There is nothing to stop the minister from impressing upon his cabinet colleagues the seriousness of the situation, and the amount of money required to tide the prairie economy over this most difficult of times. There is nothing to stop him from getting the agreement of his colleagues to assist whatever entrepreneurship exists in Canada to set up an international trading agency.
I am sure the minister has enough facts and figures to back up his case. Why isn't he doing it? He is not in a weak position. He is one of the few Liberal cabinet ministers from the prairies. He is one of the few Liberal members of parliament from the prairies, and his colleagues must surely know that unless he is given some co-operation and authority there will be even fewer after the next election.
There is one other matter which I must refer to at this time. It is the way in which
May 1, 1969



the minister, inadvertently or otherwise, distorted what was said by my colleague relative to the matter of dairy quotas. To my knowledge, no one in this party or in the party to my right suggested that we were in favour of regionalization of dairy production or wanted to see any barriers against the interprovincial movement of dairy products No one said that.
But the minister must admit that since the establishment of the National Dairy Commission something serious has come to light. I refer to the fact that over the past two years the prairies' share of the national dairy quota pool has declined by 11 per cent to 12 per cent. The minister may say that, relatively speaking, dairying is not all that important to the prairies.


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


Edward Richard Schreyer: But what is important is that it is a complementary operation for many farmers, and in fact is a main operation for many western farmers. A year such as this shows the importance of a supplementary cream shipping or milk shipping operation. If this trend continues whereby the prairies' share of the national quota pool continues to decline, then fewer farmers out west will have an opportunity to continue in dairy farming as a supplement to their grain operation.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to interrupt the hon. member because his time has expired.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I have just one or two more sentences.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave of the house to finish his final sentence?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I just want to point out to the minister that according to the quota summary issued 12 days ago by the Wheat Board, the most recent available to us, there are in the province of Manitoba even at this late date in the crop year 60 per cent of the shipping points still on a unit or one bushel quota. This is further proof that the hon. member for Assiniboia is right; something must be done, and done soon.


Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in this debate and second the motion of nonconfidence in the government on its agricultural policies, or I should say lack of policies,
Business of Supply
I wish to point out that I do so in all seriousness. There are many emergencies in Canada today. One can think of the housing situation and the recent resignation of the former Minister of Transport over lack of government action. I want to suggest that if immediate action is not forthcoming then the Minister or Agriculture (Mr. Olson) had better resign too. Then, perhaps the government will come to life.
Look at the unemployment situation, at the high cost of living, the water and air pollution problems, postal services and many others. But paramount and most important is the emergency facing our economy in the field of agriculture. Just recently our Standing Committee on Agriculture made a tour of the four western provinces. Some 35 briefs were presented to us, including representations from the premiers or ministers of agriculture of the western provinces. At this point I would like to congratulate in particular the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool on organizing one of the most effective tours of Saskatchewan with regard to agriculture for committee members, and on the work it did in bringing farmers' problems to the attention of the committee.
Not only did we hold meetings in some of the major cities, but we also went out to farm homes where representative farmers were even prepared to open up their books, show us their income tax statements, and demonstrate in general the standard of their economy. If nothing else beneficial came from this there was the effect of the tour on Liberal members of the committee who had been criticizing us for being too vociferous, and sometimes too partisan, over the past several months in bringing agricultural problems to their attention. This tour made them finally realize that there was a basis for our complaints. As we went from place to place, it was interesting to note the sympathy that developed in their minds for our points of view and for the problems facing western Canada.
I should now like to quote one or two passages from the brief prepared for the committee by the Hon. W. Ross Thatcher, Premier of Saskatchewan, whose comments I think are important because of his political affiliation. They give positive proof of the position of western farmers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Dan-forth) wants to rise on a point of order.

May 1. 1969
Business of Supply


Harold Warren Danforth: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is that since there is a time limit on our speeches this afternoon, and since the hon. member who has the floor has only a few minutes more left, maybe Your Honour would be disposed not to see the clock until he has finished.


Mr. Speaker:: If this is the disposition of the house, the Chair will turn a blind eye to the clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Richard Russell Southam: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, my contribution will be short in keeping with the rules we have agreed upon. In his brief the Premier of Saskatchewan said:
The economic circumstances of a majority of prairie producers are desperate.
He referred to loss of sales and said:
The farmer's first problem is caused by an inability to market a large proportion of his grain.
He went on to state:
Presently quotas at most elevator points are the lowest in a decade. Thus the cash position of the farmer is extremely serious.
On the prairies, we must literally market or perish.
All the briefs received by the committee indicated that never before has the cost-price squeeze taken such a firm hold on our farmers. Some underlying causes are; (1) loss of markets, and particularly the temporary lapse of the International Wheat Agreement which brought about this serious situation; (2) high cost of machinery and repairs; (3) higher taxes; (4) lower farm prices; (5) tight quotas and low sales; (6) the burden of drying huge piles of damp grain; (7) higher interest rates.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
The eighth cause, to add insult to injury, is the new Estate Tax Act. In fact, it was startling to note, in a recent position paper the task force prepared for the agricultural congress that completed its four day conference several weeks ago at the Chateau Laurier here in Ottawa, that the net income, on the basis of the average capital investment, for the farmer in Canada for the last full year under review was only 1.32 per cent. Putting it another way, it represents a return of only 40 cents per man-hour of labour to the farmer.
I was never one to criticize without making some specific suggestions to improve a situation. Therefore, I should like to make a few

suggestions. These are some I have already outlined to the chairman of the agricultural committee who was with us on our recent journey across western Canada.
My first suggestion is it is my belief that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), accompanied by the Ministers of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), Agriculture, (Mr. Olson), and possibly External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), together with several advisors from each of their departments, should immediately journey to Washington to have an emergency discussion with their counterparts with a view to setting machinery in motion to see to it that the terms of the recent International Grain Agreement be activated to the full.
I make this suggestion in all seriousness because our great neighbour to the south, during the Kennedy Round discussions several years ago in Geneva, was instrumental in persuading usi to allow the wheat agreement to lapse. Then, they were the first offenders when in August 1967 they dumped a large amount of grain into some of our traditional markets at 22 cents below the agreed price. I think this was a gross violation. I think they should co-operate now by being the first to help us initiate this new world agreement.
My second suggestion is- that various trade policies should be developed by our own Department of Trade and Commerce with respect to the sale of wheat such as long term, low interest credit arrangements, especially to emerging nations, and reciprocal trade agreements with prospective or current importers of our wheat.
Thirdly, I believe a close examination should be made at once of our Board of Grain Commissioners grading formula with a view to bringing it into line with the grading practices. of our competitors and demands of our importers.
The fourth suggestion is that, as an immediate one year emergency measure, acreage payments should be made to the farmers under the quota and permit book system similar to the action taken in 1958, 1959 and 1961. A maximum of $60 million should be allotted for this purpose. This would assist a farmer in buying needed seed in those areas of the west where his crop was frozen or supplement the purchase of fuel or other necessities for spring planting.
As my fifth suggestion, I believe the principle of a two-price system should be inaugurated at once. This would supplement the temporary acreage payment in the future and
May 1, 1969

the benefits from it would begin to be felt in the agricultural economy next year.
My sixth suggestion is that serious consideration should be given to establishing a fully Canadian based commodity sales organization to handle, on behalf of the Wheat Board, our wheat, oatsi, barley and rye, flax and rape seed for that matter, rather than depend on the several major commission houses situated in the United States and Europe that presently carry on this business for us.
I suggest as the seventh point that a transport controller or co-ordinator be appointed who would see to it that the agricultural industry got its fair share of the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National rolling stock in times of emergency, similar to that which we experienced this fall and winter in moving grain to the west coast.
Suggestion number eight isi: Consideration might be given to the establishment of one or two terminal elevators in Europe and Asia of reasonable grain carrying capacity which would provide storage for grain that would be readily accessible for the market, should speedy delivery be a factor in making a sale.
Suggestion number nine is that marketing research should be greatly activated.
I could go on to mention a number of others, but because my time is limited I shall conclude with this suggestion. I think if these suggestions were effected we would have a greatly improved industry. What concerns our farmers, in a state of sorrow and disbelief, is the apparent indifference to their plight. Liberal speeches always seem to leave the implication that the farmers never had it so good. An example was the speech by the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon and that of his colleague the hon. member for Assiniboia, (Mr. Douglas), although the latter in closing his remarks did admit there is an emergency in agriculture.
The Prime Minister is also callous and indifferent in respect of agricultural problems. We might remember his reply to the Liberal farmers in Winnipeg on December 20 in respect of the selling of wheat. We might think about his flippant answers in the house yesterday as recorded at page 8167 of Hansard regarding passports. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that we must have action now, not six months or a year from now.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received
Business of Supply
from the Senate informing this House that the Senate does not insist upon its amendment made to Bill C-155, An Act to provide compensation to farmers whose agricultural products are contaminated by pesticide residue, and to provide for appeals from compensation awards, to which the House of Commons had disagreed;
And also, a message informing this House that the Senate does not insist upon its amendment to Bill C-157, an Act to regulate products used for the control of pests and the organic functions of plants and animals, but insists upon the principle thereof and has substituted therefor a further amendment, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.
It being after six o'clock I do now leave the Chair.
At 6.10 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Danforth and the amendment thereto of Mr. Gleave.
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this debate today concerning agriculture because of the concern I feel for this industry and this way of life in Canada.
Recently I took part in the tour of western Canada by the Committee on Agriculture during which we visited agricultural areas and saw many facets of this industry in the four western provinces. I should like to point out that this visit was to the grass roots level of agriculture in western Canada and that it was approved by the government. I believe that many of the cries which we hear that the government is not concerned with the problems of the people of western Canada, and of farmers, is just not true. The government members of this committee took an active part in the western tour, and I think it needs

May 1, 1969
Business of Supply
to be pointed out and emphasized, that it was the Liberal government that approved and encouraged this trip.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: How pathetic can you get?


Maurice Brydon Foster: If the government were not concerned with the problems of western Canada, I can assure you that they would never have agreed to the visit by the standing Committee on Agriculture because this visit draws attention to the problems in agriculture.
In our trip to western Canada, I was particularly impressed by the diversification of agriculture that we saw in Alberta. Although grain farming is an important part of this industry in that province, agriculture there is generally much more diversified than in Saskatchewan. Dairying, beef farms, hog and poultry production as well as cash crops such as sugar beet, make for a more balanced agriculture in that province.
We visited the Kinsella experimental farm where important experiments in genetics are being carried out to develop more hardy strains of beef producing animals. These experiments are also aimed at improving the conversion factor of feed to beef. At Lacombe in southern Alberta we visited the federal government experimental farm where the federal government has spent millions of dollars over the last half a century to aid western agriculture. I say to the opposition: Is this the kind of federal government aid to agriculture in which you have no confidence?
Federal government aid to research has always been an important key to improved production. Surely, the members of the opposition who travelled with this committee cannot be voting against the federal government's policy of increasing aid to research in the production of better cereal grains. In British Columbia, the standing Committee on Agriculture visited the terminal elevators where millions of bushels of wheat are shipped annually to the Pacific rim countries of Japan and China.
At the Saskatchewan Pool elevators we saw a Toyota ship tied up which wasi loading wheat for Japan. A few days previously this ship had come from Japan loaded with a cargo of Toyota cars, and I think we should realize that trade is a two way street. Our foreign customers must sell to us in order to be able to buy from us. Perhaps we should spend a little time considering whether the jokes we make about small foreign cars are

really appropriate in this day when we so desperately need world sales of wheat, especially to the countries that make small cars such as Japan, Germany and England.
In British Columbia, I was most impressed with the way the producers of agricultural products such as milk, eggs, broilers and orchard crops have organized their production and marketing more efficiently than in any other place I know in Canada. The term "supply management" was one that we heard most often in British Columbia, and perhaps this is the key to the future success of agriculture in Canada. We are a country that can produce a surplus of agricultural products beyond what we can consume ourselves or what we can sell on the foreign markets. I believe that the future success and stability of the agricultural industry in Canada depends on supply management, so that we produce what we can sell and we sell at a fair price which will reward the producer adequately for his labour and investments.
This is not to say that there are no problems in agriculture in British Columbia. We heard many briefs in this province, and the Committee on Agriculture will be making recommendations on these problems to the House of Commons and to the government. Perhaps the most important part of this trip was our visit to Saskatchewan because this is the province that produces a major share of Canadian wheat. The biggest problem lies in over-production of wheat and insufficient sales on the foreign market, coupled with excess moisture in last fall's crop.
I must congratulate the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool which organized for the 30 committee members some 24 meetings in small towns across the province which were attended by some 18,000 farmers. The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool field men were excellent hosts for the committee members and organized every detail of the tour in that province most satisfactorily. Not only did the committee members meet hundreds of farm people at formal meetings but they visited as well individual farmers to review their problems right on the farms. I visited farms where 30,000 bushels of wheat were stored.
I must say that in the hundreds of briefs that were presented in this province, many serious and practical suggestions were made to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. These included recommendations for a two-price system according to which the consumers of Canada would be
May 1. 1969


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


An hon. Member:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Will the house give consent for the hon. member to continue?


An hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: There is no unanimous consent.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning it was my pleasure to attend a meeting with representatives of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and to take part in a serious, earnest discussion of the affairs of an industry which appears to be in serious difficulties. This discussion took place with responsible representatives of an important industry. It is very hard to realize that this is the same industry as that which was discussed by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) in the house this afternoon. Having taken part in that discussion yesterday and having heard the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the house yesterday, I have concluded that one of the most urgent needs in the country today is to wake up this government, if that is possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Seldom a day goes by without a new example of the devastating impact of the brilliant intellectual approach of the government, including the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, on the economic problems of this country. Yesterday, of course, the Prime Minister left us all dizzy-I think that would be the word-by the succinct assessment he made of the state of the economy. When he was asked by my hon. friend from Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) when we could expect some decision concerning the deterioration of the economy of western Canada, the Prime Minister replied: "Mr. Speaker, as indicated by the increase in demands for passports, the economy is booming more and more." It is small wonder that the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) has resigned because the Prime Minister is unable to understand the day to day problems of the Canadian people. As for the Minister of Agriculture, this afternoon he seemed to be second in complacency only to the Prime

May L 1963
Business of Supply
Minister of the country. I would almost go as far as to say that he was of more help to the government when he was in opposition, rushing to the defence of the government with points of order, than he is on that side of the house.
In his speech this afternoon, the Minister of Agriculture denied the very existence of the problem set forth in the resolution before the house.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I say categorically: that is false.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the minister denied the existence of the problem stated in the resolution presented to the house.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I did not deny the existence of problems in agriculture, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I think the minister had better keep his seat if that is the best he can do. He is not charging that what I said was incorrect. What I said a moment ago was perfectly correct. The Minister can shake his head if he likes. Unfortunately for him, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) shortly afterward pulled the rug from under his feet, such as it is. The problems in agriculture are admittedly complex. The minister said it is easy for the opposition to criticize. I admit it is easy for the opposition to criticize this government and its agricultural policies. But even that is not as easy as the practice followed by the government of keeping everything under review.
It is not a matter of producing policies and solutions. What the government does used to be called procrastination; it used to be called indecision. Now, they have initiated a new name for it, a review. Everything is under review.


Mr. Smerchanski:: That is progress.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Take inflation, for example which places such a heavy burden on this country. What has the government done? About eight months after the election they produced a white paper which two or three people could have produced in two or three hours. This recommended, not a solution, not a real attack on inflation, but the appointment of a continuing study group to advise the government of the day on the question. Here we are, Mr. Speaker, some four or five months after the white paper was tabled in December, and the government even now has failed to produce the study group to advise it about what to do with regard to inflation. It is a fiasco rather than an orderly, meaningful

program to cope with inflation. The only thing this government, including the Minister of Agriculture, has created so far is uncertainty and confusion.
Take the feed and grain situation, for example. Everyone is confused as to why-


Mark G. Smerchanski: Is this in eastern or western Canada?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Eastern Canada.


Mark G. Smerchanski: This debate is about western Canada.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What is the policy with regard to the dairy industry? It is, of course, to squeeze out the little fellow. But even so, they have not taken the trouble to produce a well-rounded program with some hopeful alternative for the little fellow to adopt, involving a useful place for him in the economy. It is a half-baked policy which the minister is pushing through. I shall not bother to discuss potato prices with him. I think he realized, judging by his feeble defence this afternoon, what the difficulty is. Farmers are going through a difficult period of adjustment, particular in the part of Canada from which I come. They recognize that changes must be made but they do not have substantial capital to help them make these adjustments, and they are well beyond the financial resources of the provinces.
When these matters are discussed with the Liberal government, however, the only answer we get is talk about conferences or task forces. The truth is, I am afraid, that those in charge of this government, those who are really in the seats of power, have what might be called an urban complex. They do not have an urban policy, but they have an urban complex. They believe farmers are on the way out, that farmers' votes will decrease and that by the time they appoint and work their way through two or three more task forces there will be no more farmers to worry about anyway.


Mark G. Smerchanski: And that is progress.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Since the government has no policy, it sends the committee on a trip west. The hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) expects the other members of the agricultural committee and the house at large to be grateful for that favour conferred by this great Liberal government.
May 1, 1969

It may be that there is a necessity in some parts of the west to transfer, over a period of time, operations to some other crops, but this is a longer term problem. The problem now is how to get through this year. The hon. member for Assiiniboia (Mr. Douglas), as well as members on this side of the house, emphasized that point. We are facing problems because prospects for marketing are poor. We have lost our share of the international market over a period of years, and we are all familiar with the long, sad history of this.
We suggest, indeed urge, that immediate assistance for our farmers is necessary. Various forms of assistance have been proposed in order to keep them in business for this year. As far as the west is concerned, I understand the Richardson newsletter has indicated that the outlook this1 year for our grain markets is poor. I see that the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon (Mr. Lang) is in his place. I hope he will rise and do here what he said he would do when he was out west. He was going to come down to Ottawa and fight for the west.
Where is his colleague, the Minister without Portfolio from Winnipeg (Mr. Richardson), who announced that he would come to eastern Canada and tell the east what it should do about the west? Where are these paper tigers? I hope they rise in their places tonight and tell the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) what he should do about our agricultural problems. I am looking forward to hearing this brave spokesman for the west rise in his place to tell the government and the Minister of Agriculture what they should do.
Certainly, our agricultural industry is in a state of flux; there is no question of that. There is1 no need for anybody to minimize the difficulties. Although the Minister of Agriculture spoke in this house this afternoon, at a time when everybody realizes our agricultural industry is in a serious condition, he did not make one proposal or even recognize the need for making one proposal, with regard to coming to the assistance of our farmers in their present emergency. If we on this side of the house cannot do it, I at least hope that the Minister without Portfolio and his colleague the other Minister without Portfolio will succeed in waking up the Minister of Agriculture in order that he will take some action and put some proposals before this house.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker,
Business of Supply
the topic before us tonight is one of extreme gravity and seriousness for this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Otto Emil Lang: I am pleased to know that, following the suggestion I made in the house the other day, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has begun reading the speeches I made in western Canada and is beginning to understand what I had to say about the fundamental nature of this problem.
The truth of the matter is that when the opposition refer to the serious problem of farm income, they are indeed touching on a very real problem. The great tragedy, however, is that they do not yet understand the fundamental nature of the problem.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Go back to law.


Otto Emil Lang: They understand its superficial aspects. They understand that on a given day the farmer is short of income. But they do not realize how the problem that is really facing agriculture is a fundamental one that has been ingrained into our national society for fully 100 years. I say that in the hope, just a hope-a pious hope-that the opposition may perhaps listen to what I say, and also that the people of the country will listen.
The problem facing agriculture today is serious, but the pattern and the seriousness was just as great and as present in the days a few years ago when crops were good and prices were a little higher. The fundamental problem was there then, as it is here today. This problem was in no way tackled by previous governments, and I make no apology at all on behalf of the government for the fact that we are taking some months to consider appropriate steps to cure a problem that has existed for years and years.
The nature of the problem is really this, that the farmer, along with other unprotected segments of society-and I should like to emphasize that, for he is not alone-has been losing ground because of the power of those who are able to claim in our society more for themselves than justice alone would allow. This power that they have allows them to claim more for themselves than justice alone would allow.
I should like to refer to the kind of power about which I am talking. I am talking about the power in this society of ours to raise prices above their proper level.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Name them.

May I, 1969
Business of Supply


Otto Emil Lang: To attack this problem, my colleague, the minister-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Name the groups you are talking about.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. Hon. members know that each member is restricted to ten minutes, and I will ask for the co-operation of all hon. members of the house in this debate.


Otto Emil Lang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford), is introducing an income and prices commission which is designed, in its way, to attack this problem. All hon. members know how firm the long tradition of the Liberal party has been to work toward freer trade in this country and how more determined than ever the government is to move in this direction. And move in this direction we have, and this is not a small matter.
I speak also for other members of the house about other power groups in the country. I would remind hon. members about the powers, of the unions, the capitalists and the industrialists, with their patents, monopolies and control over resources, to demand a higher price than is reasonable, are the factors causing the fundamental problems of agriculture. These are the factors which are ever increasing the costs in the agricultural industry, so that although in recent years the farmer's cash income has been rising, his position has been growing steadily worse.
I remind hon. members of that because people in eastern and central Canada are apt to refer to the cash income position of the farmer as improving year after year. This does not reveal the fundamental problem that the costs farmers have to bear, either for the production of their income or for their own living, are rising at a much faster rate.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) referred the other day to a labour dispute and to the fact that an income increase for one group above productivity must be borne by other people in the country, he was referring to the problem that is facing the farmer and other unprotected segments of society in this country
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Donald MacInnis: He did not say so.


Otto Emil Lang: I hear a member of the opposition say, "He did not say so." Perhaps that

shows that members of the opposition have not begun to realize the gravity of the situation. They do not know the magnitude of the situation or the seriousness of the problem which must be tackled in a global way.
We have not been unmindful of the problem, Mr. Speaker. One of our first pieces of legislation during the current session increased cash advances available to the farmer. We hoped, to some extent, to pay him for the wheat remaining in the bin on his farm. I said at that time that that legislation was not a long term solution to the problem of the farmer. I said to hon. members opposite that the problem had to do with price. It was a question of income compared to rising costs. When I drew these facts to their attention hon. members opposite, particularly those from western Canada, complained about this or that or the other small difficulty, and I said that by not directing their attention to the solution of the fundamental problems they were doing a real disservice to the agricultural community of this country. I also pointed out that power to obtain a greater share of income than was fair or reasonable was a major problem to be tackled in this society. I was referring to those who could obtain increases in income as a result of their power in society and not as a result of increased productivity. That is the problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Otto Emil Lang: I hear hon. members of the N.D.P. applauding. May I remind them that later in that debate I drew to their attention the fact that it was high time the trade unions of this country used their significant power not to demand higher and higher wages but lower and lower prices which, after all, they could demand just as easily.
This government is conscious of these problems and is attacking them in a steady and responsible manner. I do not apologize, as a member from the West, for having taken time in attacking problems which have been mounting in this country for too long. I am delighted to be a member of a government that is willing to tackle them.


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


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, was a member of the standing Committee on Agriculture. When we toured the west and saw the situation out there, I was amazed. The position of western agriculture is very, very serious. Perhaps I ought to put
May 1, 1969

on the record a few of the statements contained in briefs that were presented to the committee. The first brief read, in part:
The economic circumstances of a majority of prairie producers are desperate.
The farmers' first problem is caused by an inability to market a large proportion of his grain.
For the past several years, export sales have fallen off sharply. As a result, in the last crop year, farmers were only able to deliver six bushels per acre.
I understand that for the year previous to the last crop year deliveries were down to three bushels. The quotas are even lower now.
I continue quoting from the brief:
On the prairies, we must literally market or perish. We call on the federal government to take every conceivable step, to increase foreign sales.
In particular, we ask for an extension of export credit facilities.
The brief then referred to the cost-price squeeze:
The second problem of the prairie farmer is caused by the so-called cost-price squeeze.
Mr. Chairman, since the end of the war, annually throughout Canada, there has been a consistent upward trend in prices, wages and incomes. Year after year, sharp wage increases have been demanded and given, to virtually every union handling the farmers' products.
-	the longshoremen
-	the railroaders
-	the maritime unions
-	the dock workers
-	the elevator operators, and so on.
One such settlement a few years ago, gave 30 per cent in one contract, to the longshoreman-[DOT] and they have had substantially more since that time. Many of these wage increases were given after direct intervention, persuasion and pressure by the federal government. In every case, the farmer has been obliged to absorb a substantial portion of these huge wage increases. I think it should be realized by the committee, that in Saskatchewan since 1949, average wages and salaries have increased 146 per cent. The cost of machinery and other basic materials which the farmer must buy has doubled, in the same period-
But while all this has been happening, the farmers' selling price for wheat has remained almost static... In other words, at a time when inflation and escalating costs have never been so serious, the farmer has had virtually no increased returns. The result of course has been, that thousands of our farmers have been obliged to leave farming. Thousands of others are caught in an economic squeeze, that monthly becomes more desperate ... Mr. Chairman, the very basis of the prairie economy is agriculture. We do not believe that the nation is treating the wheat farmer fairly.
Business of Supply
I wish to quote also from another brief. It reads:
We are disturbed when we read statements made at the agricultural task force congress where Prime Minister Trudeau told those present that agriculture must choose now whether it wants more government involvement in agriculture and at the same time he also stated that the government of Canada does not anticipate supporting agriculture from the Treasury Department. Mr. Olson, Minister of Agriculture, also suggested that agriculture must look to its own salvation and must look forward to discontinuation of what government subsidies it now enjoys.
We ask why the government of Canada can give incentive grants or other assistance to large corporations or other industries but want to discontinue any assistance to agriculture.
I now wish to continue quoting from the first brief from which I read, at page 6:
Other governments provide vast and complex systems of holding up the price which the farmer receives. In the United States, the government actually pays the farmer for keeping land out of production. Almost every nation in the world pays the farmer, some kind of subsidy.
In France, for example their best wheat sells for $2.42 a bushel; in the Netherlands the price is $4.04 a bushel; in west Germany the producer receives $3.01 a bushel; in Japan the producer receives $3.56 a bushel; in India the producer receives $2.83 a bushel.


Mr. Cote (Richelieu):: Is that in U.S. funds?


Robert Elgin McKinley: I believe so. Normally, I believe we have enjoyed about 25 per cent of the world's export market for wheat. In 195253 we had about 40 per cent of the market, but in 1967-68 our share was down to about 18 per cent and the prospects for the future do not look bright. When visiting the west I saw grain stacked in bins. Those farmers had no money, having taken advance payments which they used for living expenses. At present, although they may want to plant their crops, they cannot do so because of lack of money. Some farmers could borrow the necessary money, but many cannot.
The Prime Minister and other ministers have said that the farmers of this country are always crying. Maybe that's true, but I do not believe it is. I think farmers know when they are well off. When our farmers are well off everybody else does all right, too.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Elgin McKinley: And let me say this, Mr. Speaker. If it is true, the present agricultural situation reminds me of the story in which the boys looking after the sheep kept crying wolf. Most of the time there was no wolf, but one day the wolf came. The wolf is

May 1, 1969
Business of Supply
here now, and nobody is coming to help. He is about to eat up the sheep. In this case, the farmers of this country are the sheep.
When we were in British Columbia I was happy to be able to move a motion that affects Ontario farmers even more than it affects British Columbia farmers. It had to do with equalizing the tariff on eviscerated or dressed poultry and live poultry which is coming into this country at an increasing rate. I understand that Professor Cavers, the former head of the poultry department at the University of Guelph-and his opinions are respected throughout Canada-thinks that United States producers are gearing up to send increasing quantities of live poultry into Canada. They will do so because the tariff on live poultry is only two cents whereas on eviscerated poultry it is five cents. The standing Committee on Agriculture approved my motion unanimously, and agreed that this matter ought to be brought to the government's attention in order that immediate action might be taken. Such action would increase the two-cent tariff on fowl, broilers, turkeys, and poultry to 4 cents, equal to that on dressed poultry.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I am happy to know the Standing Committee on Agriculture is going to tour eastern Canada later this year, because everything is not rosy in this part of the country. I shudder to think what will happen to eastern agriculture if the western farmers, in order to get grain markets, feed all their grain to livestock. What will happen to eastern agriculture? Eastern farmers will be out of business, yet that is what western farmers are doing at the present time.
The eastern farmers have many millions of dollars invested in efficient equipment to handle this job. They are doing a tremendous job. If the western farmer is forced, through lack of grain sales caused by the ineffectiveness of the present government, to feed this grain to livestock the eastern farmers will be in serious trouble. If this happens, it will only be a matter of two or three years until the other segments of the economy are affected. This has been proven down through history.
Some people say only between 7 and 9 per cent of the people are employed in agriculture. I think in the production of agricultural products, processing, distributing and all down the line, approximately 40 per cent are engaged in agriculture. If agricultural products are brought in from other countries,

either frozen or canned, 40 per cent of the people in this country will be unemployed.
I plead with the government to take action at the present time to avoid a future disaster. A small amount of action and real consideration of this problem will prevent any serious consequences that might be ahead for this country.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Saini-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, as a member from a Quebec constituency, whose population is largely engaged in agriculture, I feel it is my duty to speak in this urgency debate on the agricultural situation.
In so doing, I am moved by a twofold feeling, Mr. Speaker. To begin with, I am rather pleased to take the floor because the farmers, in my region as in the rest of Canada, deserve that we give them our attention. But, at the same time, I am filled with grief when I see the extremely difficult situation which these people have been facing for a long time.
There is much talk in this house of the grain producers of the Prairie provinces and, undoubtedly, they are in a rather desperate situation this year.
However, the problem is not insurmountable for them, because some of them can take up cattle breeding and thus liberate that land used for grain-growing.
Mr. Speaker, such is not the case with the milk producers of the central provinces, particularly the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region, which I represent in this house, along with three colleagues.
In my constituency, most of the farmers are engaged in the dairy industry, because of the difficult weather conditions. Indeed, they have to switch to dairy production or give up farming altogether.
Over the past years, various farm authorities have advised them to expand their operations in order to increase their production and to modernize it in order to improve its quality. That is what they have done.
In my constituency, over the past ten years, their number has decreased by half, so that today they number only about 2,300, with an annual production of about 235,000,000 pounds of milk, which represents approximately 100,000 pounds of milk per producer. They borrowed money to make improvements, and they badly need their income to hold out.
May 1. 1969

That is why, even though I recognize the difficulties which production surpluses cause the Department of Agriculture, I must protest on behalf of the 2,300 producers of my area and others in Canada, against the new policy announced by the Canadian Dairy Commission on March 31 last.
I protest all the more as this new policy seems to have been adopted without consultations with representatives of the producers concerned, as to other solutions which might have been applied in the circumstances.
I heard a moment ago the hon. member for Boberval (Mr. Gauthier) quote the brief submitted to us Monday by the representatives of agricultural associations in his area. 1 shall not quote parts of the same brief, but I must say that, in my opinion, most of the grievances expressed there are well-founded.
More than 400 dairy producers came to that meeting, Mr. Speaker, to support their leaders, and the least I can say is that they were not very happy. They said so very clearly.
Nobody questioned the fact that the price situation had greatly improved in the last years, especially since the establishment of the Canadian Dairy Commission, but the setback they will suffer this year because of the new policy seems unacceptable to them. For them and for farmers in my area, that represents a loss of about $280,000 this year, and that, in an area already suffering from an 18 per cent unemployment rate. That is not likely to solve our problem.
Mr. Speaker, if in the last two years some
39,000	farmers went out of business in the dairy industry, we could at least have tried to reduce the surplus production through some other policy than the present farm policy or migration from the farms by producers, which will certainly continue. Besides, we should ask ourselves whether every effort is being made in order to find markets for our milk surplus.
As I have only ten minutes left, Mr. Speaker, before concluding my remarks I would like to give an example of the disastrous effects of the new dairy policy. This applies not only to my district but to the province of Quebec and the country as a whole.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Four years ago, at Saint-Coeur-de-Marie, in the Lac-Saint-Jean area, a young man of 30 bought a 200-acre piece of land with money he had saved when working in the Chibouga-mau mines; he also acquired a herd. However, as he decided to increase it, the Canadian
Business of Supply
Dairy Commission came into existence. He was given a quota based on his first year of operation, that is a production of 100,000 pounds of milk. Now, with the new policy, after having increased his production to 300,000 pounds, this young man is placed in the position where he would have to pay the Dairy Commission $50 a year. He would thus not make any profit and would even have to pay in order to operate his business. This is inconceivable. I therefore wonder how it will be possible to solve the problem of milk surplus.
The answer is not easy to find, of course, and it is impossible to find a quick solution to this problem while trying to stay within reasonable costs. We are told that in 1969 the Canadian taxpayer will pay around $125 million in subsidies to that industry and that the population as a whole, will pay another $100 million, because prices will be higher, since there is an embargo on imports.
I suggest that, on a trial basis, a committee be appointed which would be made up of representatives of producers as well as representatives of the department, who would have the necessary powers to negotiate a reasonable agreement, at least temporarily, with a view to settling this problem. If the producers were a party to this agreement, they would probably be more ready to cooperate in the implementation of these directives. For a while, it would probably cost a few millions more, but one could hope, at least, for a final settlement of the problem. Perhaps subsidies could be further reduced, even eliminated; that would be ideal, of course, and the net income of the producer would not be reduced as much.
I strongly urge the minister to seriously consider the setting up of that mechanism of negotiation, at least as an experience, because it is imperative to find a solution to this problem.
I cannot close without commenting on the recent changes in the method of classification of hogs in my area. Under the previous system, 40 to 60 per cent of hogs were getting a premium, but since the new standards went into effect at the beginning of the year, this rate has declined to 35 per cent.
However, recognizing the value of the new system, producers have accepted it without too much opposition, hoping to adapt themselves to it rather quickly, that is over a period of 12 to 18 months. But hardly four months later, these requirements were changed, which resulted in getting premiums

May 1, 1969
Business of Supply
for only 18 per cent of the hogs at the slaughter-house.
Even if the price has substantially increased on the market, as everyone agrees, the fact remains that, because of the disastrous situation during the three preceding years, producers need this surplus to make up for accumulated deficits.
The least that could have been done would have been to wait a few more months in order to allow the producers to get used to this new system.
As I often get the chance to speak with the minister, I shall continue to use my influence with him, because, as I know him particularly well, I am aware of his great ability in the field of agriculture and of his very great concern for the human problem which the present agricultural situation implies. I believe that the human problem is primarily the one with which we should be dealing.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate initiated by the official opposition, and pleased that the debate has taken place because of the minister's apparent lack of understanding of the exact conditions in western Canada. Of course, I mean the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), although having listened to the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) this statement could also apply to him.
Surely, when we see a Social Credit government in the province of Alberta, a Liberal government in the province of Saskatchewan and a Conservative government in the province of Manitoba combining their thinking, getting together, and coming here to ask for a two-price system for wheat, urging the federal government to take a look at the severe conditions in western Canada, the seriousness of the situation is underlined.
I wish to quote briefly from the brief presented by the Premier of Saskatchewan, a Liberal premier, to the Standing Committee on Agriculture during the course of its tour of the western provinces. The Minister of Agriculture, who has been a Liberal for only a short time, may learn something from this brief. In it the premier said:
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the government of Saskatchewan may I say that in our opinion the western grain industry faces a major crisis.
Could anyone make that more clear? Today, I listened to the speech made by the Minister of Agriculture. He dealt with the

subject of livestock, and said how great that industry is. Good as it is, it is thanks to no help from him, and thank heaven for that. Surely, because the livestock industry is in good shape, this does not necessarily mean the whole economy is in good shape.
I see the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang) on the edge of his seat as if he had something knowledgeable to say.


Otto Emil Lang: Not to you.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He has just made his speech, and it was just as if he were lecturing some first year law students at his university. I don't hold it against him for retaining his ability to lecture law students, because I am sure his constituents will wish him back at university after the next election. He talked about the power blocs. Has he spoken to his colleagues, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mack-asey) with regard to power blocs, after the great and generous wage settlements he made during the last number of months? I mention this in view of the fact that the longshoremen in Montreal struck for a 33 per cent wage increase a number of years ago and started a chain reaction among other labour unions. Now, the Minister of Labour has settled another dispute with them and given them another 21 per cent. In a period of five years, therefore, they have increased their income by some 54 per cent.
The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) talked about power blocs, their strength, and the economic advantage they have over the agricultural industry. I say to him, speak to your cabinet colleagues and retain your lectures for your law students.


Otto Emil Lang: Even you are learning.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The Premier of Saskatchewan went on to say:
The economic circumstances of a majority of prairie producers are desperate.
So, beyond a shadow of a doubt we have a major crisis in western agriculture.
Today, I listened to a 30 minute wandering speech by the Minister of Agriculture, and after some pressure from this side of the house in the final two minutes of his speech he dealt with the subject of a two-price system. Until then he had dealt with apples, potatoes, the livestock industry, the hog industry, chickens and eggs. He skated around the main problem. I didn't even know he was a hockey player. He would not have touched on the main problem had there not
May 1, 1969

been pressure placed on him by members of the opposition.
The Minister of Agriculture accused the Opposition of presenting the problems but never the solutions. We want some solutions from him. He should have some idea of what his capacities are, and the capacities of his government. He spent 30 minutes saying that there was no crisis, no problem.


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


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Then, he went on to say how great things were. I accuse him of being a second C. D. Howe. Everybody in western Canada remembers C. D. Howe's approach to farmers. He tapped them on the stomach and said, "It looks like you are doing all right." That is what the Minister of Agriculture sounded like.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He
sounded like Jimmy Gardiner to me.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Jimmy Gardiner is another typical example of someone who made that type of speech. The minister dealt at length with cash advance legislation, saying that 83,000 farmers had taken advantage of it and that the amount of money involved was $148 million. That, to me, vividly illustrates the problem.
Some ten days or two weeks ago the Standing Committee on Agriculture toured the province of Saskatchewan. Mr. Speaker, do you know that some 18,000 or 19,000 farmers turned out to the meetings, that 25 per cent of the farm population turned up at halls and heard the representations made to the Agricultural Committee?


Otto Emil Lang: What percentage?
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Twenty-five per cent of the farmers of the province showed up at halls and spent afternoons and evenings trying to get to the root of the problem and see what solutions could be suggested. Certainly, this shows there is a major crisis in the industry. I was disappointed that the minister did not even recognize the problem, let alone attempt to solve it. He dealt in a vague way with the difficulty of a two-price system. I do not believe there ever has been a piece of legislation introduced in this house that did not confront the administrators with a problem. I well remember when the cash advance legislation was first introduced. It was said that it was impossible to administer and that it
Business of Supply
would undermine the Wheat Board. A two-price system would bring about problems, but the principle can be recognized and payment can be made under the two-price system. The two prices were paid in two previous cases and could be paid now. That is the number one solution I would like the minister to announce immediately. Then, he or the Minister of Trade and Commerce should announce an initial floor price for wheat of $1.70 a bushel, the same as it was last year, to restore some confidence in the industry.
Then, if the International Grains Agreement is not continued or is not reinstated, the government should announce that the minimum price in that agreement shall be the minimum price for Canadian producers, including the final payment they receive. The Minister of Agriculture could then make great steps toward lengthening the shipping season at the port of Churchill. This would mean another 11 cents a bushel for the prairie producers because of the lower shipping costs. Lloyds of London sets the limit on that shipping period. I think the Canadian Wheat Board should set the limit.


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


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I beg the indulgence of the house to carry on for another minute.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the house give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I am not pleased to take part in this debate because it should not be necessary. I was not pleased to see some 20,000 people turn out at 24 different meetings in Saskatchewan. I was not pleased to see between
6,000	and 8,000 at the S.F.U. meeting at Saskatoon protesting the way this government is handling the feed grain situation. I think this would all be unnecessary if the government would face up to the situation.
I say that the position taken today by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) certainly was that of a very benevolent individual bleeding for the agricultural economy. This is the first impression and one that sets the stage for the great defeat of the agricultural economy. It is a double-cross from the word go.
Let us take a look at the record which indicates the reason given by an irresponsible government for not really meeting the crisis

May 1. 1969
Business of Supply
head on. We have only to look at what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had to say yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) quoted the Prime Minister as saying yesterday that the economy is on the move and things never have been so good. I am sure the people in western Canada will remember this Statement for years to come. I am sure that the Liberal candidates in the next election will have to justify this statement many times.
Today, the Minister of Agriculture spoke like a great white father. He told us the farmers never had it so good so far as cash advances were concerned. If I understood him correctly, I believe he said 83,000 farmers have taken advantage of cash advances compared to 45,000 last year. These simple facts prove there is a serious crisis facing our primary producers which the government is not prepared, or does not want, to meet. I ask the minister and the government to do something now rather than gloat over what they have done in the immediate past.
The minister spent some time quoting glowing figures. He mentioned prices in respect of other products. If he would look at the facts, he would realize that good steers today should sell at $35.99 per hundredweight; that grade A hogs should sell at $53.85 per hundredweight; that wheat should sell at $3.27 per bushel and that shelled corn should sell at $2.10 per bushel. I ask whether the minister really has uttered any great, magic words of condolence to the people who are not receiving these amounts of money. I am sure the producers would feel a little more confident if they knew they could turn to other products, such as those referred to by the minister, but they would have no guarantee so far as prices of those products are concerned. The suggestion that the farmer should turn to these products at this time means absolutely nothing to him because he has no idea what he would receive on his investment at a future date. It is hypocritical for the minister to bring in such a suggestion.
I should like to move briefly to the subject of feed grain. I am sure the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon (Mr. Lang) is well aware of this subject. If he is not, he should be. In Saskatoon, when some 6,000 to 8,000 farmers gathered to protest the movement of feed grain between provinces, this minister stood up and tried to talk like a professor to practical people. This did not work and no one knows it better than the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon.
[Mr. Skoberg.l
This government, and particularly the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and even the Attorney General, stand accused in the eyes of the people of the west for doing absolutely nothing when they knew this smuggling was taking place. When these people gathered at Saskatoon on April 11, they produced documentary evidence that feed grain was being smuggled. This is going on constantly. We know that some 5,000 bushels per day of feed grain are going from Saskatchewan to Alberta at a price of between 40 cents and 60 cents a bushel. We know the Canadian Wheat Board is aware of this. We know there must be a directive from somebody in the government telling these people to turn their eyes away and do nothing about it.
I, personally, have phoned the department to ask what could be done about it. All that happens is that one is shoved from department to department; they have no intention of doing anything. Many people in the west are asking why something is not being done about the movement of feed grain. The people in the west are familiar with the fact that the ranchers, food processing plants and packers like to have this type of movement continue. This makes one wonder whether or not there is some collusion between these people and others to make sure that nothing will be done about it. As late as the 25th of this month, the following advertisement appeared in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix:
Required immediately 1,000,000 bu. No. 2 hard wheat. Will pay 70c cash per bushel delivered to nearest elevator.
Then, a box number is given.
I ask the minister whether he intends to sit there doing nothing while this type of procedure is being conducted. We do not know what elevator is being used to obtain this grain without permit books. If permit books are being used, it is illegal. I think it is only right that this government should stand on its own feet and do something for those people who are drawing this situation to their attention. I wonder how we could possibly say we support the Canadian Wheat Board when it has not really been given the authority to market the grain it should market. What the people in the west really want is that the Wheat Board be given the authority to market grain in an orderly fashion. The farmers want a fair return on their investment. I can assure you that under present circumstances in the west there is no opportunity to receive a fair return on any type of investment. I
May 1, 1969



most heartily support the suggestion put forward by my colleague that an income sufficiency payment is needed now, not tomorrow.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
The immediate need is for the payment of 20 cents per bushel of grain on a maximum of
5,000	bushels. At one of the meetings in Moose Jaw I believe one of the farmers put it very aptly. He said: "We have waited in vain with patience and too long now for promised programs that would provide some solutions to our problems". I should like to quote an article written by George Bain, which appeared in the Globe and Mail of March 11, 1969. It is headed, "A protest from the West", and reads as follows:
Read Bruce Hutchison in Saturday's Globe and Mail: "...The people of the west are beginning to suspect that they have in Ottawa not a genuine national government but an Ontario-Quebec government too concentrated in the Laurentian centre, too French, and too careless of the perimeter, both Western and Atlantic".
I am sure those people in the other areas of Canada can subscribe to the idea that the west and the far east are not getting their fair share or a return on their investment. I am sure that the people will not stand by and accept much longer that which is being forced on them.
Before I conclude, may I put a question which I believe the government should answer: Does the federal Liberal party support the orderly marketing of feed grains under the quotas and pricing system of the Canadian Wheat Board? The Minister without Portfolio did not answer that question in Saskatoon when it was put to him. I believe it is an obligation of this government to tell the people of this nation whether or not they support the Canadian Wheat Board and whether or not they support the orderly marketing of grains. Nothing else will do at this time.
I am sure that all of us here are sincere when we ask the government to take immediate action to supply cash for the benefit of the western agricultural economy. I am sure that everyone here is sincere when they say it can be done and it must be done. If the government does not act now, they will forever know that they deliberately destroyed the entire agricultural economy of this country.


Florian Côté: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to inform the house of my views on what I have heard since noon,
Business of Supply
of what I think of the motion of non-confidence blaming the government for its administration especially with regard to agricultural matters.
I was surprised to hear all those who supported this motion, especially the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) who surprised me all the more as he was the only one who did not propose any solution to the problem. That surprised me greatly.
I recall certain facts which may help me to explain later on why my feeling of surprise disappeared fairly quickly. I do it with much conviction, Mr. Speaker, because the lot of those who till the land in order to provide food for their fellowmen has never been easy except in times of famine or war, and it has been so in every country in the world. We must acknowledge that.
When efforts are made during difficult periods to improve the situation of agriculture, perhaps something else than what was done this afternoon should be tried. Instead of blaming, we must find solutions.
Was the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Dan-forth) who proposed the motion truly sincere? We shall analyse that problem together and thus we shall be able to decide whether or not we should support the motion. As for me, I feel that I do not even have the right to back it, but let us analyse the problem.
If my information is correct, the hon. member introduced this motion as a result of the policy of the present government to improve the dairy industry. Because time is limited, I shall try to limit myself to the dairy industry.
So, I told myself: Things are not too bad even now, for when the party of the hon. member was in power-there were then 208 members in the government-there was no policy, and I myself was a farmer at that time.
If one should decide to find out how serious the suggestions are that were made, including those of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), one could consult available figures and discover that in 1962-at which time the conservatives were in power-they were not led by the present Leader of the Opposition, who doubtless heard the unpleasant news- the Canadian dairy production was worth only $13,257,869. We see a change from 1963 to 1969: the dairy industry alone has now reached a production of $136,000,000.
A look at the total budget for 1961-62 reveals that $240,581,231 were allotted to agriculture. In the budget for 1969-70, over

May 1. 1969
Business of Supply
$280,000,000 are earmarked for agriculture alone.
In 1958, I was having problems on the farm, just as everyone else did in every sector of society in Eastern Canada, because support prices had gone down; that happened under the Progressive Conservatives regime.
I am hardly in a position to discuss the problems the West had to face in those days for I was not involved at that time as I am today. As for those of the East, I have experienced them myself. In fact, the price of bacon had gone down to the point that in 1958 and 1959 I was selling it at $17.80 per hundred pounds. That was not under the present administration.
If I mention this, it is in order to assess the arguments put forward today. If they are genuine, let us put the blame on those who were in charge of the country at that time, the same who are unable today to offer any answer to the increase in production costs.
I am certainly not too happy over that myself but those who can do no better than put the blame on others are not, in my opinion, very fair. And those who say that the government did not take the necessary steps are simply changing the terms of the problem. But when you say it has taken no efficient steps and is unable to take any, I think you are entirely wrong.
Mr. Speaker, when we were discussing the milk quotas, a member of the N.D.P. said that the Canadian Dairy Commission had penalized the farmers when fixing their milk quotas. Here again, in all fairness, all hon. members, to whatever political party they belong, should admit that many farmers are doing a job for which they are not fit, on land, in eastern Canada, which does not suit the dairy industry.
If you want to help us, get the money elsewhere, from the Welfare Department or the Unemployment Insurance Commission, but do not try to grant subsidies so as to induce the people to believe we are crying on their shoulders because the dairy industry will be facing the same problem ten years from now on.
Then, let us agree to impose quotas even if we run the risk of losing votes and even if the farm associations run the risk of losing contributions. But the first step is necessary. Now, the Canadian Dairy Commission has almost taken this step but it hurts to see young people finding it hard to follow suit. The farm associations, together with the Canadian Dairy Commission have asked that [Mr. Cote (Richelieu) .1
one should not let any more people engage in dairy production in order to help those who are now engaging in it.
Let us not forget that we have already imported butter from New Zealand. What was the policy before such imports were allowed? Today it is probably economic to import some but only as a guarantee and not for consumption. We must be assured not to run short. The Commission has two roles to play. It must promote the marketing of dairy products and protect the consumers to prevent the price of butter from becoming exorbitant.
Last year, 3.3 million pounds of butter were imported from New Zealand though we did not need it. It did not cost anything; it was simply resold. We did it in order to protect ourselves remembering what happened in 1962. The members of the opposition must remember, because there was no dairy policy concerning butter and we had to store in the government warehouses over 260 million pounds of butter in 1962. It cost the Treasury of our country over $60 million to get rid of this butter to resell it in any form, since we were forced to melt some of it.
The money was taken out of the pocket of the taxpayers, and we did not complain. The opposition did not complain either, despite the fact that there was no policy.
Today the situation is more stable. Because some butter is imported for protection, they complain and they cry shame.
Since this afternoon no hon. member has proposed any real solution. As for the quotas, as I said a while ago, we will all have to accept the government policy, whatever party we belong to.
This will hurt a few. Even for the small farmer who does not produce enough to make a living, we will have to implement policies like the present one. We cannot tell him that we should have helped him, because then that would be cutting our own necks. We should rather say, altogether: We know that we have to stop producing, and that it will hurt. We know that we will lose votes, in one party as well as in the other.
But if we really want to solve the problems of the dairy industry, we will have to fall into step.
I have a few solutions to propose to hon. members. First, about marketing: In my opinion, we must reduce in certain fields if necessary, if we are afraid to tax a little. Indeed, we should not forget that if we impose taxes to improve the situation, the opposition will
May 1, 1969

be the first to criticize us. If we do not want to impose new taxes, if we accept to make a reduction in the field of scientific research and if we promote the marketing of the product, this would be very significant. We must continue the work that the government-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: I should like to begin by saying that I have had the pleasure of talking to a number of those who served on the standing committee as well as with Wheat Pool committee men. I am sure the Wheat Pool in Saskatchewan is to be commended on the wonderful job it did in organizing its business throughout the province of Saskatchewan. Above all, the members of the various pool committees are to be commended on the excellent briefs they presented to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. I am sure it would be a good exercise for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) to read these briefs, if he has not already done so. I am sure he would not continue to hold the view that there is no problem facing western agriculture. I also believe it would be well for him to read the brief submitted to the Committee by the Liberal premier of Saskatchewan. He would then agree, I feel, that there are problems facing agriculture, not only in western Canada, but right across the country.
It is significant that it should have been left to the opposition to bring before parliament a question of basic social and economic concern, one which should have been assigned top priority by any government with a serious desire to tackle the real problems confronting this nation. In my view, one of the most serious weaknesses of the present administration is its failure to face up to the urgent problems weighing upon ordinary people in this country. As a member for a riding that is largely rural, and a rural western riding at that, I welcome this opportunity to speak on the problems facing the industry of agriculture because I have become increasingly aware over the past months of the growing gulf between that industry and this government.
When one considers the tremendous importance of agriculture to the Canadian economy as a whole, when one realizes the number of Canadians intimately affected by the state of agriculture and when one recognizes the full social and economic implications of a sick
Business of Supply
agricultural industry for our standard of living and development as a nation, it is remarkable that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his colleagues should have allowed this gulf to occur and to widen. It is even more remarkable that no attempt has been made to bridge this gulf.
The evidence clearly indicates that the policy-makers of the Liberal party have weighed Canadian agriculture in political terms and have declared it expendable. I will not labour the evidence supplied by the present depressed state of the grain industry. This is already well known and the shameful record is clear for all to see-tons of dry, marketable wheat piled on farms across the prairies side by side with mountains of damp, unsaleable grain.
This government has failed all along the line. What measures were taken fall into the category of too little and too late. Inadequate assistance to farmers to meet the natural disaster of damp grain; chaos in the reception arrangements and shipment to the ports, bumbling in untying the railway transportation knot; too little of the right grain and too much of the wrong grain in terminal elevators; lost sales and failure to make significant new sales abroad. If it were not for the prior commitments to purchase made by Russia and China several years ago, the Canadian grain industry would today be bankrupt and in ruin.
Not once during its brief lifetime has this government brought forward one major piece of agricultural legislation. This house has seen a series of minor bills dealing with various aspects of agriculture, but the majority have been merely amendments to take the ceiling off various interest rates.
Not once has a senior minister mentioned the possibility of this government bringing forward a major measure dealing with basic agricultural policy. All we have seen has been a callous disregard for the very real problems of the industry and the depressed economic conditions now being experienced by those engaged in agriculture. This government has been responsible for parliament frittering away its time on minor matters such as the amendment to the Criminal Code.
The Canadian farmer is not interested in legally being able to engage in homosexual practices. What he wants is some assurance that he will be able to maintain a decent standard of living. The farmer with a glut of unsaleable grain on his hands, no credit at the bank and bills piling up disastrously, is

May 1. 1969
Business of Supply
not too concerned with legalized abortion or changes in the rules governing firearms.
Throughout the agricultural community today many thousands of solid, hard-working Canadians are beset by the devils of a real economic depression. They have every right to expect their government at least to recognize their plight. It is now obvious from the legislative plans of this government that there is no room for them in the "Just Society". They have been ignored by Ottawa, excluded from government policy and planning and sacrificed to other interests and other areas, and I speak of agriculture in all parts of Canada, not just in the west. It is almost as if the Prime Minister and his government were actively antagonistic to agriculture.
What little attention has been paid by the Minister of Agriculture to the farmers of Canada has been negative: "Don't do this, don't do that, don't grow wheat, grow something else, don't expect the government to sell your products."
There is much to be said for the suggestion of a two-price system for grain, but so far it is just another suggestion, a hint of something the minister may some day, just possibly, get around to discussing with his colleagues. What the Canadian farmer needs right now is reassurance that he is not forgotten, that he has not been written off. He wants to know that he can continue to enjoy the same standard of living as his fellow citizen in industrial Canada and that he will share equally in national prosperity, national development and national life.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
The Canadian farmer needs some assistance from government. He needs this assistance to meet the uncertainties nature imposes, to meet stronger foreign competition and the radically changed market place for agricultural produce. He needs the same kind of degree of government assistance as any other segment of the economy.
The farmer needs guidance from government. If government is to make suggestions that mean a basic change in his mode of work and life, if government largely controls the purchase and marketing of his produce, then he needs government guidance to ensure his future. Above all, he needs government leadership; leadership that will reassure, uplift and inspire him. So far, this government has failed to supply any of these things.
I could get specific, Mr. Speaker, and go into detail about the deplorable state of dairy

farming, for instance. I could give you chapter and verse with regard to cases of young, able and willing farmers who cannot start in the dairy business, the business of their choice, because of government policies that create injustice, inequality and impose an economic burden no young Canadian can shoulder.
I believe that this house today should be most concerned with the general question of agriculture as well as this government's abject failure to provide answers to its many serious problems. I believe this house should be even more concerned with this government's obvious determination to ignore the agricultural community.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, having recently visited western Canada I find it shameful that so many farmers are at a loss about putting in a crop this spring.


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, coming from an agricultural area as I do, and also having visited the west with the agricultural committee, I feel that during the next few minutes I should like to say something about this important subject. If I may get right down to the nuts and bolts of the situation, the problem is just this: As many speakers have said, we have an over abundance of wheat and other foodstuffs in this country. The solution to the problem is to get out into the markets of the world and try to sell this foodstuff.
I am not suggesting that a great deal has not been done in this connection in the past. I went out west as a greenhorn as far as western agriculture was concerned-perhaps I came back the same way-but I did learn certain things about the Wheat Board that I did not know before. I should like to go on record right now as saying I agree with the general feeling in western Canada that when the Wheat Board was created some years ago it did a most remarkable job in stabilizing the wheat situation, which was in chaos.
However, I suggest to the house tonight that as a sales agency the Canadian Wheat Board has not been as successful as perhaps it should have been. In the last few years, Canada sold wheat and grain to 118 countries. That figure is in the Wheat Board's report. Yet last year we called on only 36 countries. Is this the way to do business? Is this the way other companies that sell coal, baking powder or Red Rose tea do business? We have to get out and see people before we can
May 1. 1969

sell them goods. If we are going to sell wheat to China, we will have to send to China people who are prepared to use chopsticks, drink Chinese wine and eat their rice. We must associate with them and become jolly good fellows so that, like private enterprise, we are able to sell our products.
In this regard, we have a fantastic advantage over our United States friends because we sell to communist countries. The United States sells very little to communist countries. As a matter of fact, the Chinese would sooner starve to death than buy United States wheat, so automatically they come to Canada. Last year we sold 133 million bushels of wheat to communist countries.
As all hon. members know, there is presently a world glut of wheat. Although Canadian officials tell me we cannot sell wheat, last year the United States increased its sales to foreign countries from 742 million bushels to 753 million bushels?


An hon. Member:: Why?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Because they went out and sold it. They went to work. You cannot expect the little farmers of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba to go out and sell wheat to Russia, Cuba, Hungary, France or whoever it may be. You have to have a sales organization to do that for you. It is the obligation of the government to set up this sales organization and to send it out to sell wheat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I regard as a downright shame the fact that last year we sold only 27 per cent as much wheat as the United States sold to the so-called free world. There seems to me something wrong with the way we are doing business. We have to go out and say hello to these people.
How does the Ford Motor Company, General Motors or any private enterprise business sell their products? What would Ford or General Motors do if they had too many cars? They would go out and sell them. This is what we have to do with our wheat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: My hon. friends to the left are acting most raucously because they think I am criticizing the government, but I can say exactly the same thing about them, too. The fact is that when they were in office they too had the Wheat Board.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We had Alvin Hamilton.
29180-523a
Business of Supply


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Yet they could not sell all our wheat. In fact, it was China and Russia that came to us and bought it.


Mr. Hees:: Who sold wheat to China?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Hon. members to my left might be able to speak English and French, but I do not think they understand Chinese. This they should be able to do if they want to sell goods to China.


George Harris Hees: When was the first Chinese sale?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: It was the Chinese who made that first sale because they came to us and bought.
In the few minutes that I have, I am suggesting that not only with regard to wheat but any agricultural products of which there is an over abundance in Canada we must go to the markets of the world before we can sell such products. For example, we have millions of pounds of powdered milk on hand at the present time. We should not wait for countries to come to us and ask us whether we have any milk for sale; we have to go to them and sell it.
I do want to be completely fair, Mr. Speaker. I understand a member of the Creditiste party, which has had only one speaker, wishes to say a few words, so I will relinquish the rest of my time to him.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in this discussion on the non-confidence motion against the government.
We would not want to blame the government overmuch, but we have to upbraid them, because we are still looking for an adequate agricultural policy. The government, with a good Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), have not yet found a solution to the serious agricultural problems.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to fight for the farmers of the Eastern Townships, because I am from that area and the farmers I represent are mainly engaged in dairy production.
Mr. Speaker, we have wanted reforms for a long time; we are trying to straighten out all sort of conditions, but the nostrums used up to now were of no avail. The Eastern Townships' farmers are in a serious plight; never in the history of this country have we seen them in such parlous circumstances.
A while ago, I heard the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cote) say that this government

May 1. 1969
Division
had done many things. However, I would like to remind him that all the government has done bore no fruit; it did not solve anything, and there will soon be no farmers left in the Eastern Townships and in the province of Quebec. Indeed, farmers are on the verge of bankruptcy. Never was agriculture so near bankruptcy as it is today.
Mr. Speaker, since I have only a few minutes at my disposal, I should like to deal with the element missing to solve the problem. Farmers pay too much tax on building materials. They are overtaxed. Their machines cost too much.
Since agriculture is a basic industry in our country, interest rates should be brought down, because the farmers should not always be the ones who have to make sacrifices. The hon. member for Richelieu said earlier that if farmers are not able to pay a 10 per cent interest rate, they should quit. I think the hon. member for Richelieu is standing up for finance. Hon. member for Richelieu, you are not a farmer, even though you you have at one time tilled the land, and you do not know anything about farm matters.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member must direct his remarks to the Chair.
It being 9.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to standing order 58(9), to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the proceeding concerning the motion now before the house.

The question is on the amendment to the main motion. All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: 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:: Call in the members.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
Is it the wish of hon. members that we proceed with the division with the ringing of the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
The house divided on the motion (Mr. Danforth), which was negatived on the following division.
++YEAS
Alim and
Andras
Badanai
Barrett
Basford
Bechard
Beer
Benson
Blair
Blouin
Boulanger
Brown
Buchanan
Caccia
Cadieux (Labelle)
Cafik
Chappell
Clermont
Cobbe
Comtois
Corbin
Cote (Richelieu)
Cullen
Danson
Davis
Deakon
De Bane
Douglas (Assiniboia)
Drury
Emard
Forest
Forget
Foster
Gendron
Gibson
Gillespie
Givens
Goode
Goyer
Gray
Groos
Guay (St. Boniface)
Guay (Ldvis)
Guilbault
Haidasz
Hogarth
NAYS Messrs:
Honey
Hopkins
Howard (Okanagan Boundary)
Hymmen
Isabelle
Jamieson
Kierans
Laing
Lang
Langlois
Laniel
Leblanc (Laurier)
Lefebvre
Legault
Lessard (LaSalle) Lessard
(Lac-Saint-Jean) Loiselle
Macdonald (Rosedale)
MacEachen
MacGuigan
McBride
Mcllraith
Major
Marceau
Marchand (Langelier) Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo)
Morison
Munro
Noel
Olson
Orange
Ouellet
Pelletier
Penner
Perrault
Pilon
Portelanice
Pringle
Prud'homme
Reid
Richard
Richardson
Roberts

May 1. 1969
Robinson
Rochon
Rock
Roy (Laval)
Ryan
Serre
Sharp
Smerehanski Smith (Saint-Jean) Stafford
Stewart (Cochrane)
Division
Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay)
St, Pierre Sullivan
Thomas (Maisonneuve)
Tolmie
Trudeau
Trudel
Turner (London East) Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)
Wahn	Whichjer
Walker	Whiting
Watson	Yanakis-115,


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
It being ten o'clock this house stands adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow.
At 10:15 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Friday, May 2, 1969