1970-02-19

AGRICULTURE


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the clerk has tabled the fourth report of the Clerk of Petitions.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: In accordance with Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker, may I ask that the report of the Clerk of Petitions concerning the petition I filed yesterday be read in the House.
Whereupon, the Clerk Assistant (legal) read the report as follows:
The Clerk of Petitions is honoured to report that he has examined the petition of Messrs. Manscell E. Gibson and other persons, members of the Quebec Federation of industrial milk producers and of the Catholic Farmers' Union or other persons interested in dairy policies, requesting the House to hold an emergency debate on dairy policies, filed by Mr. Lambert, member of Parliament for Bellechasse, on February 18, 1970, and he finds it to be consistent with the requirements of the Standing Orders, with regard to its form.
Respectfully submitted.
The Clerk of Petitions.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
STATEMENT BY MINISTER ON COMMEMORATION OF 25th ANNIVERSARY OF END OF SECOND WORLD WAR
Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members are doubtless aware that next May 8 is the 25th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe. In this connection, I would like to announce to the House the Government's plans to commemorate this occasion. It marks a great moment in Canadian history, as Canadians played an illustrious part in the events leading to this day of liberation for the Old World in 1945.
May the eighth this year falls on a Friday. The Government plans to hold a colourful and impressive ceremony that evening on Parliament Hill. Veterans of World War II 21701-31
and their present-day counterparts will participate. They will lead the country in paying homage to the 44,893 Canadian men and women who sacrificed their fives in the bitter five-year struggle to preserve freedom in Europe and in the world. We are hoping the people of the national capital region will want to take part in the occasion personally and that the people of Canada will be able to share in it via television and radio. Maybe the young people of Canada will feel a more intense pride in their country if they become involved in this simple, moving ceremony of remembrance in the shadow of the Peace Tower.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
However, we have not planned to hold only a memorial service. Those members of the House who recall May 8, 1945-and especially those who were serving their country at the time-will remember the wild wave of jubilation that surged through the hearts of free men everywhere in the world. The wistful words of one of the most poignant songs of the war had come true. The fights had gone on again all over the world.
So we hope our proposed VE-day ceremony on Parliament Hill will also close on a note of thanksgiving and hope.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that various local and national ceremonies will be held in Western Europe this spring, and in cases where Canada has been invited to take part we will be suitably represented and announcements in this regard will be made from time to time.
We are not aware of any inter-allied ceremonies scheduled for this time in Europe. However, if we were to be invited by any of our World War II allies to participate in their commemoration ceremonies, I am sure the House would want Canada to play its part, with the enthusiasm and dedication v/hich helped create the original Victory-in-Europe Day.
The House can be confident, Mr. Speaker, that it will be advised if any such interallied plans should develop.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I feel it a distinct
3816	COMMONS
Commemoration of World War II honour to comment on the minister's announcement of the government's intention to commemorate on May 8 the 25th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe. The commemoration of this historic event, while it will give us an opportunity to pay homage to the 45,000 Canadian men and women who lost their lives in war, will also remind us,
I hope, of our duty as citizens of this great dominion to reflect on those veterans who, although they offered their lives, still remain with us and are reaching the twilight years of their lives incapacitated and dependent on those who lead the nation and are responsible to provide the proper care which these people deserve.
In our present world of strife and turmoil, and even with the evidence of apparent problems which Canadians face at this very moment, not the least of which is our striving for national unity, I hope this anniversary will remind us of the reasons we have become a great nation. Those men and women who died on the battlefield, together with those of us who remain, fought side by side as comrades regardless of race, creed or colour and defended the free world and their own nation against one of the greatest tyrannies in the history of mankind, not as different religious groups looking for preference in our society but in the same colour uniform, as Canadians.
I hope the services planned for this significant memorial will not only bring representation and participation of veterans from across our great dominion, but will also bring together in a spirit of comradeship those of us who represent different political philosophies as a declaration of unity in remembering those veterans who gave us the freedom to govern all Canadians.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, let me first of all congratulate the minister for setting up suitable ceremonies to help us celebrate the 25th anniversary of the end of the second world war. I appreciate that arrangements for certain of the ceremonies which will be held by some of the nations which fought in that war have not been completed yet. We look forward to Canada being represented in that community of nations in a suitable manner and by suitable veterans.
Canadian servicemen and women made a great contribution to victory in that war. Let us really show our appreciation as a nation by increasing war veterans pensions and al-

DEBATES	February 19, 1970
lowances in order to demonstrate our regard for the sacrifices they made on behalf of us all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Arnold Peters: After 25 years, almost 50 per cent of our population does not remember the last war. This will surprise many of us. It throws an extra task on those who have the responsibility for looking after the veterans of that war; they must explain to the nation the reason that war was fought, and draw attention to the sacrifices which were made by Canadian men and women to establish peace, as they hoped, for all time.
Peace cannot be established by pacifism. We must be willing to fight for it and make sacrifices for it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Arnold Peters: If these ceremonies are to be truly representative of the Canadian nation we shall have to tell the young people of Canada that though war is a disaster for everyone there are times when it is absolutely necessary in order to ensure the peace which we all desire. It seems that many people across the world have forgotten this in terms of the United Nations and the reason it was set up. Part of our responsibility in the course of these ceremonies must be to inform our young people of the reasons for the sacrifices made by our veterans and to remind them of our responsibility to make those veterans who remain with us comfortable in the remaining days of their lives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, we derive great pride from our contribution to the defence of liberty in Europe. However, we grieve for the 44,893 Canadian men and women who lost their lives thereby. It was indeed somewhat ridiculous that a small population should have sent a few thousand of its citizens to defend millions of people. Our technical and financial assistance should have been enough. We can remember the famous plebiscite on conscription which fully support my opinion.
I have no desire to minimize the value of the heroic deeds of those Canadians who made the sacrifice of their lives. I do, however, want to express the wish, on this anniversary, that a similar effort be made, but this time for peace.
February 19, 1970


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Rene  Malle@Champlain: The funds and the production which helped us to win the war would also certainly have created the peace we all long to see prevail throughout the world.
The Social Credit methods applied in wartime can just as well apply in times of peace.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Goode:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon. member wished to be recognized on the first item of business for the purpose of presenting a report. Is it agreed that we allow the hon. member to present a report?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)



FISHERIES AND FORESTRY

[Stage Direction]
First, second and third reports of Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry-Mr. Goode.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Eric Kierans (Postmaster General and Minisler of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an announcement concerning the Post Office's plans with regard to a national postal code, and at the same time, to table copies in both languages of a report titled, "A Canadian Public Address Postal Coding System".
As hon. members will recall, last July the Post Office engaged the consulting firm of Samson Belair Riddell Stead Inc. to carry out a study of a possible national postal code. Their report was completed last December and as a result we intend to implement a national public address postal code.
Several countries now use, or plan to use postal codes, among them the United States, Britain, Germany and Japan. The code which has been designed for Canada will be unique. It will provide great flexibility, precision, and be able to accommodate changes in population distribution.
21701-31J
Montreal Post Office Strike
[English}
The code itself will consist of six alphabetical and numerical characters. The first three characters will be used for forward sortation, that is, they will describe the area to which the letter is being sent. As an example-and this is purely an example-the address code of a letter mailed to a customer in Scarborough, Ontario, could begin with the letter "T" to designate the Toronto coding region and be followed by the numerals 8 and 7 to designate both Scarborough and the appropriate postal station. The last three characters of the six-character code will describe the local delivery unit, which might be an apartment building a street block and so on.
Implementing the code will take time and a considerable amount of work. Detailed planning will commence very shortly. Discussions will be held between officers of the department and interested groups across the country with the object of ensuring that the code, as finally designed, will meet as many customer requirements as possible. These meetings will begin shortly.
The basic design of the national code will be completed by November, 1970. Implementation will begin with a detailed pilot project scheduled to start in April, 1971. A period of testing and analysis will be followed by implementation in other cities. Ottawa is likely to be chosen as the test site because the new postal terminal due to be opened here this summer will include facilities to test new models of equipment, thus enabling us to examine the performance of the code under existing as well as future conditions.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the staff of the Canada Post Office on the speed with which this particular project has moved and on the scope of the task that they have undertaken. A permanent public address code will be a major factor both in increasing the productivity of the Post Office and in improving the quality of service which we will be able to provide the public.
The national code will entail an upgrading of job skills in Post Office and bring about a reduction in the number of routine tasks. Before the code goes into effect, there will be full consultations with the different unions or associations representing employees concerned.

3818	COMMONS
Montreal Post Office Strike


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I may say I do not have the facilities for comment in a technical sense that the minister has. He has his statement, his summary, his summary of the summary, and the press release all ready.
It is my nature and temperament, Sir, to prefer to commend rather than condemn, and I will do my best to be commendatory on this subject, which must be quite a diversion for the minister considering some of the problems he is having in his department in some parts of the country.
It can be said, however, that despite the brilliance of the press release this is not a trail-blazing experiment because, as the statement points out, many countries are already using zipcodes and there is not, so far as I can learn, complete unanimity as to the efficacy of this particular device. As one of my colleagues in front of me has just observed, the public has been zapped and now the Post Office is being zipped.
It can be said, however, and we want to analyse these announcements-I think that is our job, Mr. Speaker-that considering the ills of the Post Office, aggravated in the last two years by the minister's brash, brusque and bull headed efforts at reform, the introduction of a zipcode can hardly be considered as a major remedial measure. It is like expecting a very sick patient to be improved, not by a prescription but by the doctor conveying to him the number of that prescription.
I note that the minister has indicated in his statement that this study by yet another task force group was initiated in July, 1969. I recall receiving from the Post Office Department a publication dated May, 1969, in reference to zoning in Toronto, which indicated:
I am sure that you will be interested in knowing that the numbers have been set up in such a way as to eliminate the necessity of any changes over the next thirty years.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: No matter how many digits, Sir, appear in the zipcode, I submit the movement of mail will not be expedited if we have a system whereunder it lies around immobile for two days out of seven in all regions of Canada except the rural areas. The folly of blocking out the movement of mail on Saturday as a mail day in non-rural Canada is one of the major problems, perhaps next in importance only to the minister's concept of

DEBATES	February 19. 1970
labour relations as the most serious problem facing the Post Office. If perchance, and despite all the stillborn reforms of the last two years, the introduction of the zipcode does help we will, praise God, rejoice.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to comment on a statement made by this minister and retain any semblance of politeness. Here is a minister under whom the service given to the public has been reduced to five days a week and the rates charged to the public have been increased substantially. Here is a minister who has been in constant and permanent conflict with all the employees of the Post Office. He is at the moment in open conflict with members of the CNTU in Montreal. Having gone to arbitration with postal employees organized in CLC unions, he is now challenging the ruling of the arbitrator. Under his jurisdiction a new six-cent stamp has been issued which is difficult to use.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
In short, Mr. Speaker, everything the minister has touched up to now has been a failure. I have hopes, Mr. Speaker, that this cannot continue forever, although that may be wishful thinking and may be too charitable in the light of the minister's record. But I hope the minister cannot continue to fail at everything, so I join him in the hope that he will succeed in respect of the proposal he has announced today. May I say to the minister that my colleague and deskmate, the hon. member for Surrey, has suggested to me he hopes the zipcode will not become a zapcode.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) has informed us today that his department will adopt a permanent coding system for mail delivery.
Mr. Speaker, the first thought that comes to my mind is that the department should first operate and deliver the mail before adopting a coding system.
This project represents a technical improvement which really copies what has been done in the United States and in other countries. Without innovating in the field, we are in fact trying to improve the delivery system with all possible means. We can only congratulate the minister for his initiative, but on the other hand I would like to take this opportunity to encourage him to consult with the other ministers in order to ensure not only better
February 19, 1970

mail delivery but also a more decent income to dairy producers by means of more substantial subsidies to be distributed to them through the Post Office.
If the minister would suggest this two-fold solution, namely a better coding system and more substantial subsidies, I think that the population would be happy.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, on the ground of urgent and pressing necessity I ask unanimous consent of the House to move a motion based on the following facts. More than 879 Indians and Metis families in northern Saskatchewan are faced with starvation. They need help from any available source. Yet, when members of the Saskatchewan Farmers' Union as long ago as December were prepared to make available to them several thousand bushels of wheat, the Indian and Metis families were prohibited by Wheat Board regulations from making any use of this humanitarian offer. These people live under extremely adverse conditions and the government must move quickly to help them. I move:
That the government immediately take such measures as are necessary by law to permit the members of the Saskatchewan Farmers' Union to give several thousand bushels of wheat to Metis families in northern Saskatchewan and to permit the MStis committee of Saskatoon to make lawful arrangements to grist such grain and distribute the flour to the starving Metis and their families.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the mon. member for Meadow Lake. The motion can be put to the House and debated this day only if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous agreement. Under the circumstances the motion cannot be put.


Mr. Hales:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, when you call for unanimous consent of the House and it is not definite whether there is opposition, I think any member who is opposed should rise in his place so we will know who he is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: I would think that, generally speaking, this is a very good suggestion, but when there is a clear "no" the situation would appear to be different. If it will satisfy hon. members I will again ask whether there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard many "no's".


An hon. Member:: All on the Liberal side.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions:
Mr. Beer (Chairman of the Standing Committee on Agriculture):: That the First Report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, presented to the House on Tuesday, February 17, 1970, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the motion is put I understand the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my point of order relates to the time when this motion might be put. I believe there is a general understanding that the motion is to be debated and that the debate may take about an hour. I wonder whether there could be unanimous consent for this to take place after the oral question period.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the understanding indicated by the hon. member is substantially agreeable, but I should like it understood that we are agreeing to have this debate at the end of the oral question period and immediately before government orders are called so that the opposition motion today will retain its first place under government orders.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, we agree, account being taken of the agreement already concluded to the effect that the opposition day will be respected and that in principle we will be allowed an equivalent period of time with respect to the extended sitting.

February 19, 1970
Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion now made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere is not exactly the same as the proposal of the President of the Privy Council.

The hon. member for Lotbiniere (M. Fortin) suggests that the time spent on consideration of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beer) be added to the time allowed for consideration of the motion moved by the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Lambert).

Is this the proposition which has now been made to the House?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there have been additional discussions to which I would have referred had we dealt with the allotted day motion. The discussion related to the speeches today and two proposals which I believe might be found to be generally acceptable. The first is that except for the initial prime spokesmen, who would have extra time in speaking to the opposition motion, other speakers would be confined to 15 minutes. Second, so that the hon. member for Bellechasse and his colleagues will not be confined in presenting their motion under the allotted day procedure it is proposed that the House should sit from seven o'clock until ten o'clock this evening. One hour would be taken off the dinner recess in order to make certain that all hon. members would have an opportunity to participate.
If we could roll this up in one large procedural motion it would be, first, that the chairman of the Standing Committee on Agriculture would be allowed to present his motion immediately after the oral question period; second, the debate on that motion would last not longer than one hour; third, the length of time for speeches on the opposition allotted day motion would be confined to 15 minutes except for the prime spokesmen; fourth, the House would sit from seven o'clock to ten o'clock instead of from eight o'clock until ten o'clock.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Substantially we are in agreement with the President of the Privy Council, but in respect of the confinement of the debate on the motion of the Parliamentary Secretary to one hour I would point out that I believe it is agreed there should be one speaker from each party but there is no real certainty that the debate

would be completed in one hour. Hopefully, the speeches will be of such duration that one hour will be sufficient, but it could be a longer period. If the time were set at one hour this might inhibit some speakers. I think we can agree to there being one speaker from each party.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: My omnibus suggestion is amended to that extent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the total package as now before the House has our support.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we all agree, and we should not waste more time to agree on something about which we came to an agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: I must confess that this is not all very clear to me, but it seems that there is agreement. If there are difficulties later, we will tackle them and try to solve them with the co-operation of all hon. members.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the statement made yesterday by President Nixon in his foreign policy speech to Congress that "the most pressing issue regarding the law of the sea is the need to achieve agreement on the breadth of the territorial sea, to head off the escalating national claims over the ocean", will the government now proclaim Canada's sovereignty over our Arctic waters in clear, unmistakable terms so that we do not lose that sovereignty by default because of our continued silence on this matter?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to answer the question put by the hon. gentleman, let me say that we do not claim sovereignty over any waters that have been regarded as the high seas, except possibly where there has been an extension of territorial waters or inland waters as the result of the application of straight baselines.
February 19, 1970	COMMONS
It would be difficult to argue that the Arctic waters between Canadian territory have been regarded as part of the high seas. Indeed, the experimental voyage of the Manhattan in our waters, conducted with our acquiescence and our co-operation, is evidence to the contrary. So the President of the United States could not have been referring to Canada.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As there have only been answers of varying degrees of vagueness, will the government in the very near future make a clearcut statement on this matter so that everybody in Canada and, indeed, everybody in the world can understand where we stand? AJso, do the minister and the Prime Minister not consider it is about time we spoke out to the United States in clear, courageous terms instead of continuing to use the fawning, cap-in-hand attitude that this government has always adopted toward the United States in controversial matters?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Are we to take it that Canada is abandoning any claim to the permanent ice beyond the 12-mile limit in the Arctic area?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not understand the question. In the answer I gave to the original question put to me I indicated that we do not regard the waters between the Canadian islands as the high seas.



EXTENSION OP FISHING ZONES TO INCLUDE CONTINENTAL SHELF

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: My supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs is related in general to this matter. When is the government going to move to put into effect the unanimous recommendation of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry that we extend our fishing zones to include the continental shelf?


Mitchell William Sharp: I cannot answer that particular question but I can say that the government has now under consideration legislation relating to both fishing and pollution. I hope that it will be presented soon.


Frank Howard: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for
DEBATES	3821
Inquiries of the Ministry External Affairs. Will he make available to the House, by tabling or by some other method, the draft agreement with the United States regarding fishing privileges in each other's fishing zones?


Mitchell William Sharp: As the hon. member knows, since he referred to it as a draft agreement, it has not yet been approved by the Canadian government. It was simply agreed to in draft at the conference and the Canadian government has not yet decided whether to sign it.



NORTHWEST PASSAGE-FLYING OF CANADIAN FLAG BY FOREIGN SHIPS

Mr. W. B. Nesbiit (Oxford):: My supplementary question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the government of Canada require that any foreign ships, American or otherwise, going through the Northwest Passage fly the Canadian flag as an outward and visible sign of inward and spiritual grace?


Mitchell William Sharp: It is not customary for ships to fly the flags of the waters in which they are travelling. Sometimes they do it as a matter of courtesy, but it is not required by international law, or by our law, so no inference can be drawn from such gestures.



PHASING OUT OF CERTAIN ACTIVITIES OF FOREIGN FISHERMEN

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. When can we expect a statement on the phasing out of the fishing activities of the eight large fishing nations which now operate between the 12-mile and the 3-mile territorial limit off Canada's east coast, as promised in 1964?


Mitchell William Sharp: It is my understanding that the negotiations are continuing. I am afraid I cannot give the hon. member a definite answer as to when they will be concluded.



ACTION TO IMPLEMENT DONATION OF WHEAT BY FARMERS TO FEED METIS

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board regarding the representations which have been made to him
3822	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry by Dr. Howard Adams, the president of the Saskatchewan Metis Association, pointing out that there are some 800 Metis families facing hunger and that the members of the Saskatchewan Farmers Union have offered to donate wheat to be milled at a nominal cost by the local millers for distribution to these needy families. In view of the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board have indicated that it is not their responsibility to make a decision regarding this matter, I want to ask the minister whether he has discussed it with his colleagues, and is the government prepared to make the necessary arrangements so that these donations of wheat can be used to feed these hungry Metis families?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: I am sure my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, might want to comment on the facts behind the statement. When I met with Dr. Adams some time ago to discuss this issue, he indicated to me that some 750 replies to a questionnaire had been returned at that time, indicating that the Metis families would be glad to receive donations of bread. We agreed that it would be a shocking thing in Canada for people to remain hungry, especially in view of the progress we tend to believe we have made in making plans and governmental assistance available to these people. We agreed that the appropriate thing to do was to see that the government agencies took the proper steps to ensure that the Indians or Metis in question received food, which then could be purchased in the ordinary way so that farmers could receive money for their products rather than be pressured into generosity by giving the product to help the needy people. Dr. Adams indicated to me that so far as his evidence was concerned, he saw no defect or failing in the federal government's plans with regard to the assistance being made available to the needy people in northern Saskatchewan.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that no arrangements have been made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare or any agency to feed the 879 families to whom Dr. Adams has referred, is the minister prepared to make the necessary arrangements with the Wheat Board so that bureaucratic red tape will not prevent the farmers who are willing from donating wheat to feed these families until some other arrangement is made by the government, if it ever gets around to assuming that responsibility?

DEBATES	February 19, 1970


Otto Emil Lang: As I indicated, I think that the determination of the actual facts is, of course, the first step to take, and no one would want to stand in the way of seeing food moved to people in Canada who require it. None the less, I repeat that it seems to me that the first and most logical method would be to ensure that whichever government is responsible for giving assistance to people in Canada who need food should face up to that responsibility.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the minister see the letter that the Wheat Board wrote to this group of people who were trying to do something to relieve the hunger of some 700 or 800 Canadians? As the hon. member for Meadow Lake and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands have said, they asked for the right to mill. They applied to the Wheat Board on January 6 for a milling permit and received on January 22 a negative reply in these words, and I ask him if he has seen this statement?
We recognize the serious Indian-M6tis problem but feel it is not the responsibility of our board, a marketing agency, to make decisions of this kind regarding charitable relief.
Did the minister see that?


Otto Emil Lang: I believe that letter was shown to me by Dr. Adams and the committee of the National Farmers' Union when I met with them in Saskatoon in late January.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it not a fact, this having been brought to the attention of the minister on January 24, that he advised them that they would hear from him shortly but not a word has been passed regarding this serious situation within our own country? Is that right?


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I did indicate to him that I considered it a matter deserving immediate attention and I did immediately ask my officials to look into it as far as the federal government is concerned to confirm that we were in fact carrying out our proper responsibility in this area. I did also make some other contacts in other directions.


John George Diefenbaker: While this is going on these people starve. I ask the minister this. Will he not do something to bring before the House, if it has to be done, an amendment to
February 19, 1970

permit charitable assistance to be given to these people in the absence of action on the part of the government?


Otto Emil Lang: I should like to repeat, Mr. Speaker, that it seems to me that responsibility for seeing that assistance is given to these people rests either with the people of Canada or with the people of a particular area of the country, probably with the financial obligation shared by the people of Canada, and that the obligation should not necessarily rest on farmers or a group of farmers when they themselves very badly need the cash.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, who brought the matter up in the first instance, wanted to ask a supplementary question. Perhaps he might now be allowed to ask his supplementary.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to ask the minister, in view of the fact that the Wheat Board regulations now allow a farmer to take 50 bushels of wheat to a local mill to be ground into flour, whether the minister would consider having the Wheat Board regulations amended to allow a group of farmers to take wheat to a mill for grinding, particularly in view of the fact that they want to use it to alleviate human suffering? Is the minister prepared to have that amendment made in the Wheat Board regulations?


Otto Emil Lang: I would be willing to discuss that particular approach with the Wheat Board. However, it does lead to rather difficult problems in connection with the whole enforcement of orderly delivery of wheat and it becomes very difficult to police. Flour milled in this way could get into commercial channels and interfere with ordinary sales. I would ask hon. members to join with me in agreeing that this flour ought to be purchased for any needy people.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the hon. member for Meadow Lake should not be allowed to speak. I said a moment ago that the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands had brought the matter up in the first instance, but of course I had overlooked the fact that the hon. member had a motion under Standing Order 43. Perhaps he ought to be recognized now.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister without Portfolio is supplementary. He talked very 21701-32
Inquiries o} the Ministry generously about what these people should be allowed. He realizes, I am sure, the fact that 100 pounds of flour cost in the neighbourhood of $9 and that these people get very small welfare payments. I should like to know if the minister will take immediate steps to correct this scandalous situation.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. member for Prince Albert.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, because of the intense complexity of the answer given by the minister I should like to ask Whether he is suggesting that because the western farmer is in such difficulty financially he ought not to be permitted to endeavour to give charity to those who are in greater need?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, if I might put it simply for the right hon. member, the issue really is whether the wheat which is required for flour for anyone in Canada ought not to be purchased from the western farmer and made available to those who need it in that fashion.


John George Diefenbaker: Inexcusable bureaucracy.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, since the whole question of whether or not the government will act depends upon changes in the Wheat Board regulations, does the minister now invite representations from individuals as far as those changes are concerned, and will the agricultural committee have an opportunity to make their views known on any changes? Also, will these changes be made prior to or following introduction of amendments to the Canada Grain Act?


Otto Emil Lang: A number of changes may well be proposed prior to the introduction of the Canada Grain Act. I will take the other representations of the hon. member under consideration.


Mr. Lome Nysirom (Yorkfon-Melville):: supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that the federal government will undertake immediate action to alleviate this problem, for example, by purchasing an adequate supply of grain?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have been discussing with the Minister of National Health and Welfare the possibility of using emergency welfare measures in this particular case and if this is
February 19, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry possible we will do so. It remains, however, that the long-term policy as stated by the Minister without Portfolio is the correct one.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In light of the statement by the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board that basically the grain should be purchased from the farmers, would the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is so tremendously concerned about the health of the people of this nation, undertake to buy the wheat?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think that is precisely what the Prime Minister indicated a few minutes ago, that emergency welfare is prepared to look into the situation and in combination with the provincial welfare authorities to get relief through as quickly as possible.


Frank Howard: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Inasmuch as this situation has existed for at least a couple of months now, does the minister not think it should have been discussed before now and some conclusion reached?


John Carr Munro: If it has been going on for so many months I am afraid the hon. member's concern-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Shefford.



AGRICULTURE


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you for giving me the opportunity to remind the House that in Canada we need wheat and milk to live and that in agriculture there are problems with regard to these two commodities.
I have a question for the Prime Minister. Bearing in mind the discussions which took place during the recent federal-provincial conference and since the Prime Minister and his cabinet did not give way to the provincial requests and kept all the money to themselves, does the Prime Minister intend to adopt the same attitude towards the dairy industry and refuse to grant any subsidies to the milk producers in Quebec?
[Mr. Trudeau.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will allow the minister to answer the question but the hon. member will agree that we have spent the best part of the day discussing problems he has raised. However, the question has been asked and because it is an important one, the minister might answer to it.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government, as I have stated a number of times, is to amend the policy for the ensuing dairy year, beginning on April 1, so as not to decrease but in fact increase the returns to the dairy farmers of Canada.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would he tell the House whether Canada will have a representative at the important conference on international development taking place in New York starting today and whether Canada will use this opportunity to put forward its policy on the Pearson report and the Jackson report?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is yes. I should also like to tell the House that after the conference at Columbia University the Canadian government is inviting the main participants to come to Canada for a private and confidential meeting at Montebello which I shall have the pleasure of chairing. We think we will have a useful opportunity of discussing the difficulties that now stand in the way of international development.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister at that time give his views on the Pearson theory of Arctic sovereignty?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications.
February 19, 1970

Since the postal dispute does not seem about to be settled in Montreal, can the minister say whether he has received a telegram from the CTNU asking him to beg his colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) to act as a negotiator in the conflict?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any telegram today, but I did suggest to Messrs. Parent and Beaudoin, as well as to the other officers of the CNTU, to contact my two colleagues the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and the Minister of Labour.
As for the situation prevailing in Montreal at present, it is getting a little better but this is all I can say.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary.
Since the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications claims he has received no telegram, but that the CNTU have acknowledge receipt of a telegram forwarded this morning by the government, in reply to theirs, could the Minister of Labour indicate whether he received that request, or if the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications is mistaken in his reply?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Postmaster General's Statement that he suggested to the CNTU that they contact the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Manpower, I will be pleased to meet the unions if a request has been officially made to my office. If it has, I am prepared to meet with them, and discuss general problems.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, in view of the seriousness of the situation, I would like to ask the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications whether he would not agree to refer that question to an appropriate committee of the House so that it may take into consideration some of the answers given to the House yesterday by the minister which were incorrect and contradictory, and whether the committee could not offer the minister appropriate solutions to that dispute?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kootenay West.
Inquiries of the Ministry POLLUTION



WATER-REQUEST THAT ALL TYPES OF CONTAMINATION BE MADE CRIMINAL OFFENCES

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of his statement yesterday regarding the Canada water bill and that the ten provinces and the federal government had agreed to make polluting by phosphates a criminal offence, would the minister's department consider making all types of water pollution a criminal offence?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, under the Canada water bill, after it is passed, there will be very severe penalties for polluting waters. Fines will be up to $5,000 per day.


An hon. Member:: Big deal.


John James Greene: Well, it is a big deal. To some people $5,000 a day represents a lot of money; maybe it does not to the Socialist party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John James Greene: I believe that in this way the government is using its powers under the Criminal Code with respect to the phosphate ban. I announced yesterday that the provinces were in agreement with respect to that. I think this is an extremely important subject. A great Canadian has taken the state out of the bedrooms of the nation; in my more humble sphere I intend to put it back into the kitchen and the laundry rooms.


Gerald William Baldwin: And the bathroom.


Mr. Gilbert:: You will go down the drain, Joe.


Randolph Harding: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of a statement the Minister of Justice is reported to have made at one of the local universities last night that Canada must have national pollution standards, may I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources if national standards are the government's objective in the pollution field?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, under the aegis of the Canada water bill, and with the cooperation of the provinces in enunciating water quality management areas, I am sure we shall attain optimum qualities for all Canada's major water basins. This is what we intend to do.
February 19, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry LEGISLATION TO REDUCE PHOSPHATE CONTENT IN DETERGENTS


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's statement yesterday that polluting by phosphates will be an offence under the Criminal Code and that manufacturers will be forced to reduce the phosphate content of detergents this year, is it the government's intention to introduce legislation during the present session to see that this is done?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, whether it is done by a separate bill or by an amendment to the water bill currently before the House, and this has not yet been decided on, it is my intention to move as quickly as possible to give notice to the detergent manufacturers so that they will have the maximum time to study their manufacturing procedures in order to comply with the bill when it comes into effect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



LOANS TO INDUSTRIES TO INSTAL MACHINERY TO ELIMINATE CONTAMINATION

George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In order to make the elimination of pollution a practical possibility, did the minister advise the provincial premiers at the meetings of Monday and Tuesday that the federal government is willing to make available low interest loans to any industries that want to instal the very expensive machinery that is necessary if bacteria are to be eliminated from their waste products?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, there was considerable discussion of various measures with those charming gentlemen, the premiers, and the water ministers of various provinces. Many possibilities were discussed, but there were no specific commitments along the lines suggested by the hon. member by the federal government.


George Harris Hees: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister not consider this suggestion-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind hon. members that we are near the end of the question period and many hon. members so far have not had an opportunity to ask questions. Perhaps with the indulgence of hon. members we might reduce the number of supplementary questions.



ENERGY. MINES AND RESOURCES PURCHASE OF YACHT-TYPE BOATS FOR DEPARTMENT

["Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker."]
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the government recently ordered two yacht-type boats for his department? If so, to what use will these craft be put?


An hon. Member:: For summer conferences, of course.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think perhaps this type of question ought to be put on the Order Paper. If it is a matter of urgency, it can be debated at the time of adjournment.


Gerald William Baldwin: They will check phosphate levels, no doubt.


John Angus MacLean: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



Mr. David Anderson (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I should like to know whether his department has received an application from the Seattle Power and Light Company to flood some 6,000 acres of southern British Columbia in the Skagit valley, and whether such an application has been rejected? I apologize for raising the matter at this time; it may not seem an urgent matter to some members of the House, Mr. Speaker, but it certainly is urgent for citizens of British Columbia in view of the provincial government's recent decision to clear this valley, this recreational area, of timber in anticipation of such flooding.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has indicated some possible urgency, but I feel generally that this type of question ought to be placed on the order paper or discussed at the time of adjournment.


Gerald William Baldwin: Ask for a ten o'clock debate. The minister has to be here anyway.


David Anderson: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of
February 19, 1970
Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of a 94 per cent increase in its 1969 profits, did IBM Canada Limited undertake to roll back its profits or reduce prices at the most recent meeting sponsored by the Prices and Incomes Commission?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether IBM was represented at the particular meeting the hon. member refers to, but there is no doubt that IBM would be covered and included within the pricing criteria of the Prices and Incomes Commission.



POSSIBLE REDUCTION IN EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES

Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Has he been advised of the requests made to President Nixon by the independent association of American oil producers, in order to obtain a reduction of American imports of Canadian oil?



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to see if we can clear up some of this muddy water. In view of the fact many provincial premiers appear to be opposed to the anti-pollution bill, and the statement that the program appears to be a "joint" program instituted by Ottawa without consultation with the provinces, did the minister or his officials confer with the provincial governments before drafting this bill?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, there was considerable negotiation with the provinces since August last, before the bill was finally drafted. Every province was consulted and I believe every provincial minister responsible for water affairs had the opportunity of discussing the bill. I feel certain that, although the federal government and the ten provinces may not be unanimous in their views on every clause, there is nevertheless substantial accord. I feel very sure that the
Inquiries of the Ministry provincial governments and the federal government can work together towards a satisfactory water policy.



PENITENTIARIES


Hon. Marfial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice.
My question deals with the last suicide at the Saint-Vincent-de-Paul penitentiary in Montreal. Apparently, if the young man had received some psychiatric care, the suicide could have been avoided. Since eight suicides occurred in federal jails during the past 14 months, five of them at the Saint-Vincent-de-Paul penitentiary in Montreal, does the minister intend to launch an inquiry, in order to determine whether the inmates receive adequate psychiatric care?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances, I must consult my colleague the Solicitor General who has jurisdiction on Canadian penitentar-ies.


Martial Asselin: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The supplementary question will be allowed when the Solicitor General returns to the House.



NON-PRODUCTION OF WHEAT-DETERMINATION OF REASONABLE ACREAGE REDUCTION

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for the Wheat Board. Can the minister indicate whether in his recent discussions with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the three Prairie pools on the issue of agricultural adjustment there was a determination made as to what would be a reasonable acreage reduction in 1970?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems that the hon. member's question is very wide in scope. I wonder whether he would agree it would best be answered by way of a statement?


Richard Russell Southam: I wish the minister would make a statement as soon as possible because

3828	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry the farmers are now approaching the spring seeding period and this is a very important matter.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister considering calling a meeting of the provincial Ministers of Agriculture in the near future for the purpose of presenting meaningful production guidelines prior to seeding?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I have had some correspondence respecting this matter. I also wish to advise the hon. member, as is well known, that there was a great deal of discussion on this subject between the federal and provincial governments at the recent conference.


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the fact that the minister is meeting representatives of farm organizations later this week in Ottawa, does he now have a definite proposal to put before them with regard to incentives for reduction of wheat acreage this year?


Mr. Speaker:: Again, it seems to me this is a question which has been asked.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Max Salisman (Waterloo):: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has the minister concluded his study on foreign concessional financing and, if so, win the study be made public?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I hope to be making a statement on that subject quite soon.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Did he contact the authorities of the Spanish government concerning the conflict between Canada and Spain, and could he tell us about the state of the negotiations at this time?


Mr. Speaker:: The minister might make a statement on motions about the important matter brought up by the hon. member.

DEBATES	February 19, 1970


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase my question more concisely so as to enable the minister to answer? Did the government of Canada refuse to allow Spanish airlines to run regular flights between Spain and Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice.


Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilton-Weni-worth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister in a position to inform the House on the present standing of the strategic arms limitation talks in Europe?


Mr. Speaker:: I think this is the kind of statement which should be made on motions.



POST OFFICE


Mr. W. C. Scoff (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, now that it has been decided by the government to suspend planned hikes in postal rates in the interests of fighting inflation, is it also the intention of the Postmaster General to suspend the progressive closing down, in hundreds of communities across Canada, of the small post offices that mean so much to the local economy of rural Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: This question is essentially a representation. It has been asked on a number of occasions in recent days.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether my question should be directed to the Minister of National Defence or the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact the Minister of National Defence is not here, I will direct it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It was reported yesterday that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs had stated the government would send troops into Quebec if the province's separation occurred through violence and anarchy. My question is, does the government have a plan to send these troops and, if so, how many?
February 19, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: My question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister assure the Canadian people that fruit and vegetables being offered to them, which have been produced with the use of pesticides and chemicals, do not contain any harmful residue of these materials?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can give that assurance, certainly not above the tolerance permitted under the food and drug regulations that we have ascertained to be safe limits.



HOUSING


John Gilbert: My question is directed to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. In view of the fact there is a record now of 17,730 families in Metro Toronto requiring immediate public housing and the numbers are growing at the rate of 900 families each month, has the minister any plans to implement the agreement with the provincial government with regard to the construction of public housing at the Malvern project to solve this critical problem?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: I met with the Ontario minister responsible for housing on Tuesday. We had lengthy discussions about the figures which the hon. gentleman is quoting. With respect to the Malvern project, there is no specific proposal before me. I would certainly entertain such a proposal from the Ontario government.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the rising concern about the use of the chemical picloram to defoliate the Canada-United States border, can the minister give the House assurance that the matter is now being discussed with the United States authorities?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: In the light of previous representations that have been made here and elsewhere, the Department of Agriculture has again looked at this problem. They do not think there is any danger. However, I will take the further representations of the hon. member under consideration.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: My question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that two United States military deserters, living in Canada as landed immigrants and high on drugs at the time according to their own admission, severely beat and critically injured an elderly Montreal lady who had generously offered them hospitality, is the minister considering firming up present immigration regulations as they apply to United States military deserters?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: The provisions of the present Immigration Act are capable of dealing with this situation.



POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax
East): My question is for the Minister of Justice, and is related to the question I asked him a couple of weeks ago. Can the minister now indicate to this House, and to the residents of the area in Chedabucto Bay in the Strait of Canso in which the Arrow disaster occurred, the procedures to be followed by the Government of Canada in assuring that the legal rights of these people, in terms of damage done to them, will be protected?
John Napier Turner: The hon. member is asking me for a legal opinion. I have, of course, been in touch with the Minister of Transport on this very serious situation.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Greenwood.


Mr. Forrestall:: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Brewin:: My question is for the-
3830	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might be allowed a supplementary. We have just about reached the end of the question period.


J. Michael Forrestall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question will be brief. In consultation with his colleague the Minister of Transport, will the minister reconfirm the assurances given by the Minister of Transport in connection with the legal settlement of claims?


John Napier Turner: The Minister of Transport and I see eye to eye on the problem.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL DEFENCE
Francis Andrew Brewin: My
question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the government's foreign and defence policies were to be the subject of extensive review in connection with which a white paper-or white papers-was promised, and since, though the government has been in office about a year and a half, only one statement, that on NATO, has been made, may I ask when we can expect the publication of either a comprehensive white paper or a series of white papers in this connection?


Mitchell William Sharp: It is the intention, I understand, to have them published-at least the most important paper, and perhaps some of the others if there is more than one-during the present session.



CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: A question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the most interesting premise suggested in a television interview on Monday evening that assistance to ships in the north is a sign of sovereignty, then in the absence of such assistance does our sovereignty lapse?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is inviting the minister to express an opinion and in this form his question is not in order.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. J. Edward Broadbenl (Oshawa-Whil-by):: I have a question for the Postmaster
[Mr. Brewin.)
DEBATES	February 19, 1970
General, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Postmaster General's brilliant diagnosis of the postal situation in Montreal last night contained the assertion that the problem was really due to the goons and leadership of the CNTU-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I might make the usual weekly statement of business before we proceed to the next item. There have been discussions about the business for tomorrow and I believe it is agreed that the first item should be order No. 67, Bill C-183 with regard to the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act amendment. If this is not disposed of by 1 p.m. the debate will be adjourned and at 2 p.m. we will call order no. 15, the report stage of Bill C-12 concerning the International Development Research Centre.
On Monday, February 23, the first order of business will be order No. 68, Bill C-184, the shipping conference bill, to be followed by order No. 69, Bill C-186, in connection with the Law Reform Commission. On Tuesday, we would deal with order No. 29, Bill C-152, the National Parks Act amendment, followed by order No. 49 having to do with the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation amendment, Bill S-5.
Wednesday may possibly be an opposition day, the subject matter of the debate will be discussed between the house leaders and announced later. On Thursday next we will call orders Nos. 44, 45, 42 and 43 dealing with Bills S-8, S-9, S-6 and S-7, financial institutions bills, in that order.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In view of the government's recent "paper tiger" assertion of Arctic sovereignty in the press, may I ask when item number 62 on the order paper can be debated in the House?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have discussed this question several times. I have told the hon. member that legislation will be forthcoming to deal with this subject matter- unquestionably the best way of dealing with this problem.


Mr. Speaker:: The House will now revert to motions, which will permit the hon. member
February 19, 1970	COMMONS
for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe to move concurrence in the first report of the standing committee on agriculture.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Bruce Silas Beer: That the first report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, presented to the House on Tuesday, February 17, 1970, be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I shall endeavour to conserve the time of the House by being as brief as possible in presenting this motion. I rise for the purpose of moving concurrence in the first report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Before I proceed further, I wish to deal with the question raised by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin). The gist of the objection by the hon. member was that the committee was incompetent to deal with the reference of December 18,	1969, without
having first completed an earlier study. It should be said on behalf of the committee that before the work involved in the reference of May 7, 1969 could be completed, time ran out; the session concluded and the reference expired.
The Standing Committee on Agriculture has considered asking the House for a further reference which would enable it to study agriculture in the most westerly counties of the Province of Quebec and the most easterly counties of the Province of Ontario, and northern Ontario, after which a report would be presented to the House dealing with eastern agriculture. However, the heavy workload before the committee would make such a program impossible until later this year.


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, the terms of this motion are that this House concur in the report of the committee. The committee, under its terms of reference, was ordered to consider and report on the problems of the dairy industry referred to it for study.
Now, there can be no objection to the manner in which the committee considered these matters. I believe the committee did so ably and well. There can be no objection to the recommendations of the committee; they
DEBATES	3831
Government Dairy Policy should be concurred in by this House and implemented by the government. That which is objectionable is the ineptness of the language used to express the committee's second recommendation. The language does not state a clear recommendation which, if concurred in by the House, would define in terms certain a course of action which the government could implement or refuse to implement.
The recommendation presently reads:
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Your Committee recommends:
2. Having regard for the disruption in the industry which may be caused by a decrease in the funds available for the dairy support programs, your Committee urges in the strongest possible terms that the Government consider maintaining the dairy support programs at the 1969-70 level for the period 1970-71, namely $125,000,000.
In a few minutes I intend to move an amendment which would correct the wording of this recommendation. I should like to explain some of the reasons. Here we have the words "Your Committee" repeated as the subject of a sentence. Obviously, once is enough. Then we find the word "recommends" followed by the word "urges". If both words are left in, some hon. members might be concurring in the word "recommends" and others in the word "urges". Since the committee was empowered to recommend but not empowered to "urge", the word "urge" must be taken out.
Next we have the phrase "in the strongest possible terms". What are these strong terms? The words are subjective. They invite each member of the House to apply the descriptive adverbs to the word "recommend" which each believes are the strongest adverbs that can be used. I suggest it is for the committee itself to supply these strongest possible terms so that members of the House can concur in or dissent from them. I may say that the recommendation is not expressed in the strongest possible terms and thus belies itself. To ask the government to "consider" maintaining the present level of dairy price supports does not involve the use of strong terms. There is nothing constitutionally wrong with recommending that the government maintain these price supports. Such a recommendation does not offend either section 54 of the B.N.A. Act or Standing Order 62; such a recommendation does not purport to appropriate any public revenue. To "urge that the government consider" is to subvert the committee's consensus that the recommendation be "in the strongest possible terms".
February 19, 1970

Government Dairy Policy
The terms of reference do not confine the committee to any over-all sums aEotted to specific purposes or programs. The phrasing of the terms of reference includes the words "the funds available for dairy support in the forthcoming year". The "forthcoming year", I suggest, means the year commencing April 1, 1970 and ending March 31, 1971. Quite obviously, any sums mentioned as available in that period are hypothetical and will not be fixed untU finally voted upon on third reading of the appropriations biU. Even the estimates, as their name suggests, are not final. The House had a recent illustration of this fact in the tabling of revised estimates for the year 1968-69.
The phrase "funds available in the forthcoming year" also includes those amounts that may be added by way of a supplementary supply bill. Since the phrase "funds available for dairy support in the forthcoming year" refers to hypothetical amounts, any recommendation by the committee as to the amount of the funds would also be hypothetical. In the same way, any statement by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) as to the amounts that will be available for each program is a reference to amounts that are hypothetical. The words do not mean any more coming from the minister than from any other member of the House until the estimates are voted upon and passed.
There are many other problems in the dairy industry. I had the opportunity of attending a meeting yesterday with 500 dairymen, and there is great concern in the industry. I could go on and refer to many aspects of the industry, but my time is limited. I suggest that if the original recommendation No. 2 is acceptable to the House-and it appears to be-then the amendment that I am proposing to move should also be accepted by the House. Therefore, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Joliette <Mr. La Salle):
That the report be referred back to the committee with an instruction to so revise the second recommendation of the report by correction of grammar and deletion of surplus wordage as to express clearly the consensus of the committee, that the committee having regard for the disruption in the industry which may be caused by a decrease in the funds available for the dairy price support programs strongly recommends that the government maintain the dairy price support programs in the forthcoming year at the sum of $125 million, and that the committee report back to this House by February 26, 1970.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: May I
suggest to the House that the amendment
 moved by the hon. member be put on a provisional basis in order for me to consult with Mr. Speaker as to its validity.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to the propriety of this amendment. I fully realize that you have not put the amendment but that you have reserved your decision as to whether or not it is in order. I should like to draw to your attention, since there will be no other opportunity to do so, a number of matters that are related to the amendment and the instructions to the committee if, indeed, those instructions are brought back to the House as part of the report when it comes back to the House on February 26.
May I first draw Your Honour's attention to Standing Order 62, to which the hon. member has also referred. I submit the terms of this Standing Order are clear. It provides:
This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue-
I do not need to read further since I suggest it is clear that any wording in a committee report that could form the substance of a motion, which in turn would be voted upon and made a decision of the House, is out of order unless the motion is moved upon the recommendation of the Governor General. That, of course, is not possible in view of what my hon. friend has said.
May I also draw to your attention citation 260 of Beauchesne's fourth edition which provides:
The tendency has been in the Canadian House of Commons, for the past twenty-five years, to rule out all motions purporting to give the government a direct order to do a thing which cannot be done without the expenditure of money.
The citation goes on to provide in paragraph (3):
A motion to refer to a Select Committee a Return to an Address respecting a claim for damages against the Government is in order, but the House could not concur in a report from the committee recommending payment, without the previous recommendation of the Crown.
I think that makes the situation clear. There are other citations I should Eke to draw to your attention. For example, citation 278 on page 227 of Beauchesne's fourth edition provides:
(3) Reductions can be made in Committee on the Bill, but no grant can be increased except upon recommendation of the Crown.
February 19, 1970	COMMONS
Further, I draw your attention to citation 288, which provides, in part:
Committees are regarded as portions of the House and are governed for the most part in their proceedings by the same rules which prevail in the House.
I submit it is very clear that no member of this House, other than a member of the government, can move a motion, the adoption of which would result in the expenditure of funds from the public treasury, no matter how small in amount. This House has decided that the total substance of a standing committee's report to this House can become the subject of a motion, and that motion is the motion for concurrence in the committee's report to this House. If the House decides to concur in a standing committee's report, then, of course, the report becomes a decision of the House.
It is clearly out of order for any member of the House, other than a member of the government, to move a motion, the passage of which would have the effect of making a charge on the public treasury.
The hon. member argued that the estimates for the coming fiscal year, 1970-71, are not determined at this point, since all that has happened is that they have been laid before the House in the form of the blue book. Even agreeing with that, it must be clear that no member, except a member of the government, has the right to move a motion in the House that will increase or establish the level of certain expenditures, whether adopted by the House or not.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
If supplementary estimates are required, it is only a member of the government who can bring in such a motion. So, Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask you to take these citations into account and look very carefully at the wording. I am not concerned about that part of the amendment that tidies up some of the grammar. That is a matter of opinion. I am not concerned about that, but where the amendment seeks to instruct the committee to change their report to include these words, "strongly recommends that the government maintain the dairy price support programs in the forthcoming year at the sum of $125 million." If the committee can make that recommendation, it follows that the committee's report can be the subject of a motion for concurrence in this House, and if the House accepts that report then of course it becomes
DEBATES	3833
Government Dairy Policy a clear directive to the government that the dairy support program in the coming year shall be a certain sum.
On the basis of all the arguments, Mr. Speaker, all the traditions, all of the parliamentary procedures, not only of this House but of every other House in the world that follows the procedures we have adopted, that kind of motion, coming from anyone other than a member of the government, is clearly out of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, once more we hear the genuine voice of the bull-headed autocratic society which this government wants to inflict upon us. Committee reports are to be what the government wants them to be-no more, no less. So much for the merits of what the minister had to say.
On the question of the procedural point, citation 278 has nothing to do with this at all. The citation refers to a committee on a bill which actually deals with money. But what the hon. member for Huron (Mr. McKinley) is suggesting by his amendment, is to send, not a bill but a committee report, back to the committee with recommendations that certain things be done. Quite obviously, Mr. Speaker, the language which is going to be used by the committee must obviously corn-form with the rules and the precedents.
Let us assume, Mr. Speaker, that this amendment, is accepted. The instructions go back to the committee. The committee is then restricted to dealing with clause 2. If the committee, in its wisdom, decides to follow the recommendation of the House it will then endeavour to do so in language and words which are acceptable. That is all we are asking.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is not what the instructions say.


Gerald William Baldwin: We might have a case to meet if this were the actual wording of the motion, and we were now discussing it. But we don't need to do that. I am suggesting that for the minister to attempt to anticipate, as he is doing, what the committee may decide to put in its reviewed report is absolutely improper and wrong. If this is the government's way, it certainly confirms our opinion that we might as well scrap the whole committee system and throw it out the window.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question.
3834	COMMONS DEBATES	February 19, 1970
Government Dairy Policy


Gerald William Baldwin: You want to ask me a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the minister wants to ask a question of the hon. member for Peace River, but perhaps I might be allowed at this point to remind hon. members that under the very special circumstances this afternoon it has been agreed that this debate would not interfere with the debate on the motion to be proposed by the hon. member for Bellechasse.

We had agreed that this day would be essentially devoted to the consideration of the motion put by the member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert). I am very much afraid that if we immediately undertake a detailed study of a point of order, we would spend the afternoon studying the Standing Orders instead of the dairy problem and I think that hon. members would rather discuss the motion to be brought in later than the point of order now raised.
It is surely possible to have some serious reservations about the admissibility of the amendment brought in by the hon. member for Huron (Mr. McKinley), but I wonder whether it would not be appropriate to defer the discussion on the point of order and to carry on the debate on the motion itself, but we could return later to the consideration of the point of order.

If hon. members think this would be the part of wisdom, to postpone until later on the very interesting procedural discussion that could be held on this particular point, we will allow the matter to stand, hear argument later on, and at that moment proceed with consideration of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Huron. Eventually, when debate on the hon. member's motion is again proposed, we could then decide on the point of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is perfectly satisfactory, Mr. Speaker. I would not have got up at all if the minister had not attempted to muddy the waters.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to agree to that as well. As a matter of fact when the Deputy Speaker received the motion he said he was receiving it provisionally and that any points of order could be argued later. So, I must say that I was shocked that the Minister of

Agriculture raised a point of order at this time at all, in light of what has been said by the Chair, and I am doubly shocked when he says that a committee cannot recommend an expenditure of money. I am prepared to argue that point further, because I think it is a very serious point of order that has been raised, but I am willing that this procedural discussion be deferred.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Ralliement Creditiste, I wish to say how pleased we are with the decision you have just made. We have no time to waste studying the procedures into which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is trying to get us involved, because we want to talk about the dairy policy.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe there is agreement that we might postpone this discussion. I gather that the hon. member for Huron had completed his presentation to the House. We will now go to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I agree with the point made by the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Fortin), who complained that the committee had not completed its previous task and made a report thereon. I point out that the committee did not sit from the day the session opened until Christmas. During that time a reference could have been made to the committee. The committee could have completed its tour of eastern and northern Ontario and western Quebec, and the House would have been able to have a more comprehensive report from the committee as to the conditions that exist in those agricultural areas.


Bruce Silas Beer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member suggests that the committee did not sit from the beginning of the session until Christmas. The Agricultural Committee was not duly constituted until the afternoon of the 18th of December, when a reference was submitted to the committee, so that it wasn't-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. This is not a point of order.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee is of course correct. He only confirms what I said. During that period I
February 19, 1970	COMMONS
asked in the House when the committee would be activated. However, what we are discussing is the report that is before the House.
In our discussions in that committee, we were confined to a large extent by the terms of reference which the House gave to the committee, and that was what the government wished us to discuss. Essentially, what we were discussing was whether or not we would concur in the government's obvious desire to remove $10 million from the dairy price support program. Fortunately, the committee did not go along with that idea, and said that in its opinion the $10 million should be maintained. There was a very strong feeling among members of that committee that the very opposite should have been done, that the amount of money available to the dairy farmers should have been increased rather than reduced. As I say, the chairman of the committee expressed the opinion, and I would say that technically his approach was right, that the committee could not properly bring in what I suppose might be regarded as a money bill. So, it was within these limitations that we worked. It is unfortunate that it was necessary for us to work within these limitations.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The whole report of the committee tends to confine the Canadian dairy industry. There is not enough reference to the necessity for expansion to meet the needs of the people of Canada. Earlier today during the question period we discussed the plight of the people in Canada who need food. We should find a means by which to give them the food. But we would appear to be narrowing down the food production plant in Canada, whether it be in respect of dairy production or wheat, at a time when the Canadian people need the food as do the people overseas.
Unfortunately, the committee does not have wide enough terms of reference under which to properly come to grips with the total dairy problem as it affects the producer and the consumer inside and outside Canada. Although this may be a faint hope, I hope the government having received this report through the House will take notice of the situation and try to come to grips with the total problem. In the committee, discussion was held in respect of the manufacturing and processing end of the industry. The farmer is urged to become efficient, efficient. He has strained himself, has used all his resources
DEBATES	3835
Government Dairy Policy and has borrowed all the money he can. He has arrived. While the committee meetings were being held, the major dairy in Toronto increased the price of milk to the consumer by one cent a quart and the workers in the distributing and processing end in Ottawa went on strike for more money. Yet we sit in this place and ask the government not to reduce the income to the dairy producer. This is the situation. The farmers' costs are going up.
While sitting through the hearings of the committee, which held lengthy discussions and heard some excellent witnesses, I continually felt that as members of the committee we were limited in our ability to discuss the complete dairy situation in Canada.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Agriculture is moving today a motion for concurrence in the report of the proceedings of the committee, according to an order of the House passed on December 18.
The committee held meetings and heard representatives from several associations of dairy producers. Today, the conclusions of the report are submitted to us.
It will be recalled that in May and June of last year, a special study was undertaken on, among other things, the same problem and matter now before us. But then, the committee travelled extensively in the eastern part of Canada, in order to determine the consequences of the dairy policy of the federal government.
The conclusions of this report, which involved a large expenditure of public funds, are contradictory, in the view of the very members of the committee who made the study trip. We find ourselves in a somewhat embarrassing and paradoxical situation, for, on the one hand, we are in possession of the recommendations of a study which had to be completed by February 17 and, on the other hand, we do not have at our disposal the recommendations originating from a more thorough study that was performed on the same subject.
The chairman of the Committee on Agriculture claimed, a little earlier, that he cannot submit the recommendations contained in the study carried on in May and June last, because the terms of reference were to study the general situation of agriculture in Canada.
Hon. members know that the dairy policy is usually announced on April 1. Now today, the
February 19, 1970

Government Dairy Policy House has to decide whether to concur in the report of the committee on that dairy policy, but it does not have the much more relevant and important conclusions of a more exhaustive study which will be presented to the House much later than April 1.
Thus the government is asking the House to concur in the conclusions of a report without stating at the same time all the aspects which have been the subject-matter of expert studies made at public expense. The House cannot concur in an incomplete report, if it really wants what is good for the dairy producers concerned.
That is where we stand as members of Parliament. Today, we are going to adopt a report of the committee on the dairy policy. On April 1 next, the government, through the Minister of Agriculture, will state its dairy policy and it is to be expected that it will not be substantially different from this year's policy, except that the subsidies paid to the dairy industry will be reduced by $10 million, which will make matters worse for the producers.
After April 1st, the chairman of the Standing Committee on Agriculture will ask the House to adopt another report on the dairy industry, and the findings of this later report will probably contradict those brought before us today. But, it will be too late. The policy will have been adopted, and the expenses incurred for this special study "in the field", as the producers say, will have been in vain because the government's policy will already be in force.
We will have spent public funds to mock the dairy farmers, and the dairy policy will continue to crush them and force thousands of them out of business. In fact, 13,000 of them gave up their operations last year.
That is why I had agreed on December 18 last to give unanimous consent, provided however that the findings of the study made in May and June be printed as an appendix to this report.
If the chairman of the Standing Committee on Agriculture really wants to help Quebec dairy farmers, he has to admit that we are right on that point.
It is our bounden duty to look into every aspect of the question before the announcement of the forthcoming dairy policy which is to come into effect next April 1st. It is still time to do it.
There is still a month and a half before April 1st, which leaves us plenty of time to draft the findings of the study made last May

and June and to add them in appendix to this report. The Standing Committee on Agriculture would then be able to give us a complete study made in Ottawa, on the basis of the evidence and briefs submitted, and also in the field with the help of the producers themselves.
It is easy to find all kind of excuses, Listening to the chairman of the committee a few minutes ago, we were aware of the awkwardness of his position, of his embarrassment in the presence of the dairy producers who are with us here and of the inconsistency between what he does and what he says.
Unfortunately, all these little games work to the detriment of the dairy producer. The chairman of the committee knows that perfectly well, and also that each year the policy is unilaterally enforced by the minister, without true consultation or serious negotiations.
The chairman of the committee and the minister know also that dairy producers are dissatisfied with that policy, their situation having become intolerable, unacceptable and prejudicial. The chairman also knows, as do our friends opposite who are absent this afternoon, that the findings of the study carried out in May and June last year disproved the minister's claim that the present dairy policy is effective.
But even with the full knowledge of the facts, the chairman of the committee, under the thumb of his party's leaders, keeps kotowing to them, skulking, and badly at that, and would like to submit a report that he has no right to submit, because he is not required to abide by the unanimous consent and the agreement made between the parties on December 18 last.
Mr. Speaker, more than 25,000 dairy producers have deemed advisable to sign a petition to make known their opposition to the present policy and they have done it honestly, democratically and jointly.
The findings in the report submitted today for concurrence will only add to their dissatisfaction, and the government should understand that. Why not humbly agree to forget the political allegiance and-


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


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


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, the member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) has asked for unanimous consent of the House to proceed without
February 19, 1970

delay with the discussion of the important matter to be considered today.
However, instead of discussing the report, the hon. member is making his main speech. I would therefore remind him that we wish to go on to the main item of discussion and that according to the Standing Orders, his remarks are irrelevant. The member may deliver his speech later.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is the
hon. member for Shefford also rising on a point of order?


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I want to point out that the house leaders agreed to provide for at least an hour of debate on tabling of the report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asse-lin) has just raised a point of order in connection with some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) on the report of the committee on agriculture.
To my mind, the remarks made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere on the petition signed by 25,000 manufacturing milk producers and filed by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) yesterday, have nothing to do with the report of the committee.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I was coming to the end of my remarks because of the agreement in which I participated personally. But I do not feel I was out of order.
I should also like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that when I raised my question of privilege concerning the tabling of this report, the Chair did in fact say that my grievance was serious and it would be well to bring it up when the report of the committee was tabled. That is why I feel that I am within my rights and I intend to exercise them.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) that the amendment be modified by adding, after $125 million, the following:
-and add as an appendix the conclusions of the special study on the same subject made in May and June last.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: At first sight, the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), raises
Government Dairy Policy serious doubts as to its acceptability and for the same reasons hon. members are well aware of, we shall move the amendment on a provisional basis, and rule on its acceptability later on, if need be.
It is agreed, by unanimous consent, that the present debate be now adjourned.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: That this House condemns the Government policy on the dairy industry
1.	For having stated its dairy policy for 1969-70 at the very last moment, namely on March 31, 1969, and not having taken into account recommendations from producers concerned;
2.	For having contributed to reducing the dairy producers' income by cutting down the subsidies and increasing the export tax;
3.	For having listed in the 1970-71 Estimates a reduction in the dairy industry subsidies, which will further reduce the dairy producers' income.
Mr. Speaker, first I should like to thank all those who have been instrumental in allowing us to have as much time as possible to examine in an objective manner the very special problem of the dairy industry.
Everyone will certainly agree that the dairy industry is going through difficult times. However there is no such agreement when it comes to having the dairy producers alone carry the load. We remember quite well that a few years ago federal as well as provincial authorities invited the dairy producers to modernize their farms, to increase their herds, so that they might produce enough to meet the market requirements and to make their business more economical, which was the only way to get better prices.
Now this is what the Minister of Agriculture said in this House on March 23, 1966:
Unless the producer's confidence in his ability to make a decent living from dairy farming is restored, we face the prospect of shortages.
In an answer given the same day, the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) made the following comments which I think were appropriate:
The minister indicated that the government was motivated first of all by the large number of dairy farmers who are going out of the dairy industry into other production such as hogs and beef. He also said he -was disturbed by the number of dairy
3838	COMMONS
Government Dairy Policy
farmers who have moved out of farming altogether to the point where Canada now faces the prospect of a severe shortage of dairy products for our own home consumption.
In my opinion, it is too painful an experience to go through before the government takes positive measures to remedy the causes. When I say it is a bit too late, I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will admit it, because thousands of dairy farmers have been gravely wronged before he made this statement.
Now, after 1966, the dairy policy was announced a little too late to benefit the producers.
In 1967, because of the seriousness of the situation and the failure of the goverment to recognize that dairy farmers were entitled to an additional income and that, in order to be in a position to meet the requirements of the Canadian market, they needed higher prices, a huge delegation turned up on Parliament Hill. That was on May 15, 1967, and the then Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) and the then Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) came and talked to the producers. This is what they told them: "You are right to come here; you should have come ten years ago, but what can we do? It would take millions of dollars." Then, the farmers went home with a solemn promise that from then on, farming policies would be long term policies drawn up along such lines as to enable dairy farmers to know which way to go.
Mr. Speaker, the organization of milk production has grown bigger. Without buying land, industrial producers did manage to increase the production of their herds through improved farming methods and selection of cow herds. Producers had an output of 150,000 pounds of milk in 1967-68, but they were able to reach 200,000 pounds in 1968-69 and production is expected to remain at that level in 1969-70. Unfortunately, their efforts are penalized by the decision of the Canadian Dairy Commission. Indeed, since quotas for this category of producers have not been increased, they do not receive any subsidies for part of their production, and they will also have to pay the levy of 52 cents per hundredweight in order to finance the exportation of milk powder. This is why a fair number of producers will incur losses of several hundreds of dollars for the year 1969-70.
I do not know how the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) in his statement of March 31 on the dairy policy of the government, could hold the support level of prices at $4.85 per hundredweight, when the current market price is $3.60 at the factory. By adding the

DEBATES	February 19, 1970
$1.25 subsidy, we get $4.85. Once the 26 cents export tax is subtracted, the actual price to the producer will be $4.59 at the factory or $4.34 at the farm. The price applies to the volume of the production included in the quota. The surplus will sell at $3.13 per hundredweight.
The former Minister of Agriculture once said that the export taxes are not payments from the State but rather taxes collected from the producer. Regarding the dairy policy of the current year, the situation is serious because some producers will hardly get $3.13 per hundredweight for part of their production. This is less than the production costs, which will likely reduce the price of the annual production of a farm.
The Minister of Agriculture would willingly answer me that if there is a production surplus, some steps should be taken to reduce it. I will reply that there is no production surplus, but rather a phenomenon of under-consumption.
According to the fifth report of the Economic Council of Canada-a government organization-one Canadian out of five is poverty-stricken. In Montreal alone, for example, thousands of families are destitute. Many children have never drunk milk, according to a survey and to an official paper sent to me with a letter by the F.C.U. Federations. This document contains some quite interesting statistics. In conclusion it says that in the city of Montreal, there are 105,800 poverty-stricken families, or 55.6 per cent of the population, and that 1,062,000 people in greater Montreal earn less than $5,000 per annum.
In view of such convincing figures, how could one formally deny the existence of a real phenomenon of under-consumption? The people who happen to live in such circumstances cannot even buy the necessities of life because they lack adequate purchasing power.
A Senate special committee was appointed to ascertain whether there really were poor people in Canada. As the House will remember, the said committee discovered that there were some and feared an uprising on their part. A release to that effect was broadcast on radio and published in the press.
I know that one of the goals of the Canadian Dairy Commission is to maintain a national dairy policy and to establish a sound, healthy and viable industry. We agree on that point. Dairy operations are to be made viable with respect to their extent and their output,
February 19, 1970	COMMONS
through quotas and subsidies, and by continuously offering to consumers an adequate supply of dairy products of high quality, at prices which, with the necessary subsidies, will provide qualified producers with a reasonable profit.
It is for that reason that a petition has been tabled in the House. It bore the signatures of
25,000	producers. The objective has not been reached, and that is precisely the subject-matter of this debate.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The volume of production must be maintained at the consumption level, the latter being conditioned at the present time by the purchasing power of people in easy circumstances. In Canada, there could be a greater consumption of dairy products if people who have needs to satisfy but lack the financial means for so doing had a greater purchasing power.
The increase in the number of unemployed, of strikes of all kinds and of taxes are the direct causes of the decreasing purchasing power of a great number of producers.
If all Canadians could purchase more dairy products, there would be hardly, if any, surplus. Can the Minister of Agriculture say and mean that all Canadians cannot consume more dairy products? Would it be impossible to sell more of them on our domestic market if an effort was made in that direction?
Through his dairy policy, the government wants to oblige the farmers to reduce their milk production. But, to reach this goal, he brings down the subsidy from $1.31 to $1.25, he increases the export tax by 5 cents on the quantity subsidized and by 520 on the surplus quota and the result of this will be to widen the gap between the selling price and the production cost. Thus the net income which is already very low will drop further.
I am quite aware that it would be better if the consumer himself were to pay an adequate price, allowing the dairy producers to clear a net profit at least equal to the gains of people involved in other sectors of the economy.
The problem is no doubt known to the Minister of Agriculture since only three years ago he told the House that the basic problem facing agriculture and all those involved in it is that the price scale is too low. Programs to increase it must be implemented. I agree entirely with the minister, but the prices should at least reach a level permitting profits in keeping with the needs of the people involved. When a ladder is too short to reach
DEBATES	3839
Government Dairy Policy the roof of a building, even if five rungs are added when ten would be needed, it will still be impossible to reach the objective. According to the new dairy policy for 1969, far from having added rungs, the government has taken a few out, as far as the farmers' income is concerned.
When the minister was a member of the opposition-and I ask him to excuse me for reminding him-he had quite different ideas. Now, we are considering a very important matter and I suggest that we examine our present and former positions.
Operation costs are increasing while incomes are declining. This was found out a long time ago by many who are well informed about agriculture in the constituencies.
Mr. Speaker, I have consulted many milk producers so as to establish quite accurately the production cost of milk per hundredweight in our province. And, among them, there is at least one who has won a medal for excellence in that field. This means that there is an accounting system on that farm and that the herd has been improved. Yet, the cost of production is $4.88 per hundredweight at the plant, labour included.
For the information of hon. members who would like to know exactly what it costs to produce 100 pounds of milk and what operations are necessary to ensure the smooth running of a farm so that they may be in a position to judge if really all these dairy producers who are in the galleries today and who have signed a petition are right, I will give a few figures.
And once they hear the statistics which I am to give them presently, I am quite sure that they will agree that farmers and industrial milk producers do not get their fair share of the national revenue, and that they cannot live adequately in this just society which is yet to come.
Let us take the case of a farmer who produces 218,000 pounds of milk. He is not a small farmer who produces 12,000 pounds. I know him pretty well. I saw him start when he was young. He is married now and is bringing up his small family. He has done well and is hoping to do even better. When he started he had in mind a nice dairy farm where he would produce milk of quality in order to meet the needs of the market.
I will tell hon. members what his expenses were, which no doubt will be of interest to them. How much did it cost him in 1968-69
3840	COMMONS
Government Dairy Policy for feed? Exactly $2,358.15. For fertilizer? $984.06. For seed? $288.06. For the purchase of cattle and for artificial insemination? $536.00. For wages paid? $275.00. For tractor maintenance? $376.82. For hay, green oats, etc. $960.00. For truck maintenance? $327.01. For land maintenance? $121.30. For machinery maintenance? There is no exaggeration here: $59.05. For interest, taxes and insurance? $767.21. For family requirements? $324.70. For transportation? $538.92. For miscellaneous farm expenses? $365.70. For tractor and other work given by contract? $436.25. For capital expenditures? $139.00. For 10 per cent depreciation on machinery? $640.00. For 5 per cent depreciation on farm buildings? $278.40. Total expenses amount to $9,776.25.
As for receipts, he sold some wood which he cut on his farm for $75.48, cattle for $2,000 and milk for $7,675.91; he received subsidies amounting to $2,676.42. As for his non-farm income-he is also a carpenter-it amounted to $459.69. He had therefore an income of $12,887.50 and he showed a net profit of $3,111.25. He worked 3,000 hours and his wife 800 hours. The hourly wage was 82 cents. A hundredweight of milk therefore cost $4.88.
Some will say that things are better elsewhere. I have in hand a document from Ontario giving the findings of a study made in 1964 on 1206 herds. The average herd was made up of 28 cows and the production by cow was 9,600 pounds. After the expenses were paid, this group of 1,200 Ontario farmers succeeded in producing milk at $4.60 per hundredweight, thus showing a profit of $48 per cow. How fantastic! The total multiplied by 30 or 35 will show the income of farmers in dairy production, a really interesting but insufficient figure.
Our figures are questioned. Everyone is very careful on that subject. At some point, the Quebec government ordered an inquiry into the conditions of agriculture in the province. It was the April Commission, though it was certainly not in the month of April. Table 15 on page 48 of the report shows the income of industrial milk producers.
To go back to the farmer I was talking about earlier, he has an average production of
8,000	pounds per cow. Let us refer to the table: for 9,000 pounds and 3,000 hours of work, the net revenue is 83 cents an hour.
It is obvious from the figures I have just quoted that the situation of dairy farmers is not very bright. Some may suggest that it

DEBATES	February 19, 1970
might be more profitable if the milk production per cow were increased.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
That formula would be ideal, for it Would bring dairy producers an income at least comparable to that of the farmers in the United States.
But what is going on in the States? In Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin the dairy industry is highly developed. Yet, according to the American agricultural statistics bureau, the average milk production per cow in Minnesota is 9,430 lbs., in Michigan, 9,480 lbs. and in Wisconsin, 9,600.
It is therefore obvious that there is still a long way to go to reach an average production of 12,000 lbs., even in the United States.
In Quebec there are surely herds that have reached that average. The member for Richelieu (Mr. Cote), when he was farming, may have reached an average production of
12.000	lbs. per cow, but since he has become a member of parliament there have been changes. Even with an average production of
12.000	lbs. of milk per cow, the producer of manufactured milk who depends on outside help whose working hours are limited to eight a day, cannot expect profitable operations.
I know from experience that even with the help of his wife, a farmer cannot keep a herd of over 35 milch-cowB. Have the members ever considered the amount of work involved in keeping such a herd for a full year? Indeed, more than 35 cows are needed. In addition, young cattle are required to renew the herd. All told some 50 to 60 heads may be required. This represents an average of five hours of work a day in the stable, and that, for 365 days a year. For those people, Sunday is not a day off and besides they have to sow, to make hay, to harvest their grain, to plough, to look after the pastures, to maintain the fences, the buildings and so on.
To go on with my comparison with the United States, the average price paid for manufactured milk to producers in that country in 1968 was $4.45 per hundredweight, which is absorbed by the American consumer. The price for butter is 83J cents and is also absorbed by the consumer. Fertilizers are much cheaper in the U.S. than here. In Canada, ammonium nitrate, for instance, costs $98 per ton, when in the United States it costs only $73. Superphosphate with a 45 per cent content costs $102 per ton in Quebec-when in the United States it costs $81.
February 19, 1970	COMMONS
Potassium chloride costs $71.50 compared to $49 in the United States.
Besides, the period of stabilization is shorter in the U.S.A. than in eastern Canada, which lowers further the cost of production and the cost of machinery so that farm income is higher in the United States.
In Canada, the cost of production keeps on climbing. In the past ten years the cost of fertilizers has gone up 20 per cent.
In 1949, the retail price for butter was 63 cents and in 1969 it had reached 70 or 71 cents although the price of every item needed by the farmer to produce has increased tremendously and his net income has decreased by that much.
We are sometimes reminded reproachfully that in Quebec, the capitalization per cow is too high. According to the official figures I have in hand, the average per dairy cow is $1,469 for the whole Canada, $1,616 for Ontario and $1,237 for Quebec, which shows that Quebec producers surely do not have the highest capitalization in Canada.
Prices go up in many fields: interest rates on farm loans, insurance rates, taxes, postal rates, prices of building materials, of farm machinery and salary increases in many industrial sectors as well as in the public service.
Since the dairy producers have to pay the same price as anybody else but are not given the benefit of an income that would enable them to meet the present price requirements, how can we expect them to be satisfied?
It is as though one wanted to feed a two-inch pipe with a one-inch opening. There would not be much pressure and the outflow would be rather slow. That is how it is now with the dairy producer.
There is but one area where there was a decrease, that is in the subsidy for the production of industrial milk. The objective of a just society was forgotten. Some may say there Is a limit, that the government has done enough for the farmers, who should have enough pride to live out of their production without resorting to government subsidies.
Is the dairy industry the only one receiving subsidies to survive? Not in the least. In fact, under a law passed in 1967, the subsidies granted to companies operating gold mines amounted to $15 million.
During the fiscal year 1967-68, the government has granted the companies operating coal mines in Cape Breton $25.5 million in subsidies with a view to providing jobs for
DEBATES	3841
Government Dairy Policy 4,222 workers earning $2.63 per hour for an 8-hour day as compared to 83 cents per hour, which is the salary of a farmer toiling 16 hours a day.
On June 15, 1967, the Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) said that the subsidy had been $4,000 yearly for each miner.
The government has also subsidized several companies to help them carry on and develop their business while meeting financial undertakings amounting roughly to $148 million.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I could mention companies such as Consolidated Paper which was granted a $3 million subsidy. Since we are on the subject of efficiency and subsidies, everybody knows that the Canadian National, which is administered by very able people, gets every year subsidies which enable it to straighten up its balance sheet.
I said that in 1949, the retail price of butter was 63 cents whereas skilled worker earned an average of $1.25 per hour. This means that one could get two pounds of butter for the equivalent of one hour's work whereas in 1969, according to statistics, the average salary per hour, in the same trades, could buy four pounds of butter. The ratio is higher when it applies to professional people. The farmer is always the last one to see the price of his products increase or go down. He can never see the roof because there are never enough rungs on the income scale.
To reach the price level of the other Canadian products which have increased since 1949 according to the fluctuation of the dollar, butter should sell for $1.05 on the Canadian market. Who benefited finally from the price being set at 65 cents, if not the consumer?
The ministers, the bankers, the scientists, all those who earn large salaries can benefit from the subsidy of 30 cents or 35 cents for every pound of butter, and this is what is called the compensated discount. The consumers pay less for it and the producers get the set price.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture claims that there is a surplus of dairy products, that he lowered the subsidy on industrial milk in order to curb production. The agricultural workers are really the ones who are penalized for their efficiency and for their hard work.
Yet, there is a surplus of manpower-
3842	COMMONS
Government Dairy Policy


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


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Has the
hon. member the consent of the house to proceed with his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member who moved this motion will not be surprised to learn that I am in substantial agreement with what he has said about the financial condition of a large number of dairy farmers in Canada. I have no apologies to make for the speeches I made in 1966, or indeed at any other time, because I know those speeches I made at that time were from the opposition side of the House. It was the job of the opposition to point out these problems to the House and particularly to the government from time to time.
I also know from that experience it is convenient, and the hon. member has shown that today, to talk about some things that are important to the subject matter that is under consideration and to ignore other things that are equally important. This is what the hon. member did, Mr. Speaker, because he talked about the dairy policy for 1969-70 and also 1970-71 in his motion, but he did not talk about the central core of the real problem that is involved. I refer to the over-supply position of the market that we have here in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I know you can make some reference to increasing the consumption here in Canada by such things as the standing committee has mentioned, namely, promotion programs of one kind or another.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: But as a government, and as responsible Members of Parliament, we have to face the facts of the situation which is now building up in the marketplace despite the best efforts of many people in the dairy industry to promote an increased sale of these products both inside Canada and abroad.

DEBATES	February 19, 1970
I agree with what the hon. member had to say about the responsibility of the government and of the Canadian Dairy Commission forgiving some advance indication to the dairy producers of what their total production ought to be. I think producers need guidance from time to time as to the market potential, and in my view this is the exact purpose for which subsidy quotas were established. A farmer knows in advance, before the dairy year begins, what his quota will be for that year. The Commission gives an undertaking at that time that it will provide support in the marketplace for butterfat, skimmed milk powder and for cheese, not only in the amount specified, but for more.
The difficulty we are trying to deal with at the present time, is this: what are we to do about those who ignore the indications of what the demand is likely to be and ship in substantially more than their quotas provide? The hon. member knows that in one form or another, either through the holdback from the Dairy Commission or otherwise, it cost $35 million in the current year to dispose of surpluses, and the final figure may run even higher than that. I suggest that if we could reduce those surpluses and, hence, the cost of exporting them, by the amount of even one-third, the $10 million difference between the $125 million and the $115 million that we hear so much about would be fully taken care of as far as any subtraction from producers' returns is concerned. This is the problem to which, I suggest, we ought to be addressing ourselves.
I do not think we can ever predict with a precision some people might like, exactly what situation will develop in the marketplace during a year. However much people in the government, responsible for the treasury, or outside it, interested directly in the industry, might wish to do so, I do not believe it can be done. We do know that the trend in production is toward an increasing amount of skimmed milk powder and, now, butter will be in a surplus position. This is merchandise which is supported-the price for skimmed milk powder is 20 cents a pound. I would point out that skimmed milk powder has been selling on the international market at a price as low as six cents a pound, about one-third of what we pay our producers. We hope this situation will improve in the near future as a result of an international agreement among those countries which have built up great supplies of skimmed milk powder, and that
February 19, 1970	COMMONS
prices at the level I have mentioned will no longer be in effect, especially tor skimmed milk powder intended for human use.
The point I am making is this: there is no reasonable market for these dairy products internationally. In fact, there is no market in the world at all at a price anywhere near what the dairy farmers of Canada will accept for their products. Inside our own Canadian market we can, of course, effectively control prices and competition from dumping by sources outside Canada. Consequently, returns are at a level which, though they may not be the highest in the world, are certainly not the least. Indeed, they are very close to being the highest as far as returns from the Canadian people for dairy products are concerned if one takes into account the level at the support price plus the $100 million or so which is put into the industry annually by the taxpayers of Canada.
I do not have time today to go into all of these matters but I should like to refer directly to the wording of the motion put forward by the hon. member. He asks the House to condemn government policy in connection with the dairy industry-
For having stated its dairy policy for 1969-70 at the very last moment, namely on March 31, 1969, and not having taken into account recommendations from producers concerned.
Well, it is a fact that the dairy policy was announced on March 31, the last day of the support year. The practice of announcing the dairy support program only shortly before the start of a new dairy year is one which has been followed each year and for a very good reason-it was a particularly good reason last year. Hon. gentlemen are aware that the dairy support program embraces not only the direct subsidy but also the purchase policy in respect of the three basic commodities-butter, cheese and skimmed milk powder. Last year there was a very significant change in the level of production which became apparent to us and to the Dairy Commission after the first of the year, after January 1, 1969. Previous levels up to September, 1968, would indicate we needed a small amount of butter imported into Canada to balance the requirement of our market, bearing in mind that there is always skimmed milk powder going along with the butter. If there is to be only a reasonable surplus of skimmed milk powder then there will, of course, have to be a slight shortage of butterfat in the marketplace. So it was thought in September, 1968, that we
DEBATES	3843
Government Dairy Policy might need a few pounds of butterfat to keep the market supplied for the balance of the year.
It turned out-and this did not become apparent until after January, 1969,-that there had been a significant increase in the total production of milk, and, in particular, of butter, along with the skimmed milk powder which accompanies its production. This increase took place in the last two months of 1968 and it was accentuated in the early months of 1969. We were obliged to take this into account because we are required, as responsible members of the government, to budget on the basis of the levels for which provision had been made.
The other suggestion in the motion that the government failed to take into account recommendations from the producers concerned is not correct. We agree that requests from the producers for substantial increases in federal expenditure associated with increased levels of support were not acceded to. I do not have to repeat the arguments I put forward earlier today with respect to this subject. But before decisions were made, extensive consultation took place with producer organizations as a result of which many recommendations by the producers associated with minimum and maximum eligibility figures, methods of handling quota applications and other items of quota administration became part of the 1969 policy.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
In addition to that, the policy included minimum quality standards in accordance with producer recommendations. Broad suggestions were made by the producers which were also implemented, including a step in the direction of agricultural adjustment and a joint study of production management.
I come now to the second part of the motion, which reads:
For having contributed to reducing the dairy producers' income by cutting down the subsidies and increasing the export tax;
For 1969, the support level was not lowered. While the total assistance was increased, this increase was based on the need for additional funds to cover expanded production. This relates directly to the increased cost of exporting the surplus.
The third paragraph of the motion reads as follows:
For having listed in the 1970-71 estimates a reduction in the dairy industry subsidies, which will further reduce the dairy producers' income.
February 19, 1970

Government Dairy Policy
I mentioned the joint study with the producers of production management programs. Many hon. members are well aware that the dairy farmers of Canada, through the national dairy organization, have suggested a program of market quotas which will serve both as an agent to production and management and also better to allocate to those responsible for surplus production the cost of moving surpluses into offshore markets.
I cannot stress too strongly that the implementation of such a program, which I suggest lies largely outside the jurisdiction of this government, will do more to assist the income of producers who are tailoring their production to domestic requirements. Current estimates indicate that were the need for export assistance to be removed, producers would be able to receive anywhere from 25 to 35 cents per hundredweight more for quota milk than is presently the case.
Before I conclude my remarks, I should like to congratulate the Standing Committee on Agriculture for the consideration it has given the matter and on the report that it has made to the House. I think that regardless of what happens later with the report, or indeed the amendment before the House, this has been a very useful exercise in ascertaining the views of a large number of people across the country. The Department of Agriculture and the Canadian Dairy Commission have had people in attendance at, I believe, every one of the meetings which were open to them. This has enabled them to ascertain dairy farmers' views in advance of our setting out our policy for 1970-71.
This was partly the reason that in November last I announced that we needed advice; that we wished to receive the advice from those knowledgeable in the country about this matter in order to help us formulate a plan to bring this surplus production within reasonable range of the market. As I have said, as far as I am concerned this exercise has been helpful.
It might also be of assistance at this point briefly to review the situation which led to the reference that was made to this committee. I suggest that the history of federal price support has been a rather long one. For example, from 1948 to 1958 this federal assistance took the form entirely of supporting the market price of the three major dairy products, namely butter, cheese and skim milk powder. The market price of these products, as established under the price supports, determined the price which the processors paid the producers for manufacturing milk and cream.

Subsidies to producers started in 1959, but from then until 1966 were designed only to compensate for a withdrawal of, or reduction in product support prices. There was a minor supplementary subsidy payment in 1965, but the payment of producer subsidies in their present form, in addition to and supplementary to the support of product prices, may be considered to have started in 1966.
Whether or not there is complete agreement that the total returns to producers from the marketplace and from subsidies are adequate, it seems clear that some steps ought to be taken to avoid a risk which always accompanies the assurance of a reasonably satisfactory price. The risk is that it encourages production that is beyond the ability of the market to absorb.
The first step to this end was taken in 1966, when a deduction or holdback was made from the subsidy payments to finance the loss involved in exporting products surplus to Canadian requirements. This established the principle that the cost of disposing of such surpluses was a charge against the industry.
The next step was taken in 1967, when a limit was placed on the amount of manufacturing milk and cream on which subsidy would be paid. This quantity was placed at the approximate requirements of the total Canadian market for dairy products on a butterfat basis. This total amount was, in turn, divided among producers by individual subsidy eligibility quotas on the basis of the quantity which each had delivered in previous years. This established the principle that any milk or cream which producers shipped in excess of their quotas would not be eligible for subsidy.
Then in 1967 and 1968, there was another holdback on this excess milk at the same rate as on quota milk, and the amount was deducted from the subsidy payments. I should also point out that in 1969 the rate of holdback on over-quota deliveries was placed at a level that was substantially higher than, indeed double, that of the holdback on inquota deliveries.
Unfortunately, these measures have not prevented an increase in the amount of product that is surplus to Canadian requirements. The principal surplus has been in skim milk powder. In 1966 Canadian production whs about 100 million pounds greater than Canadian consumption. Last year the surplus was over 200 million pounds. I am talking about 200 million pounds in excess of the
February 19, 1970	COMMONS
requirements of the Canadian market, which is about 165 million to 170 million pounds.
The cost of disposing of this in export markets, plus the export subsidy required to maintain our traditional market for cheddar cheese in the United Kingdom, must be recovered from the funds provided for subsidies. The cost is, therefore, a direct charge against producer returns. This is assuming that we will use all of the funds that are allocated to the dairy support program; in fact, experience over past years has been that we do, and then some. As I say, the cost is therefore a direct charge against these returns.
At the present time this expense, as exlpained to the committee, is using up about one-third of total subsidy funds. That is to say, of the $125 million, about one-third of the total amount coming out of the treasury is used to dispose of surpluses.
There is at present a serious world surplus of dairy products, and export prices are seriously depressed as a consequence. One encouraging recent development is that as a result of negotiations at Geneva under GATT, agreement has been reached among the major exporting countries for a minimum export price on skim milk powder for human consumption. We hope that this is successful in raising that price, at least to some degree, and of course to the degree that it is successful it will reduce the export losses on this commodity to the Canadian Dairy Commission and subsequently to the Canadian dairy producer.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The export situation with butter, however, is even more serious than with skim milk powder. There was a sale reported recently from Europe to South America at about ten cents per pound. The Canadian price for but-terfat, as is well known, is supported at 65 cents per pound.
Until recently excess butterfat has not been of concern in Canada because it was just about in balance until the end of 1968. In 1969 the Canadian consumption of butter was 14 million pounds more than the production. Last year, however, production exceeded consumption by 28 million pounds. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Dairy Commission now owns 30 million pounds more butter than it did a year ago, and this is close to 10 per cent of the annual Canadian production.
DEBATES	3845
Government Dairy Policy
As a result we are now faced with a butter surplus which could become quite serious if present production and consumption trends continue. It is clear, therefore, that we must devise and apply policies that will reduce, if not eliminate, these surpluses and bring a better balance between the production of dairy products and the effective demand for them at Canadian support prices, or at some price that is reasonable to the dairy farmers of Canada.
I see I am nearly running out of time, Mr. Speaker, so I will not go into all the rest of the details. But I want to say this in conclusion. There is no one more keenly interested in maximizing or increasing the returns to the dairy farmers in Canada than my party and the Department of Agriculture. In line with that, Mr. Speaker, we have to face the very real facts of life in Canada, in the dairy industry in Canada, and the dairy market in Canada. The facts are that we are running now at production levels that are about 10 per cent or 12 per cent above the consumption levels in Canada, and there is no market beyond our borders anywhere near the support price in Canada.
So, Mr. Speaker, if we can find ways, and I think we can in co-operation with the dairy industry, to set up first a system where we will bring into the market from the producers about what the Canadian market can absorb for all purposes, but of course particularly for human purposes, and then if there is any that comes in beyond that it should be the responsibility of those producers who are in fact shipping over their quotas to bear the major financial burden of disposing of that surplus production.
I think that in the ensuing year, and we have done a lot of calculating on this, if we could maintain the subsidy level at $1.25 per hundredweight, where it is today, we could maintain the holdback on the in-quota milk at 26 cents per hundredweight, where it is today, provided we were able to substantially increase the holdback on quota milk. But, Mr. Speaker, one of the problems involved in that is that because there is over-quota milk this does, in fact, finally arrive in our inventories in the form of skim milk powder and butter. At this point we do not have any subsidy payment at all, and therefore we do not have any withholding mechanism. Here I refer to the non-quota milk which is coming in, and I also refer in this context to over-quota shipments from the fluid milk dairy industry.
February 19, 1970

Government Dairy Policy
So again I appeal to hon. members on all sides of the House, and to the dairy industry, to help us complete designing a program that is not going to go on increasing the financial costs of getting rid of the surplus, but of finding a way of bringing butter production and consumption into balance at reasonable prices so that the dairy farmers of Canada can increase their net return.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I think the hon. member for Abitibi would like to put a question to the minister.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister, in the course of his remarks, quoted some figures in order to show that production was in excess of requirements.
I would like to ask the minister whether by "requirements" he means the actual requirements of the consumers or only what the consumers are able to pay?
1English]


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the interpretation of what I was saying, I do not think I used the words "needs". What I think I said was "the effective market in Canada," and that is the amount that Canadians, and everyone else, are willing to buy, and the price at which they are willing to buy it. If I may put another interpretation on the words, to see that every single person in Canada gets sufficient levels of dairy products, and of nutrition generally, is of course a thing we are concerned about. The fact, is, however, that we in the dairy industry, the Dairy Commission, and the dairy farmers of Canada have got to live on the returns they can get in the marketplace from those people who buy dairy products.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the member for Bellechasse wish to ask a question of the minister?


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I was unable to conclude my remarks a moment ago, but I wanted to ask a question to the minister.
He has just told us that subsidies might be maintained at the 1969-70 level. While preparing the new dairy policy, would the minister be willing to take into account the fact

that production costs rise year after year, in order that the subsidy, if maintained at its present level, will not in the long run amount to a decrease, due to the increasing cost of production?
I should like to know whether the minister intends to take this consideration into account when setting the rate of subsidies.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we certainly are very conscious of that and if the program we start-I do not know what all the details of it will be-results in a substantial reduction in the over-quota shipments of milk, thereby substantially reducing our costs of export, I suggest to the hon. member that sometime during the year we could in fact reduce the holdback. We would not need as much to dispose of the export, but we would have to watch the performance of the market to ensure that these over-quota shipments were going to assist substantially and thereby reduce costs of export. If that were so, we could reduce the holdback later on.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 40 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg)-National Capital-Request for establishment of Committee-the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Dumont)-Trade

Possible repercussions on Canadian farm products of Great Britain entry into Common Market; the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson)-External Affairs- Application respecting flooding of land near Skagit River.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolieite):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take part in this debate. Needless to say I consider it of vital importance for the dairy industry and the dairy
February 19, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	3847
farmers, not only of the province of Quebec but also of the whole country.
The minister (Mr. Olson) has told us of his department's achievements in the past few years. I am not one of those who believe that neither the minister nor his department have done anything in recent years, but I suggest that the question that should lie asked today is this: What has been done and is it enough?
Above all, I will not waste my time supporting the non-confidence motion introduced by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), taking into account the problems now facing dairy farmers in Canada.
It is also clear that those days allocated to the opposition are remarkably useful. I noticed yesterday that due to the persistence of an opposition party, we were able to obtain an emergency debate on the difficulties affecting postal services in Montreal. Today, another opposition party enables us to discuss the problems of dairy farmers.
I know perfectly well, however, that the Quebec C.F.U. has been demanding an emergency debate for two or three months. This debate is necessary in order to allow the members of this House to discuss in detail the difficulties facing dairy farmers.
I would have wished, of course, that most government members from Quebec were more aware of the seriousness of the problem. I think that they are seven or eight. I wonder whether they recognize the importance of this debate as much as we have for a long time.
I will not provide any statistics since the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) gave some very valid ones, but I will hasten to ask hon. members to take today's debate very seriously, and I will also take this opportunity, as a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture for a year and a half, to speak on the matter.
I had the privilege of travelling throughout Canada, of meeting various associations and of getting familiar with farming operations. On those trips, the committee was able to gather some information which allows us now to recognize the difficulties facing Canadian farmers, regardless of their activities.
That information enables us at the moment to make certain recommendations to the committee. We recognize the problems which affect the farmers generally.
After a year and a half as members of this committee, we might find with some frustration that we seldom make suggestions that are seriously studied and considered by the government.
Government Dairy Policy
I had an opportunity to mention this not long ago in committee. I shall surely not miss this opportunity to state the case in the House, since I have every reason to believe that there is a lack of consultation.
In fact, I shall take this opportunity to point out that some time ago, I put a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I asked him why the dairy policy was being announced only the day before its coming into effect. I was told that this was to allow organizations to submit briefs, that once these briefs had been examined and taken into consideration by the minister and his assistants, the policy could be devised according to needs.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Last week, when we discussed in committee the introduction of recommendations in the House, we found out that since the Blue Book or the Estimates had been tabled Wednesday, it was impossible for us to ask for supplementary grants. This shows irresponsibility and lack of consideration where the farmers are concerned.
With regard to the dairy industry, we are aware of all the economic difficulties both in Quebec and in Canada. Their very existence makes it impossible to turn a deaf ear to the recommendation now brought in by various associations in their briefs. I must also say how costly were the steps taken by the Canadian dairy associations in Quebec and elsewhere. Those agencies unanimously agreed on certain matters and arranged for initiating proceedings with the federal government to make themselves heard. I know very well that the committee, with only one dissenting voice, admitted that these briefs were excellent in essence and presentation.
After all these steps have been taken and all these expenses incurred, if the associations do not meet with a minimum of success, I wonder if the time is not ripe to tell the dairy producers to stop coming to Ottawa as under the circumstances their trips are utterly useless.
Lately a $10 million cut in subsidies was announced. I asked the Deputy Minister, who had been consulted, for some explanation and I received no answer. I asked what purpose was served by this committee. Indeed, when a cut of $10 million is announced, one begins to wonder. Nobody had ever heard of it. We were always led to believe that the committee served to formulate suggestions for the government's consideration.
February 19, 1970

Government Dairy Policy
Now, in view of these facts, I regret to have to say that the committee does not serve any purpose, as said earlier by an hon. member. In view of the position taken by this government, I am wondering how we will regain the confidence of the people. As a matter of fact, sometimes people seem to lose confidence in the government and Parliament.
At the present time, dairy producers are giving evidence of their good will by assuring the government of their collaboration as far as limiting their production is concerned. When the minister spoke of overproduction, he mentioned that this was the major problem facing the dairy industry. I realize that the minister certainly did not read the CFU submission, or he would not have spoken of overproduction as a problem it is hard to cope with. It might be useful if I in turn mentioned some of the recommendaitons of the report. Thus they will be on record in Hansard and the minister might keep them in mind. The Quebec dairy producers offered their co-operation, expressed their interest and made the following recommendations, which I quote:
-in agreement with other Canadian organizations and particularly the Canadian Dairy Producers, the dairy producers of Quebec accept for the next dairy year a quota system for marketing all industrial milk (surplus fluid milk, quota industrial milk, above quota industrial milk and non-quota industrial milk) under which the production of each farmer over and above the 1969-70 level would be marketed at the international export market price, whatever its level.
To facilitate the introduction of this system, a certain flexibility in its application would surely be considered.
Another recommendation is to the effect that the producers:
Eventually accept a reduction in production, according to terms and conditions to be determined, but below the 1969-70 level-
Finally, they agree to fully co-operate in an adjustment of production to market requirements in the establishment of programs designed to expand markets for milk and milk products, especially sales promotion programs-
Those are suggestions which have been mentioned from time to time but to which the government has turned a deaf ear.
I continue the quotation:
-of dairy products, food assistance programs for low income groups, school children-

meaning free milk in Canadian schools-
-various social institutions and developing countries as well as programs to promote a greater use of dry skimmed milk in animal feed.

They agree to co-operate in adjustment measures to help some categories of farmers to abandon farming in measures taken by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion as well as in all other agricultural policies promoting the diversification of agriculture.
What has been done to prepare those who would like to leave their farms? Was serious consideration given to early retirement or to the granting of subsidies for each cow sold, in order to transform the producer's activities? I wonder whether those proposals were seriously considered by the government.
Today, we are discussing a motion in which the government is held responsible for known hardships.
Those difficulties are no doubt due to the economic situation. I wonder how one can believe that the proposal to reduce the Canadian Dairy Commission's budget by $10 million, a large amount for dairy farmers, can be acceptable.
In view of the increased costs of production and services, it would have been better to recommend an increase of 5 per cent, which would have given an additional sum ranging from $20 to $22 million.
We are beginning to think that it is impossible to suggest an increase through a brief, because the estimates have already been tabled.
I know that dairy farmers and the people are tempted to laugh when they are told not to advocate or suggest the adoption of such measures because the estimates have been tabled.
Does that mean that the estimates have been tabled too soon? Is it honest on the part of the minister to say that he is waiting for the presentation of these briefs-once again, we all agree that they are excellent-to implement his policy, when immediately after he shifts the onus onto another department, saying that the estimates having been tabled it is inconceivable that subsidies should be increased this year.
However, a reduction was ordered. I think that is unacceptable for all members who believe that there are problems right now in agriculture. Given the economic situation, it is unthinkable that these subsidies should be cut down. On the contrary, they should be increased.
The government which would not pay attention to the recommendations we are making today would be implementing an inhuman policy as regards milk producers and all those directly affected.
It is clear that some producers are worried today. Many of them in Quebec and else-
February 19, 1970	COMMONS
where in Canada are tormented at present. The fact that many milk producers are here today in the galleries shows clearly how seriously they consider the real problems which now exist.
The drastic decisions taken recently in the House and the austerity program to fight inflation have resulted in inhuman measures.
It makes me laugh when they talk about austerity or say that the most important problem at the present time is inflation. It is a known fact that the most important problem is unemployment. In view of the very great number of unemployed it is inconceivable to force farmers on the labour market, since there are no jobs available.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
It is obvious that if we endeavoured to create more employment, we could see the small producers who are experiencing difficulties turn by themselves towards the labour market, and we would not have to resort to a policy of dissuasion. In fact, the present $10 million cut, as well as the prospect of an eventual elimination of subsidies give us the feeling that the government wants to apply a policy of dissuasion.
Is there anything more inhuman on the part of the government than to lack the courage, to offer clear-cut solutions in order to retrain the farmers who have to abandon the land to work in some other fields.
We must face that problem today. I suppose most of the hon. members will be sufficiently interested in that industry to stand up for it as it is really in need. I remember that hardly 18 or 20 months ago, the government had promised the farmers an adequate income supplement, which was to provide stability again in their case and enable them to keep their farm.
There is not a single member who did not see fit to make such promises and today we do not have the courage to say clearly that there is no future for a certain group of producers. The policy that is applied is rather one of discouragement which is most unsound and inhuman.
May I also be allowed to say that most government members, 56 or whom come from Quebec, promised the dairy producers that they would find the answers to their problems. In spite of these commitments, they very seldom have been seen to take a positive stand.
Last night, on the emergency debate, the opposition are the ones who asked that such a stand be taken. Today, it is once again the 21701-33J
DEBATES	3849
Government Dairy Policy members of the opposition who allow the dairy producers to be heard. I wonder exactly how many government members will take part in this debate and will urge the minister to grant once more to the dairy producers the subsidy of $10 million or more which represents the 5 per cent which is absolutely necessary to maintain a minimum standard of living.
These things have to be told and as members of this house we must show some objectivity. As for me, I am pleased to support the motion under consideration although it was moved by a member outside of my party because I think that objectivity must prevail over politics, as I have mentioned on different occasions. The minister had the opportunity earlier to say that he had reconsidered the matter and restored the $10 million subsidy, but who can tell what game the minister is playing now.
The cancellation of the $10 million dairy industry subsidy, as announced a few weeks ago, will force the Quebec Dairy Producers Association as well as all producers throughout Canada to work that much more to recover the amount which should never have been cancelled. Nor will they have the time to ask for the additional help required.
If tomorrow morning the Minister of Agriculture were to announce that he is willing to reconsider his decision and to restore that $10 million subsidy, all would be well. It behooves the members to recommend to the government that it restore that $10 million subsidy the milk producers absolutely need.
As strange as it may seem when the Minister of Agriculture announced, some time ago, that he was thinking, because of the austerity program, of reducing by $10 million the budget of the Canadian Dairy Commission, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) announced, while in Quebec, that he expected a budget surplus of $500 million.
I say the dairy producers are justified in being concerned and in wondering whether the government is really serious when it speaks of bringing back stability to agriculture. On the one hand, it states that it expects a $500 million surplus and on the other hand it admits to being forced to reduce by $10 million the budget of the Canadian Dairy Commission because austerity so dictates.
One wishes to establish a just society. I wonder for whom this society will be just when we know that agriculture in Quebec represents an important part of our economy.
February 19, 1970

Government Dairy Policy We cannot remain silent in front of these cuts and of this policy. It is not the first time that the present government does something prejudicial to the interests of the farmers.
One is now dead against an industry which is the tobacco industry. I find rather strange that the ministers interested in this industry have not talked to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) who is only hurting this industry, one of the few, in Canada, that need no subsidy from the government to remain active.
And I have not heard a single word from the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cote), who gets from this industry $600 million in taxes. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Maeka-sey), who should have enough unemployed people to deal with, as well as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) have not made any comment. The tobacco industry provides work for 600,000 people. Today, we want to co-operate as much as possible with the milk producers who are in a very difficult situation. We would like to assure them, once for all, that they will be able to continue their operations with enough cattle to provide their family with a better future.
It is not the first time, Mr. Speaker, that these farmers are coming to Ottawa. Today, they came back in limited numbers. A few years ago, they were here in greater numbers, staging marches on Ottawa. Results are slow to materialize and I understand then-impatience and concern.
I do hope this debate will bring about something practical, and that the present government will do something to alleviate the concern of these dairy producers.
I was, of course, expecting the Minister of Agriculture to remain in the House for this debate, hoping he would take the trouble to listen to the suggestions brought forth by hon. members.
I am sure that some time, later on, some government members will make suggestions to the minister on the ground of objectivity and public interest. I remember the hearings of the committee where most hon. members supported the briefs which were submitted.
The ministers from Quebec or from the other provinces, should enter this debate and compel the government to take action to help so as to stabilize our dairy industry and ensure our dairy producers of the full support of their members.


An hon. Member:: There is not even one minister in the House.


Roch La Salle: I can understand the frustration of the dairy producers confronted for the past year and a half with the lack of organization and the unconcern of the government.
May we, through this debate, arouse the government's feelings and induce it to consider the plea of the farm industry. I am told that there is not one minister present in the House. I am very disappointed indeed for all those who are here on behalf of the farmers. I dare say this will help to understand how unconcerned the government can be about the problem of the dairy producers. And I say so because those things have to be said.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
In a few months or a few years during electoral campaigns, we will continue to sell the idea that a majority government, particularly a Liberal one, will settle the Canadian agricultural problems.
People will understand that the government is not interested in the dairy farmers' grievances. As I come from a constituency where there is an important number of dairy and tobacco farmers, it is my duty to defend these people as I am committed to do so, and I hope that all those who have pledged similar commitments will honour their obligations.
I well understand that the dairy farmers who are here today may doubt, and justly so, the efficiency of my intervention, but I hope that they may soon realize that they did not come to Ottawa in vain. It will be thanks to the efforts of opposition members if we succeed in forcing the government to act in the best interests of all those farmers and of the people in general.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I v/elcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and appreciate the motion made by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert). However, I have been interested in the fact that there was not a cabinet minister in the House for the last half hour. I wonder if it is because of a lack of interest in agriculture or is it because the debate has been in French. I hope that neither is the case.
Late last fall, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) referred this matter of the austerity program to the agriculture
February 19, 1970

committee with instructions that they were to consider ways of disposing of the $10 million agricultural subsidy in a manner that would least upset the agricultural sector, namely, the dairy industry. We have had a number of meetings since that time, Mr. Speaker, and a number of representations from the dairy industry of Canada, including the National Dairy Farmers of Canada and the CCC, both organizations representing a large number of the fluid and industrial milk producers of this nation. The results of the meetings were that, not only should we reinstate the $10 million into the subsidy program but we should in fact add to it in a number of ways.
I think the fact that this matter has been raised very eloquently by the hon. member for Bellechasse today and the support it has received here and in committee, is an indication that the situation is very much as outlined. I get letters from the industrial milk producers in my area. My riding lies close to the Quebec boundary for 100 or 150 miles in Northern Ontario, so the problem there is not much different from that facing some of the people sitting in the gallery today who come from that province. They were plagued last year with too much rain at harvest time and then a very difficult spring. As a result they had poor hay and, in many cases, very little grain. While it may have been possible to operate this way a few years ago the fact is that, like all farmers, they have borrowed to the hilt in order to be able to produce for the fluid and industrial milk markets. They have bought additional cattle and have increased the capacity of their barns. In many cases, they have had to buy additional land and have put in bulk coolers as well as other equipment necessary for dairy production. Now, they are in the position of producing considerably more milk than the market can absorb.
In my area the Ontario government controls both fluid milk production and industrial milk production. When the milk comes from the cow it is owned by the Ontario government who disposes of it to the dairies or any other source that they can find. Milk, therefore, becomes the commodity of the government as soon as it goes into the bulk cooler. The surprising thing is that we in the little clay belt of Northern Ontario are producing fluid milk for the area and sending the surplus into Quebec, where it becomes milk powder in the Montreal market. We, therefore, are considerably involved with the problems developing in the province of Quebec. There must be some relationship between the two provinces.
Government Dairy Policy
A few years ago, about 1963, I read some of the literature put out by the Liberal party at election time. I think it was sent to me inadvertently because it was addressed to the Liberal candidate at that time. It indicated that they were going to get rid of small farmers in Canada. A number of programs were announced which would achieve that end. I congratulate the Liberal party for having succeeded in getting rid of most of our small farmers.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Part of the problem in western Canada, and other parts of the country, is that it no longer seems possible for a farmer to enter the dairy business. A farmer with a little money to spare can no longer afford to buy three or four extra cows and become a dairy producer. There is no room for him in the Ontario dairy industry either as a producer of fluid or industrial milk unless, in addition to buying his cows and farm, he can buy a quota. It has been said that many farmers in parts of western Canada, northern Quebec and northern Ontario ought not to produce milk. Perhaps that is true. We must remember that the foundations of this country rest on our rural economy. Twenty or thirty years ago our economy was more rural oriented than today. A large number of constituencies represented in this House are rural constituencies and the subject of agriculture gives rise to as many debates as at least five other subjects put together.
We debate agriculture because agriculture is important to us. A dairy farmer cannot enter dairy production with four or five cows these days because his facilities may not meet minimum requirements. At one time a farmer perhaps had several milk cows and two or three calves. He may have been feeding a brood sow and several pigs; his wife may have kept 20 or 30 chickens. In those days, the money coming in from cream production subsidized the farm income. That situation is now changed. We find that very little cream is being produced in my area. One of our creameries is in very serious straits and another that used to ship carloads of butter in winter and summer is working on a part-time basis. The same is true of a third outlet in my area which is also having difficulty. I think the people involved in these operations will agree that the government ought to support cream production.
In my hand I have a letter that I received from farmers in the township of Hudson. It
February 19, 1970

Government Dairy Policy says that farmers in Hudson township who have been raising veal calves are, "not going to be able to get the calves" because the dairymen will be forced to raise their own calves for veal in order to keep milk production down. On the other hand, as the letter says, the veal calf man is not going to be able to get calves. This will necessitate this farmer milking cows, thus placing more butterfat on the market. More than likely, this farmer will be out of business because of lack of income. The letter goes on to say that, "normally, bull calves in this area at this time of the year"- the area referred to being my area of northern Ontario-"sold for $15.00 to $20.00. Now, these same calves are selling for $40.00 to $50.00, if available at all."
It is clear that if you play around with the farming sector of the economy you will create difficulties. It behooves us to change our system and put right the things wrong with it. I was interested in hearing a government spokesman say that we can not sell more wheat. As a matter of fact, there is no government agency that will buy directly any farm commodity. The government really is not in the business, except in a very limited way, of buying or selling anything on behalf of the Canadian population.
It might be a good idea if an agency of government could enable farmers to exchange farm produce for tractors. We are having great difficulty obtaining tractors at reasonable prices. A man came to my brother's place the other day and said he could get him a David Brown tractor for $4,000 less than he would have to pay downtown. If bodies like the Ontario Federation of Agriculture could make sure that our farmers could buy tractors in Ontario at the price, the saving to the farmer on his farm machinery costs would be so great that some parts of farm production would not have to be subsidized. Farmers in this country are always going to be in trouble because of their ability to overproduce.
Since I have been here I have watched us throw away millions of pounds of butter which was reduced to butter oil. We could not get rid of the butter. The factory in British Columbia storing it was burned; I suppose somebody collected the insurance. We have always been able to produce surpluses, because every time the farmer is told to produce more of any commodity he produces so much that you have a surplus. The problem is that we have never tried very hard to sell our surpluses. We asked people from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce


appearing before the Committee on Agriculture whether the government sells farm produce, and we were informed that it does not. Our farmers are told, "If you go to such and such a place you will find a buyer for your produce at such and such a price." The point is that the government does not sell this produce on behalf of an important segment of the Canadian public.
Some may say that it is foolish for a premier of a province to go outside his province with a boat load of wheat and come back with a generator for a hydro plant. I am not sure that is good business; on the other hand, I am not sure that is wrong, because at least the wheat is disposed of and a generator is acquired at a reasonable price. We are one of the few countries in the world that has no government buying and selling agency to deal with farm produce, and I think it is about time we investigated this aspect.
I now wish to talk about the matter of cutting $10 million from the year's dairy allotment. Mir. Speaker, not one member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, I am sure, would have been opposed to increasing the allotment by the $10 million demanded by the Ontario Marketing Board and the dairy farmers of Canada. As I say, not one committee member would have opposed increasing the allotment over that of last year by $10 million. When the matter came before the committee, we were told by legal advisers that the suggestion was in order. But what did the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) do? He came in and, on raising a technical point, argued that the suggestion was not in order and the allotment was therefore cut by $10 million.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shame.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


William Arnold Peters: The day will come when Canadian farmers will not be able to produce all the food the world needs. I remember a few years ago how much trouble we had in my area getting a pulp and paper mill to locate there. It seemed that no one was interested in setting up a pulp and paper mill because there was a world surplus of pulp and paper. Today a number of pulp and paper mills are being built in Canada. We are going to find that we are five or ten years late in our maximum production of paper to meet the world demand.
February 19, 1970	COMMONS
One of these days we are going to find we are short in every commodity we produce in the agricultural sector. I do not think anyone in his right mind would say there is too much wheat, protein, butter or skim milk powder in the world. The difficulty is we have not found out how to dispose of that and provide a reasonable return for the farmer. This government talks about reducing everything to curb inflation. They have already reduced the farmer to a very low level in terms of any surplus. This has been deflationary. In most cases, the farmer has alreader been paying a 52 cent hold-back in the fluid milk market and a 26 cent hold-back on industrial milk. It is not the government that is paying this, it is the farmer. The farmer makes these payments to dispose of a surplus which he did not create directly.
I suggest this government would be well advised to restore the $10 million. For the first time, this government has had an offer from most of the farm organizations in the dairy industry to do something about overproduction. This is a problem that has always been with us and will continue in the future. It will have to be met by the farmers. In return for that, the government will have to guarantee them a parity price which should be at least the cost of production plus their wages.
I agree with the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Lambert) that the flat wage on the farm is probably 88 cents an hour or approximately at that level. The hired men of this country are only receiving $200 or $300 a month plus some fringe benefits. This means most farmers find that the hired man's wages represents the total profit on the business. I talked to some very efficient farmers, one of whom was my brother. I think he is probably as efficient as any farmer in my part of the country. He knows what is going on because he belongs to all the organizations. We have been on ROP for years. We have been operating a thoroughbred dairy herd for a number of years. My brother has some college education. He told me that the amount of money he had left out of a total income on his farm operation, which I consider is worth probably $150,000, amounted to less than $3,000. If he has to pay another hired man that $150,000 farm operation will be a non-operable operation.
For years most farmers have operated on depreciation. I can remember during the war when my father was very active in farm organizations. He talked about the sacrifice
DEBATES	3853
Government Dairy Policy the farmers were making on behalf of the war effort and the fact that they were making this contribution for patriotic reasons. That sort of patriotic contribution is still being made at the present time. The government is spending $50 million to aid bilingualism. They could probably spend another $50 million to provide a viable farm operation across this nation. The farmers will do all they can to help. The farm organizations have agreed they will provide, police and help operate a quota system for all milk. To the best of my knowledge, milk is being pooled in Ontario. This is also true in British Columbia. I understand that step is being considered in the province of Quebec. Milk will soon all be in one bucket, controlled by one agency for sales purposes.
The producers have said they will co-operate. They will set some limits. It is up to the government to decide whether they will pay a price which would enable these dairy farmers to continue their operation. If the aim of this government is to get rid of all these farmers here in the gallery, most of whom I imagine are small farmers, and have the farms operated by Steinberg's or the feed mills, then there will be vertical integration of these farm operations. All the government needs to do is cut back on dairy support as well as the support provided to some other segments of agriculture today, and we will have vertical integration.
The people of Canada will have to pay higher prices. Milk will cost 50 cents a quart. The price of butter and other agricultural products will increase. The Canadian people will then find out how stupid they have been to support the economies of this government. They are false economies which are not doing anything for the consumer or the agricultural segment of our nation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It being six o'clock and pursuant to an order of the House passed earlier today, I do now leave the chair until seven o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 7 p.m.
Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, thank you for having recognized me right away and letting me express my opin-
February 19, 1970

Government Dairy Policy ions as there are relatively few members present.
We have before us today a notice of motion introduced by the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Lambert) stating that the House condemns government policy concerning the dairy industry.
The member for Bellechasse made a splendid statement, although he did not have enough time. He was prevented from completing the speech he had prepared. Last night, when we sat until midnight discussing the possibility of the resignation of the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans), I happened, on my way out, to stop by and say hello to the hon. member for Bellechasse and he was still working at his speech. Unfortunately a government member prevented the hon. member for Bellechasse from completing the comments he had so expertly prepared. I deeply regret that the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Lessard) should have, through a flat refusal, prevented the hon. member for at least five minutes from continuing his remarks-


Mr. Lessard:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I shall recognize the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean in a moment, but I wish to remind the hon. member who now has the floor that he himself has only 15 minutes at his disposal. If he keeps talking about things irrelevant to the motion before the house, he may get into trouble. For the time being, another hon. member has risen on a question of privilege.


Mr. Lessard (Lac-Sainl-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. I strongly object to the statement just made by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Dumont). I have by no means denied the floor to the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), and I would ask the hon. member for Frontenac to withdraw his charge. I said "a few more minutes". I did not say "no". Therefore, I would ask the hon. member to have the decency of withdrawing his remarks.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, what I was saying proves that at times we do not have the opportunity to express our views in this House. I myself have been expelled once from the House, in 1962, and even if the details which I want to point out are to take up the 15 minutes to which I am entitled, I believe that they deserve to be given.


In connection with the remarks of the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, I can say that everybody was prepared to let the hon. member for Bellechasse go on with his comments except the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, and we heard a "no" from there. I saw him say it and I will not withdraw my words. I blame the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean for having prevented the hon. member for Bellechasse from continuing with the authoritative account he was giving us.


H.-Pit Lessard: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean on a question of privilege.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Frontenac is absolutely wrong when he thinks he heard a "no" from this side of the House. I want him to believe that I am not the one who said no, and I forbid him to doubt my word, which in my opinion is as good as his.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean as well as the hon. member for Frontenac. Pursuant to the Standing Orders of the House, an hon. member cannot doubt the word of another hon. member. If the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean made a statement along the lines he has indicated, we all have to recognize it.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean can defend himself so well and is so aggressive, I would ask him to name the hon. member who said "no", as he did say that that "no" came from his side of the House.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, we will abide by your comments and we will limit ourselves to the problem being debated tonight, namely that of the dairy industry, and I dare hope that there will be no more interruptions.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, I had the opportunity of visiting a part of Canada and to become familiar with the existing problems. Everywhere, I found nothing but affluence and surpluses, and the real problem of the Eastern farmers is one of surplus production, which is, by the same token, a curse. They are punished because they produce too much. This is the policy of this government which was to ensure social justice, but is not keeping its promises.
February 19, 1970	COMMONS
Now, a few moments ago, even though the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean made some protests I must say that I knew him years ago as a perfect gentleman. But, today, because he has changed his political allegiance and is a member of the party with enough electoral funds and to spare, we do not hear him speak as he used to. And our farmers-


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Frontenac.


Bernard Dumont: The hon. member-


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I shall recognize the hon. member, but 1 must say here that there is a question of privilege, and that is why he has the floor.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker,
I am sorry to intervene, but if the hon. member for Frontenac has nothing to say regarding the farm problem, and if he has only personal remarks to make about me, I think that he proves once more to the people now in the galleries that he lacks the judgment needed to discuss this problem.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, there is no
question of privilege. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean tries to prevent me from expressing my views. Since he wants us to talk about agriculture, as I was a farmer myself, I intend to do so. Furthermore, I said it a while ago, I was once expelled from the House for defending the farmers. I have not changed party and I still express the opinion I was emitting in 1962.
Actually, some farmers have improved their herd-therefore their milk production-through artificial insemination, for instance. This practice is widespread in the province of Quebec because the producers were told to improve their production and to produce more. Now that they have become competent, we want to discourage them by punishing them and depriving them of $10 million in subsidies.
Far from letting farmers keep up with the increasing cost of living, we want them to support the full load of a reduction in subsidies, something which spells disaster and suicide for farmers. They are advised to mechanize, to modernize their equipment, then interest rates are boosted to satisfy the 21701-34
DEBATES	3855
Government Dairy Policy wishes of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). We handicap farmers instead of helping them repay their loans. For instance, owing to the increase in interest rates, banks made in excess of $500 million in profits during 1968-69, most of it paid by farmers who during World War I were highly considered and worshipped-I would even say they were partly responsible for the victory which enabled the human race to remain free.
In 1970, because of milk surpluses, we could feed the world. Yet the government says that we must tighten our belt. Throughout the war, however, they found the money required to achieve victory.
Today, the government is asked to find the millions necessary to save Canada's main industry, the dairy industry, which makes farmers proud because, when it is a paying proposition, farmers are glad to work.
Here is how I analyze the situation when I look at the problem as it really it. I know that the subsidy paid to producers should instead be paid to the consumers, because the farmer, through the Catholic Farmers' Union, and with the help of the National Farmers' Union, the Federation of Industrial Milk Producers, the Federation of Natural Milk Producers and, finally, the milk producers of Canada, urged that a fair price be established with regard to production. I do not know of any industrialist who would agree to sell his product for less than the cost price. Nevertheless, in considering a cut of $10 million in subsidies to farmers for their products, that is exactly what the minister wants to do.
Moreover, it is upsetting to see the member for Richelieu (Mr. Cote), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, kneel to the minister and tell him, in the presence of all Quebec farmers: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for that cut of $10 million.
Considering his statement, I simply ask him to resign as soon as possible, because he is the shame of the Liberal party. The people of Canada see only one solution: his resignation.


Mr. Cole (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture on a question of privilege.


Mr.   Coie@Richelieu: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. I am willing to resign
February 19, 1970

Government Dairy Policy if the member for Frontenac can produce written evidence of what he has just said, that I am pleased with the minister's decision.


Mr. Speaker:: This is not a question of privilege but a debating point.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, we there demand the member's resignation, because he has misled the minister in connection with the dairy industry. The members who are not plucky enough should not be asked to settle the problem.
This parliamentary secretary reminds' me of a reed waving in the breeze. He has a real mug of a millionaire on a wretched body, because he is refusing $10 million to the Quebec farmers. He is the servant of finance, he bows before Mammon like those who worshipped the golden calf in olden times, instead of asking that funds be made available to farmers. I am asking for his immediate resignation, because even within the Liberal party, much more competent members could replace him. As for us, on the contrary, we are deferring to God's will, but before mankind, we are demanding justice on behalf of farmers. We are asking the establishment of fair prices in return for the farmers' work.
I now wish to refer to a suggestion that we have been making for a long time, namely a compensated discount for consumers who are unable to pay the farmers the price they ask for their products. This compensated discount existed during wartime. The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) demanded a while ago that money be made available to individuals and that the compensated discount be established to decrease the consumption cost.
When consumers are unable to pay the producers for their production, the government, through the Bank of Canada, should grant a compensated discount that would make it possible to purchase Canada's total production. The latter would increase both in quantity and in quality and, as a result, we would be able to adopt the same measures as in the United States where a survey carried out in the schools has shown that, when the price of the half-pint of milk was reduced from 10 cents to 3 cents, consumption increased by 180 per cent. In primary schools, sales of milk at 3 cents per half-pint have increased by 208 per cent.
If, through the Bank of Canada, it was decided to grant a compensated discount to consumers who cannot afford milk at current

prices, this would be a good thing. That is the responsibility of the government. Assuming that the government wishes to establish a just society as it claims, it should, instead of lending $1 million to Korea without interest, grant this loan to Quebec farmers.
If the government can afford to spend $7,500,000 for Information Canada, it must also spend money to promote agriculture, thus giving Canada a sound balance which is sorely needed. Our farmers have been too long neglected.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to conclude because time is running out. I would like to speak about the recommendations made by the Catholic Farmers' Union. It is said that the Canadian Dairy Commission's budget should not be reduced for 1970-71, so that it will not end up with a deficit. The $10 million reduction announced by the Minister of Agriculture should be cancelled.
I am making this request on behalf of the 25,000 people who signed the petition tabled yesterday, as well as of the members of the C.F.U.
Besides, the budget of the Canadian Dairy Commission should be increased. Considering the quota they have registered with the Canadian Dairy Commission, the producers would be guaranteed a total income for a hundredweight equal to that of the year 1969-70, and a sufficient surplus to compensate for the yearly 5 per cent cost increase for goods and services.
This request involves increasing the Canadian Dairy Commission's budget from $20 to $22 million, but it is essential to the survival of the farming people. Those who oppose it may, at the next election, meet the same fate as several hon. members in 1962, that is, defeat.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part tonight in this debate. We are quite aware of the effects of the situation, at the present time. I must say that I am very happy to take part in this debate as the son of a farmer and also as an agronomist. For 12 years I practised my profession in the province of Quebec, eight in private enterprise and four in a cooperative with over 55,000 farmers. I was very happy at noon today to meet several of my friends, members of the CFU, who are now in the galleries. I think that our meeting at noon was certainly very useful.
In the United States the milk price policy was responsible for the election of senators
February 19, 1970

and governors. Here in Canada quarrels over milk prices are sometimes useful to people looking for publicity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel-Claude Roy: I am in sympathy with the suggestion of the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Lambert) whom I must commend for his work in the Standing Committee on Agriculture because more than 14 meetings were held in order to hear witnesses. I think that it was a very good thing for the committee on Agriculture to hear representations of all the farm associations. That suggestion was made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Cote).
The problems which we are up against with regard to milk are not unrelated to other farm problems. In agriculture, productivity, that is the net production per man, has increased since 1961 at the rate of 6.5 per cent per year. At the same time, productivity in all businesses increased at a much slower rate, that is 2.9 per cent per year.
Ten years ago, and in this regard I agree with the member for Bellechasse, one hour's wages allowed you to buy 7.2 quarts of milk whereas today you can buy ten. My time being very limited, I do not want to go into all the reasons for that. In any event, that is the situation our farmers are up against.
I should like, this evening, to analyse the situation and impress upon the officials of the department the importance of the dairy industry in the province of Quebec.
The dairy industry is basic to agriculture in Quebec. Indeed, over 50 per cent of the income of our farmers comes directly or indirectly from that industry. Almost 38 per cent of the total Canadian dairy production comes from the province of Quebec.
Our farmers are aware of present surpluses, for a look at the number of farmers registered with the Canadian Dairy Commission will reveal that in 1966-67 there were 53,342; in 1967-68, 49,660; in 1968-69, 45,116. From 1966 to 1969, 8,226 producers in Quebec were denied the right to subsidies.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
I think our farmers are aware of that surplus. The federal subsidy on industrial milk represents more than 20 per cent of the total income of the dairy industry in Quebec. I regard that situation as very important. In 1968-69, an amount of $43,000,366, representing 44 per cent of what was paid by the 21701-34J

Government Dairy Policy Canadian Dairy Commission, was precisely granted to the province of Quebec.
I wish to inform the House of such a situation for we are all aware that ideas of all kinds prevail in the province of Quebec. But I believe that this fact was never disclosed by the preachers we know.
So that goes to say that the farm economy in Quebec is more closely related to the dairy industry than in any other Canadian province. I deem it my duty, as a member from that province, to make the authorities aware of such conditions.
I am proud, of being a member of the Liberal party, for all the increases voted in favour of the Canadian Dairy Commission, in order to assist our dairy producers, were voted under Liberal governments.
I am also very much aware that, in the interest of dairy producers, the national dairy policy must have as a long term objective the development of an economic and productive dairy industry.
Considering the farm net income, compared with that of 1954, we find that the Quebec farmers are in a sorry plight. I mentioned at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture the following situation, namely that the 141 per cent increase in net income per farm, from 1954 to 1968, was accounted for by the producers of the three Prairie provinces.
In the Quebec province, from 1954 to 1968, the income increased by 14 per cent only while in Ontario it increased by 32 per cent. In one of the Maritime provinces the income went down 30 per cent whereas in British Columbia it went up 62 per cent.
All this because I do not want anybody to indulge in party politics, which seems to be the present trend. I do not want to by-pass the problem because I know how important the dairy industry is in Quebec.
We, Liberals, are aware of this. I would like to tell our detractors that from 1954 to 1960, the net income of the Quebec farmers decreased by $33 million From 1960 to 1966, the farmers of Quebec recorded an increase of $67 million of their net income and, from 1966 to 1968, under the present government, they experienced a decrease of about $8 million, but this is not the fault of the federal government.
I was reading yesterday, in a newspaper, a statement by the present Quebec Minister of Agriculture, to the effect that the only
February 19, 1970

Government Dairy Policy political party that has an agricultural doctrine is the Union Nationale. I think these figures can prove it.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to continue to debate this matter, but I think these figures must be disclosed. I am very happy with the report that has been tabled in the House, although when this report was examined, I made some suggestions.
I think that where there is a problem of surpluses, there are always two methods of solving it.
The first one is to cut down production and the second, which to my mind is more logical, is to try and find markets and increase consumption at the domestic as well as the international level.
When we met with the officials of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, they explained their program and informed us of a more aggressive policy tending to the development of new products. We have to innovate in this field to increase consumption by all possible means as, according to present forecasts, we will face in 1980 a per capita decrease of 18 per cent in the consumption of dairy products of all kinds, which will be offset by an increase of 9 per cent due to population growth.
As regards present surpluses, the report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture is not very different from the brief presented by the Catholic Farmers Union. In fact, it can be seen on page 3 of this brief, and I quote:
Direct subsidies paid to producers have therefore been as follows:
1967- 68	$ 98.3 million
1968- 69	101.0 million
1969- 70	91.0 million
In 1970-71 there will be a reduction due to surpluses, but I repeat we will have to make an effort to use these surpluses and I believe that after having enforced an aggressive policy in the search for new markets and in trying to increase domestic consumption, we should also study the possibility of transforming this excess powdered milk into veal. I feel that this new possibility could ensure an additional income to the farmer.
I well remember that in 1962, when milk base products were introduced for calf feeding, the average price of veal was perhaps around $15, $20 or $25 cwt., but it is now, as you know, 45 to 48 cents a pound.
I would suggest that surplus milk waiting in warehouses be used to feed calves being raised for consumption.
[Mr. Roy (Laval) .1
Mr. Speaker, I would not like to take up another hon. member's time and I believe several of them want to express their opinion but we are facing a situation which it is hard to cope with. Actually, we are aware of the problem, we will give serious consideration to all possible solutions. I believe that the two problems now facing agriculture are the surpluses of wheat and milk.
I would like to see the government give the same attention to those two problems which are now curbing the development of our agriculture.
In closing, I congratulate the members of the CFU who are with us today. Their presence gave us much encouragement. It also proves the interest of farmers in the situation of the dairy industry. Such action is certainly commendable. I strongly urge the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and all cabinet members to give consideration to the importance of the dairy industry and to use the $10 million which are not now in the Canadian Dairy Commission credits for other purposes in order to improve the present situation of Canadian agriculture.
I do not believe our farmers like to have welfare problems settled at their expense. Our farmers are too proud of their profession to be satisfied with promises alone. They are aware of the situation and I think there is certainly a way to find a solution to this problem by every possibility of improving technical methods.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.
# (7:40 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, a motion of the Ralliement Credi-tiste, introduced by the member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Lambert), is now before the House.
In this motion, the government and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) are taken to task for their failure to take action in order to grant eastern farmers, especially those engaged in dairy farming, the same subsidies as in past years.
Of course, it is very easy, with the problem now being discussed, to indulge in demagogy, to play politics, when 300 farmers are in the galleries, as was the case this afternoon, and to make a high-flown speech and say: We, of
February 19, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	3859
the Ralliement Creditiste, are the ones who have introduced this motion. What an ideal political football.
I have a feeling that the members of the Ralliement Creditiste took advantage of this day to air their grievances as well as to present this motion. May I congratulate the hon. member for Bellechasse, who, in my view, has made an excellent submission.
May I be allowed to digress at this point. If we did not have our present parliamentary system, if government members were not compelled to follow the orders of the Cabinet, if we had in the House 74 members from Quebec, without regard to their political affiliation, to deal with a question as important as this one, if Quebec members made common cause with one another as do those of the other provinces when questions of interest to them are raised, I believe that the problems of Quebec and of eastern Canada would be solved much more rapidly.
Unfortunately, we are faced with our present system. I know a large number of Quebec members who wholeheartedly approve of the motion before us, but who cannot, because of the present system, say exactly what they think of the policy now being upheld by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson).
Mr. Speaker, what surprised me in this debate is that our friends from the Ralliement Creditiste could not agree with their former colleague, the Minister of Agriculture. I remember, when I was in the House and the Minister of Agriculture was sitting at the far left, with my friends, the former Social Creditors, that he used to talk quite differently when the problems of both eastern and western farmers were being discussed.
Mr. Speaker, it has often been said and it is still said today that power can change men. When the minister was sitting over there to the left with the Social Credit party, he was the first to champion the farmers' cause, instead of saying like he did this afternoon that there was an overproduction problem and that it simply had to be solved-


Mr. Rene  Malle@Champlain: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Charlevoix. Has the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) a question of privilege or a point of order?


Mr. Rene  Malle@Champlain: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. member for Charlevoix.
Government Dairy Policy


Mr. Speaker:: Of course, the hon. member for Charlevoix has the floor and a question may be put to him only if he agrees.


Martial Asselin: I agree, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Rene  Malle@Champlain: I would like to ask the hon. member who has just accused us of being demagogues, if he is aware that in number, the Ralliement Creditiste officially represents Quebec in the opposition.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I did not accuse the hon. member of being a demagogue, but if the cap fits, let him wear it. I did not accuse anyone in the House. I said that this debate gives some members an opportunity to indulge in demagogy or to play politics, and if the hon. member feels he is being singled out. I am sorry. If the cap fits, 1 ask him once again to wear it.
In the speech the minister delivered this afternoon, he spoke of an overproduction that the department is unable to dispose of, namely of dairy by-products. Obviously, there is a problem. But are the farmers at fault? Are we living in a free society? Are we still a part of that society that encourages private enterprise or are we under a socialistic system that will control production and restrain the energies of those who really want to work in order to lay out their assets to advantage?
I say to the minister that his argument about overproduction that he over-emphasized this afternoon is an extremely weak one. This means that it is up to the minister and the federal government to organize foreign trade so as to dispose of Canadian products. And if the minister is unable to do so, are the farmers to pay the price? I say the minister is on the wrong tack when he boils down the whole problem to an overproduction problem. The real issue is: Do we have to penalize the dairy farmers if, through their initiative and hard work they want to produce and earn a living? I say to the minister that his prime responsability is to sell the Canadian products on the market.
Of course, I am not an expert in agriculture. I am a lawyer.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It shows!


Martial Asselin: The minister says that it shows. In fact, I am no farm expert but I know enough farmers in my riding who are too poor to go away and too poor to stay
February 19, 1970

Government Dairy Policy because they live on rocky lands. I should like, one day, to invite the minister to come and visit us. Indeed, he does not come often in Quebec and it is why he is not aware of the problems of this province. Should he deign to accept my invitation, I shall take him on a tour of the constituencies of Carle-voix or Lac-Saint-Jean. I promise him that I will show him the poverty and difficulties of farmers who have to make a living out of the little they have presently.
I do not need to give a summary of all the arguments put forth in the briefs and which, in my opinion, should have strongly convinced the minister that Eastern dairy producers, and in particular those of the province of Quebec, are now up against a desperate situation.
I read the briefs. I have here the brief of the agricultural committee of the Lake St. John area, partly located in the constituency which I represent. The minister as well as his parliamentary secretary (Mr. Cote) must have read all those briefs. Farmers have been coming to Ottawa for months and they have met with the representatives of all political parties. They also met with their member. They were told that a debate would be held on the matter. The object was hopefully to convince first the minister and then his parliamentary secretary of the importance of the problem, and the minister knows it.
If the minister, owing to his subborness and to the austerity program carried out by the government, does not acknowledge the claims of farmers and milk producers, many of them will drop their operations this year. What will they do? Could it be that the minister found a magic recipe to find them work? Would he not rather reconsider his decision and not cut the subsidy by $10 million. Should he not propose a 5 per cent increase in order to assist farmers in making both ends meet? Would it not be easier for the minister to go along with that bounty instead of leading on the labour market a still greater number of unemployed? That is what is bound to happen if the minister persists in not granting the 5 per cent increase which is absolutely necessary.
All the UCC briefs recommend such a course. They were drafted by experts. If the minister wishes to do nothing, I am telling him publicly that, during the electoral campaign, while the members of the cabinet and himself spoke about participatory democ-


racy, of government of the people by the people, they were playing a trick on their listeners.
Mr. Speaker, this example shows clearly that those people who marched on Ottawa, made representations and explained their grievances to the minister, at one time believed that the participatory democracy proposed by the Liberal party during the last election campaign could become a reality.
Those people will go back home and have only to say: We spent several days in Ottawa, we listened to speeches in the House of Commons and dealt with a stubborn minister, with a guy who did not even care to listen to any of our grievances. The minister will then say that he listened to them. He can very well listen to them for eight days and still refuse any help. Therefore, what is the point of those people coming here?
I wonder if we the 74 members from Quebec do not lose our time here receiving representatives from Quebec professional associations who call on the federal government, not to kneel down nor to ask for favours, but to have the farmers' rights recognized.
I just say that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret very much to interrupt the hon. member. He seemed to be on the point of ending his remarks and I would like to remind him that his time has expired.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It has already been too much.


Martial Asselin: It has been too much for you, I am sure.


Mr. Guy LeBlanc (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to give my opinion on that quite important and serious question now under discussion.
A motion has been brought in by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert). All the members have agreed that today would be allotted to the opposition. This is the reason why the audience may have noticed that seven members of the opposition have spoken up to now and that only two government members, including the minister-I will be the third-have taken part in the debate.
February 19, 1970

It is precisely on account of the freedom of speech that all the members can speak.
The motion brought in by the hon. member for Bellechasse begins as follows and I quote:
That this House condems the government policy on the dairy industry-
I must admit that I do not understand, when reading that sentence, why the hon. member for Bellechasse, who in addition to being a member of the Ralliement creditiste is also a farmer, begins by condemning the government policy on the dairy industry.
Moreover, as several members opposite, I have noticed that he discussed matters which have been of concern to us for several months. Some of our colleagues opposite are asking us to act and all day long, the members of the Ralliement creditiste, especially, have only been harping on the same thing, while we want to act now.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
Why want to condemn the government's policy? I would not say I think the Quebec farmers are the happiest of all Canadian citizens I do not think all the farmers' problems are solved. On the contrary. But between that and saying we must condemn the government's policy, there is a big difference, considering especially the fact that this government, to my knowledge, has not yet stated its agricultural policy.
As usual, every year around March, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) states his agricultural policy. It is the first time, since I have the honour to represent the citizens of the constituency of Rimouski that the Minister, as early as November 18 1969, gave a complete account not of the government's policy but of the basic principles of a policy he will set forth some day and has not yet announced to the citizens and members of this House. That is what I understood.
I would ask my Creditiste friends to listen if they have not read this last paragraph of the minister's statement made in November 1969:
In conclusion, may I say this is the first time the department has announced well in advance- several months in advance-the changes which it is intended to make in these programs. We hope this early notice will be useful not only to members of the House but to the public who are affected enabling them to make their views known to us before the date on which the changes are actually made.
To my knowledge, the expected changes, as I understand, are not in force yet. According to the tradition in the House of Commons,
Government Dairy Policy ministers announce their policies in due course. To me, that is clear.
Before the Standing Committee on Agriculture of which 1 am a member, as most of the hon. members who spoke up to now, appeared representatives of all associations which like us are concerned with farmers' problems.
I shall not give their names because the list is very long. Representatives of the Catholic Farmers Union, of the National Farmers Union and dairy producers, as well as some officials of the department and the Minister of Agriculture himself attended the sittings and many farmers were also present.
These were more particularly interested in the dairy industry. They listened to the evidence in order to be able to make constructive criticisms with regard to the dairy industry before the expected changes become effective. Following these activities which go back to several weeks, we read the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Section 2 is of a particular interest to the farmers and the hon. members. In fact, it recommends that in 1970-71, the support program for the dairy industry be maintained at the same level as in 1969-70, that is $125 million.
Generally speaking, all the recommendations made by the people we met were studied and followed by recommendations on the part of the committee.
As for us, the Liberal members, we had the opportunity, either in caucus or when we met the minister, to defend and support with all our might the requests of the farmers, not only of the province of Quebec, but from all parts of Canada, and of those who are interested in or who depend on dairy production for a living.
As for me, until such time as the officials of the Department of Agriculture have completed their studies, I shall do everything in my power to convince the minister to accept my suggestions and also to find a way to maintain the balance of our economy, so that the government of Canada or the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) might at least maintain, in some way or other, those $10 million required to encourage dairy production in Canada and in the province of Quebec.
So there is the problem. I am convinced, like the farmers who are listening to us now, who listened to us today and who voiced their grievances intelligently, like businessmen, that the problem will soon be solved. Some
3862	COMMONS
Government Dairy Policy members of the C.F.U. as well as their president, expressed their views, as always very intelligently, like businessmen, forgetting what was alluded to a while ago, namely electioneering, demagoguery and partisanship. They exposed their problems the way businessmen must do it.
Until now, it seems to me I have spoken of agriculture and dealt with the subject. I shall endeavour, until such time as the government makes a decision in this respect, to make every possible representation which my electors and the citizens of Quebec are asking me to make, so that the government may go on encouraging and promoting the development of agriculture.
I was surprised today to see that in spite of all the discussions we have had for months and months, the members of the opposition saw fit to recall all the very clever and relevant remarks which the farmers and the members of the committee have been making for the past two months.
Why did they stress so much things of the past? Because they want us to take action.


Bernard Dumont: Because we are the farmers' spokesmen.


Louis Guy LeBlanc: Some spokesmen, Mr. Speaker, indulge in psittacism.


An hon. Member:: They do not know what it means.


Louis Guy LeBlanc: I would not like to use that method. Even though I may be no expert in agriculture, I am very keen on representing not only my electors but all the citizens of Quebec and of Canada when it comes to fighting for the economy of Quebec.
The opposition members have been dwelling month after month on the same old stories. The time has now come to sum it all up by telling them what we want to do.
The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), to whose speech I listened with the greatest interest, talked at length about poverty. When we speak on such a subject before the people, we are unconsciously prone to misrepresentations, because of the circumstances.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Early in the session, the government decided to give some priority to the fight against poverty. On the other hand, I think the first responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is to co-operate, regarding the

DEBATES	February 19, 1970
war on poverty, to eliminate regional disparities and to have business discussions with farmers, because other federal departments are charged with fighting against poverty, a problem that concerns all of us. I would not like, and I know that Canadian citizens do not think-


André-Gilles Fortin: On a point
of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


André-Gilles Fortin: Earlier, you told me that I was not talking about the matter before us. I would point out that the hon. member is not talking about agriculture but poverty. Perhaps he might be called to order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.
The hon. member for Rimouski must have heard the point of order of the hon. member for Lotbiniere.


Louis Guy LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I was about to deal with the subsidy policy. I must admit I dwelled on the subject, but I know that among farmers-we heard about poverty this afternoon-


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


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on the motion now under study, on behalf of the 900 farmers in my riding who signed the petition asking for this debate on Canada's dairy industry.
I sincerely believe that such a debate was urgently needed. Indeed, the dairy industry of the industrial sector enables more than 130,000 families-including 45,000 in the province of Quebec-to obtain a major part of their income.
It is undeniable that the dairy policy of the Canadian government has a very direct influence on the income of farmers in the riding of Beauce and in the rest of the province of Quebec.
The place occupied by the milk industry in Canada's farm economy does not necessarily correspond to the wishes of the farmers themselves, but it is the result of a trend initiated and promoted by the federal government.
The dairy policy as a whole must he aimed at providing a fair income for the efficient producer. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. February 19, 1970

Olson) said so himself at the annual meeting of the Canadian Federation of Milk Producers held in Quebec City in January 1969, when he defined the role of the Canadian Dairy Commission and the long-term objective of the Canadian government in that respect.
Here is what he said, and I quote:
The extent of this intervention was confirmed in 1966 by the adoption of the Canadian Dairy Commission Act, with a view to providing fair returns to producers whose system is efficient, and adequate supplies of dairy products for the Canadian consumers.
Such is the long-term objective which the Canadian government is aiming at.
The main long-term objective of the government as regards the dairy industry is the stabilization of milk prices in order to guarantee a fair income to the producer. Disregarding this objective or taking a backward step would very likely force a great many producers into bankruptcy or simply, although indirectly, force them to leave the farm sector.
In view of the present attitude of the federal government, we may wonder as to whether this is not the purpase of the government.
The changes made in April 1969 to the dairy policy by the federal government and the Canadian Dairy Commission in particular, and those they intend to bring in, that is a reduction of $10 million in subsidies, as well as the development of the dairy industry during these last years are so many factors which have contributed during the last two or three years to lower appreciably the net income of Canadian and Quebec farmers in particular. Such a decrease in income occurs at a time when the cost of goods and services to farmers as well as the cost of living on the farms increase day by day.
The farmer, like any other worker, has to put up with inflation whose effects are painfully felt. Many farmers have had to give up production and if the government implements the policy envisaged many more will give up.
Inflation decreases the real income of superannuated people and others who have fixed incomes and makes it difficult to carry out the essential objective of guaranteed minimum incomes. Inflation can also slow down development, an essential objective.
Farmers made huge contributions to reaching that objective. The farm price index has increased only by 19 per cent from 1949 to 1967, while the retail price index and the
Government Dairy Policy wholesale price index increased respectively by 49 per cent and 32 per cent respectively during the same period.
Farmers were able to limit the increase of farm product prices to such a low percentage while other segments of the economy increased considerably more, thanks to the major investments they have made during the last two decades, to the improvement of their livestock and facilities. Those are so many factors which have contributed to the improvement of the quality of their production and to a higher efficiency.
Whether it be in the western or eastern provinces, agriculture in general is meeting serious difficulties and we cannot afford to let it stagnate.
Besides, the dairy industry is not the only industry subsidized by the government. Others such as collieries, transportation companies, gold mines, receive major subsidies. Bearing in mind the number of people employed by these industries, the subsidies granted them are as high as those granted the dairy industry. Moreover, is not the tariff protection enjoyed by some industries some kind of disguised subsidies?
Let us suppose that an important number of dairy producers gave up production to undertake other farming activities, or to go on an early pension owing to anticipated pension plans, it would nevertheless be necessary to create jobs in other economic sectors. However, this would cost about $30,000 per job and at times more, without taking into consideration investments required for housing, social and other services.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
The lack of investment capital is presently deplored, and the government is forever announcing new programs, apart from creating new jobs. There are comparative successes here and there, but the objectives decided upon are far from being reached.
As for the use of manpower in other sectors of the economy, it does not appear likely, even if those people were encouraged to take advantage of the intensive retraining programs. This appears even less likely in eastern Canada where the unemployment rate is high.
In any event, those who would be the first to suffer from this disruption are the producers over 45 years of age. It would be difficult for them to acquire new professional skills and to adapt to an urban environment. At any rate, according to the report of the planning commission, which deals with the
3864	COMMONS DEBATES	February 19, 1970
Government Dairy Policy problem of low-yield farms, during the next decade it will be extremely difficult to create in the other sectors of the economy enough jobs to take care of the normal flow of people from rural areas.
In the constituency of Beauce it will be very difficult, I think, for displaced persons to get immediate employment in the shoe, textile, manufacturing or lumbering industries because during these last months such industries had to lay off temporarily a great many workers and right now their production is lower than their capacity to produce due to lack of orders.
The textile industry is now slackening to a rather large extent. In St. George de Beauce, a plant whose staff normally comprises 275 employees had during these last weeks to lay off 50. It is expected that it will employ less than 200.
I understand it is difficult to dispose of the surplus dairy products on world markets which are already flooded with goods from Common Market countries.
Other industries, such as the footwear and textile industries, are also faced with problems resulting among other things from imports of products from Asian and European countries. Now I do not see the possibility of displacing farm labour, which will be affected by the intended changes, to the other areas of the economy to which I have just referred, because there already is a manpower surplus in those industries.
A few days ago, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) tabled the Estimates for 1970-71. I could see that large appropriations will be allocated to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, as well as to the Department of Manpower and Immigration, for the improvement of manpower. That increase totals close to $90 million.
I greatly appreciate the efforts that the government intends to make with respect to creating new jobs and retraining manpower, which in my opinion are projects of very great importance. However, I believe it just as important to concentrate our efforts in order to maintain existing jobs in agriculture as well as in industry, even if the government must allocate extra amounts to that end, as it should concerning the dairy industry, to allow the farmer to earn a decent income.
The approach of the producers to the matter is clear and definite. They want the price of milk to increase at the same rate as production and living costs. To reach that goal,

there is but one solution. The government should review its position and increase the grants paid to the Canadian dairy commission.


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: I find it difficult to take part in the debate tonight, Mr. Speaker, for several reasons. For many years I have been a member of the party which supports this government; I have been loyal for many years. But I must tell the House tonight that I simply do not agree with the policy of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and the government in cutting $10 million off the subsidy to the Dairy Commission of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I am not sure whether that applause from my left is execution applause or not. In any event, those are my sentiments and I intend to stand by them in the time allotted to me tonight. I am not taking this course without having informed the members of my party; they appreciate the situation in which I am involved. I have let them know what my position is, both privately and in other places.
It is difficult to criticize the Minister of Agriculture, for several reasons. First, he is a very nice fellow and I am sure he was sincere when he said this afternoon that he was interested in giving the agricultural people of Canada a just deal. I have no doubt in the world that he was speaking the truth. I do not think we who are critical of the policy to be followed should put all the blame on the Minister of Agriculture. After all, he is only one member of the government, and when a substantial amount of money to the tune of $10 million is to be cut off I would say that the government as a whole should share the blame for it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Since the minister is such a fine fellow and a real gentleman, I would say that when the first certificate is given for doing a good job in the anti-inflation drive it should be given to the Minister of Agriculture, because no sector of our economy has done more to fight inflation than agriculture-in particular, the dairy industry. In almost every area there have been cuts. The subsidy on hogs has been cut. That is good for the inflation battle. The subsidy on milk has been cut. That, too, is good for the inflation battle. The subsidy on freight rates for feed from western Canada has been cut. This
February 19, 1970

is not all. The price of many agriculture products is lower than it was several years ago. On this basis I would say the farmer and the Minister of Agriculture have done more to fight inflation than anyone in the land.
I want to make one thing clear. I am absolutely, completely and unalterably opposed to subsidy. As far as I am concerned, if we could do away with all subsidies in Canada I would be the first to stand and cheer. But as long as we provide subsidies for our coal mines, as long as auto manufacturers and the workers who make cars are subsidized through tariff protection and cars bought in Windsor or Oshawa cost $200 or $300 more than they do in Detroit, I think it is only right there should be subsidies for agriculture and in particular for those who work in the dairy industry. I see no justification whatsoever for lowering the subsidy at this time.
The agricultural industry, particularly the dairy industry, is at the low end of the economic totem pole. This is a situation which I do not wish to see continue. As a backbencher sent here to support the government, I believe we have an obligation to support it when it is right. But I say-I have also said it to my hon. friends in this chamber-that in addition to being sent here to support the government, we were sent to support the people back home.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Many of the people in my area are farmers and I do not have the slightest intention of letting them down, not one of them. Much was made this afternoon of the fact that there is considerable overproduction in the dairy industry. There is no question about this. The biggest surplus is in powdered milk, and I am told there is less powdered milk on hand today than was the case a year ago. It is true we have too much butter. I say to the Minister of Agriculture, to the government and to the salesmen who represent Canada all over the world: Get off your seats here in Ottawa. Get out into the world market and sell the stuff.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Having had long experience in small business, I would say that the first loss is always the best loss. If you have to sell your product at a depressed price, do it today and not in five years' time. This will save you a lot of money in storage charges and we

Government Dairy Policy must remember that interest rates today are substantial. So long as the price is reasonable, sell your product.
After all, last year the minister told us that we were selling powdered milk at six or 6J cents a pound. Today we are selling powdered milk on the world market at 10 cents a pound. Last year the dairy subsidy was $125 million. This year, when the world market price has improved, the subsidy is being cut. As far as selling powdered milk is concerned, we have done a reasonably good job, though the price could of course always be improved.
Who subsidizes the sale of powdered milk in world markets? Does the government give any indication to some of our city friends who are possibly unfamiliar with the dairy business that the government is subsidizing powdered milk sales in world markets? Every member who comes from a rural riding will know that the dairy farmers of Canada subsidize their own overproduction and the amount of milk that is sold on world markets, and it is they who should get the credit for it. I should like someone to show me any other industry in Canada that subsidizes the sale of its own product as much as the dairy farmers of Canada subsidize theirs.
There is not a great deal more I wish to say; much has already been said. I want my constituents and the members of this House to know exactly where 1 stand on this question. As I said at the beginning, I am against subsidies. But something must be done for people in agriculture. Today there are half as many farmers in Canada as there were 20 years ago. We are slowly starving them into submission. As far as I and my vote are concerned, this is not the way agriculture should be treated.
Our farmers deserve the same treatment as that received by labour, which has had substantial increases in income over the years. Our corporations have also made larger profits. I do not deny them these for a moment; however, if every other sector of the economy has the right to move forward financially, so have those engaged in the dairy industry.
That is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker. Certainly I hope there is no member here tonight who does not know where I stand on the question of a dairy policy for Canada.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to follow the last speaker, because having sat through the proceedings in the House today I began to think that only the provinces of Quebec and
3866	COMMONS
Government Dairy Policy Ontario had problems in the dairy industry. The government has evolved a national dairy policy and regards the problems of the dairy industry as national problems. A glance at the list of speakers today indicates that about eight of the speakers so far are either from Quebec or Ontario. I do not know whether I am fortunate or unfortunate to be recognized.
I get picked on for whatever I say, I know, but I do not worry too much about that any more. However, we are not considering a policy that concerns only the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
As hon. members know, I come from another part of the country. I have observed a very good representation from Quebec in the gallery tonight, and I am glad to see they are interested enough in dairy problems to come and listen to the debate. We are talking about things they should know. It is only right they should know what is going on in the rest of the country. Before I develop my remarks this evening, Mr. Speaker, I ask your permis-
DEBATES	February 19, 1970
sion to have four tables to which I shall refer later printed in Hansard. 1 ask your permission at this time because I shall be referring to these tables.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the House agree that these tables be printed in Hansard as part of the hon. member's speech?


Stanley James Korchinski: I may say the tables were provided to me by the Department of Agriculture during the proceedings before the agriculture committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley James Korchinski: I thank the House very much.
[Editor's Note: The tables referred to are as follows:]


[Stage Direction]
1968	1969
Consump- Production tion Difference	Consump- Production tion Difference
			-	'000,000 lb. -		
Prince Edward Island	
2.0	0.7	1.3	2.2	0.7	1.5Nova Scotia	
1.2	4.7	(3.5)	1.6	4.9	(3.3)New Brunswick	
0.6	3.9	(3.3)	0.5	4.0	(3.5)Quebec	
71.3	36.9	34.4	68.5	38.2	30.3Ontario	
83.7	45.5	38.2	86.0	47.6	38.4Manitoba	
2.0	6.0	(4.0)	3.1	6.3	(3.2)Saskatchewan	
-	6.0	(6.0)	-	6.1	(6.1)Alberta	
3.3	9.6	(6.3)	2.9	10.0	(7.1)British Columbia	
1.7	12.5	(10.8)	1.8	13.2	(11.4)Others	3.4	(3.4)	-	3.6	(3.6)CANADA	
165.8	129.2	36.6	166.6	134.6	32.0DRY SKIM MILK-	-PRODUCTION AND CALCULATED CONSUMPTION	1968	1969	Production	Consump- tion	Difference	Production	Consump- tion	Difference- '000,000 lb. -	Quebec	220.0	45.4	174.6	244.7	49.7	195.0Ontario	115.3	55.9	59.4	114.5	61.9	52.6Other Provinces	23.5	57.3	(33.8)	19.4	63.4	(44.0)CANADA	358.8	158.6	200.2	378.6	175.0	203.6

February 19, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Government Dairy Policy CREAMERY BUTTER-PRODUCTION AND CALCULATED CONSUMPTION
1969
	Production	Consump- tion	Difference	Production	Consump- tion	Difference
			-'000,0001b.-			
Prince Edward Island	
4.3	1.8	2.5	4.6	1.7	2.9Nova Scotia	
2.0	12.2	(10.2)	2.6	11.5	(8.9)New Brunswick	
3.8	9.9	(6.1)	4.2	9.5	(5.3)Quebec	
154.2	94.9	59.3	170.3	90.6	79.7Ontario	
100.1	117.0	(16.9)	98.7	112.9	(14.2)Manitoba	
17.6	15.6	2.1	17.2	14.9	2.3Saskatchewan	
16.0	15.4	0.6	15.9	14.5	1.4Alberta	
32.0	24.6	7.5	29.5	23.6	5.9British Columbia	
5.2	32.2	(27.0)	4.3	31.4	(27.1)Others	8.8	(8.8)	-	8.5	(8.5)CANADA	
335.2	332.4	2.8	347.3	319.1	28.2
[Stage Direction]
Quotas Withdrawn In
1968-69	1969-70
No.	lbs. b.f. ('000)	No.	lbs. b.f. ('000)Prince Edward Island	
528	176	88	26Nova Scotia	
1009	203	83	24New Brunswick	
587	170	97	29Quebec	
2974	516	385	102Ontario	
2151	541	328	85Manitoba	
4031	914	491	139Saskatchewan	
9090	1,784	819	241Alberta	
6233	1,417	682	189British Columbia	
209	48	22	6CANADA	
26812	5,769	2995	841
Note. Numbers of quotas withdrawn is actual, lbs. butterfat is estimated.
Stanley James Korchinski: Although I come from Saskatchewan, let me say at once that I recognize that the dairy industry in Ontario and Quebec has problems and that the farmers need more money. Farmers everywhere are hemmed in by costs. As surely as the day will come when we will all die, the operations of dairy farmers will one by one be strangled by costs. In this respect they are no different from the dairy farmers of Saskatchewan.
I am not going to tell the House a story different from the one I tell the people of Saskatchewan. I want the people here tonight to know that we have every sympathy for them. We recognize they are not getting enough money for their products. I should also like them to know that according to the
tables I have presented to the House for consideration, out of a total of 30,000 people whose subsidies have been cut off, 10,000, or one third, came from Saskatchewan. These
10,000	people in my province have just as big a problem as those in our gallery tonight. I am not sure whether these 10,000 farmers all come from my constituency, but they do come from the province of Saskatchewan.


Mr. Deakon:: They have been assisted by the Liberal government.


Stanley James Korchinski: I hear my hon. friend from Toronto starting to interrupt, so let me pursue this matter further. All shippers who supplied less than 420 pounds of butterfat had
February 19, 1970

Government Dairy Policy their subsidies cut off. There are a lot of small farmers in Saskatchewan. According to the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon (Mr. Lang), these farmers are to be given two years holiday without pay. Is he going to give two years holiday without pay to the Quebec farmers? I ask this question because in that province last year there was a surplus of creamery butter amounting to 80 million pounds. Some may ask: Why is there alienation? Why are we worrying about what is happening in the west? Why are we talking about things in the way that we are? Well, Quebec spoke its piece and we are going to speak ours.
* (8:40 p.m.)
I am not one to be very shy in this House and I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the reason we are annoyed is that subsidies were taken away from 10,000 dairy producers in Saskatchewan and given to somebody else. This is what I am annoyed about. But that did not reduce the over-all subsidy and these people still deliver their cream. They do so because they need the dollars they get for it, irrespective of subsidy.
Do hon. members know what all those people who were cut off subsidy because they could not deliver 420 pounds of butterfat contributed to the national output in the last two years? Saskatchewan producers contributed perhaps 2 million pounds. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that our butter surplus today is 90 million pounds? Where did 80 million pounds of that surplus come from? It came from Quebec. Why should I support this kind of dairy program? We should have a proper national dairy program. If he had sense, the minister would have stayed here to listen to me. I spoke to him during the dinner hour and he knew that I was going to contribute to the debate. But he could not care less. However, I know he will read my speech, or his assistants will.
Why should we have to transport that butter from Quebec to western Canada and on into British Columbia, where there is a 28 million pounds deficit? Why should we pay the freight on it? Who in B.C. is going to get milk from Quebec? Nobody. Why should we have to get butter from New Zealand? Does that make sense? Is this the type of dairy policy toward which we are headed? Earlier I said that I did not know whether we should scrap the program or the Canadian Dairy Commission.


An hon. Member:: Scrap the government.


Stanley James Korchinski: I think we should scrap them both. They deserve every credit for trying, but having tried they have failed. These people at the lower end of the ladder are still going to deliver cream. They have delivered it, and they will continue to deliver it. Many of these people are trying to diversify their operations. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is one of the greatest guys in the world for encouraging diversification. My own minister from Saskatchewan tells me we have to do these things. Mr. Speaker, what do we have to do? The government denies us every opportunity; but later they will regret it.
It was all right when some of the friends of separatism came to this House from Quebec. I am not suggesting for one moment that we in the west will separate. I think we have more guts out there than a lot of people who said they would separate. We are going to stay in Canada. We are going to fight for our rights in Canada. I only hope the minister will listen to reason and put the policy on a regional basis.
On January 21 last, the president of the National Dairy Council of Canada stated:
-the experience of the past few years has demonstrated all too clearly and unhappily the failure in the administration of national policy to recognize and provide the necessary flexibility to cope with the inherent regional differences in the structure and economics of the enterprise.
I am talking not only of western Canada; I am talking about the maritimes and the eastern townships of Quebec. I am not talking provincially; I am talking in terms of whole regions. The government must realize that if it is to solve the problems of transportation and storage, we must call a spade a spade. Where is the surplus developing? It is right here in central Canada. Why should the producers in Saskatchewan have to pay for this when people in other areas are creating the surplus? But we have pulled in our horns. Every province except Quebec has pulled in its horns. Quebec has increased its production. Is this going to continue at our expense? Somebody has to call a spade a spade and I am not too shy to do so.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Will the hon. member allow a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for St. Boniface wishes to ask a question of the hon. member.

February 19, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	3869
Government Dairy Policy


Stanley James Korchinski: He could have spoken The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Order, before. You know that Saskatchewan is in a I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his deficit dairy position. The quota-	time has expired.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order! The hon. member for Saint-Boniface (Mr. Guay) on a point of order.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the last statement made by the hon. member. I would like to ask him a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: This is not a point of order. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski).


Stanley James Korchinski: I think I should be allowed to continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Saint-Boniface (Mr. Guay) is rising on a point of order and he also wishes to direct a question. He knows quite well however that it is out of order.
The hon. member for Mackenzie.


Stanley James Korchinski: For the information of everybody in the House may I indicate that Saskatchewan is in a deficit position with regard to dairy quota. It holds a quota of
10,300,000	pounds and uses 13.5 million pounds. What is wrong with the Canadian Dairy Commission? What are they looking for? Why are they hemming us in? Why have they cut us off? We have not contributed to the over-all surplus, yet this action has been taken against us.
It is rather interesting to note that I have been recognized at the tail-end of this discussion tonight. It is interesting to see where the problem really lies. Those who spoke for Quebec producers want the $10 million. Where did this reduction of $10 million affect people most? I do not have to answer that question, Mr. Speaker, because you know where. I will not dwell on it. I wish them the best. I hope they get it. But I hope hon. members will look at the other side of the coin and remember that Canada is not only central Canada. When I heard the Minister of Agriculture say during the committee meetings that we were going to balkanize these things-
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley Wesl):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate tonight. It would seem, from the number of people in the gallery, that the dairy industry in the province of Quebec must be in a very grim state indeed, because it has caused all these visitors to make the trek to Ottawa to listen to this debate. I do not believe people would become involved in the expense of forming such a large delegation just for fun. They must have legitimate problems, otherwise they would not be here. I believe it is significant, also, that many of these people have chosen members from parties other than the two old-line parties to represent them, because in the past they have been unable to achieve the kind of success they desired through those members. They have chosen, instead, to seek spokesmen from outside the two old-line parties.
The dairy farmers in my area are not affected greatly one way or another by the subsidy on milk, but I do not think it follows from that that they have no sympathy for the people who are so affected. I am told the dairy farmers in the province of Quebec depend for at least 25 per cent of their return on this particular subsidy. It also seems a tragedy to me that at a time when two-thirds of the people in the world go to bed hungry, we should have a minister who would stand up here and express concern about the surplus of various food products in this country. There are 3.5 billion people in the world today. In 25 years it is expected there will be 7 billion people. In terms of the hungry people of the world, we cannot begin to feed the people on the earth today. We might ask ourselves whether there will be a surplus in three or four years from now in wheat and dairy products. I do not think this is a longterm problem if we can find a means of providing these commodities to the people of the world who really need them.
Earlier this afternoon we had a prolonged debate in the House about the inability of Canada to feed some starving Metis people. Some of the grain farmers of Saskatchewan had offered to grind flour to help feed these people. We have surpluses in many products. Where are the surplus food products, so far as these Metis people are concerned? They do not exist. We cannot really begin to feed the
February 19, 1970

Government Dairy Policy people we have in. Canada, despite the surpluses. What are we doing about the hungry people of the world? Our record in foreign aid is pitiful if not shocking. What does it matter if we sell milk powder at 6 cents a pound when the world price is 20 cents a pound? This is a way in which Canada could make a contribution to the under-developed countries of the world.
A previous speaker spoke about the deliberate long-term policy to move people off the land. This is a policy designed to make it impossible for them to live in the rural areas and maintain a decent standard of living. In the past 25 years, 1J million people in Canada have been herded into the cities. They have come from the farms, to say nothing of those who have come from logging areas, fishing villages, the outports and other small rural communities of Canada. What have been the consequences of these moves? Some of the members from Toronto are concerned about urban problems. A good many of these almost insurmountable and complex urban social problems have been the result of this movement of people. These problems include the provision of educational facilities, soaring urban welfare costs, impossible transportation difficulties and pollution due to crowding.


An hon. Member:: And welfare costs.


Mark Willson Rose: Welfare costs are soaring. There is not even a definite method by which the municipalities can finance their waste disposal systems, because they cannot obtain the cash required to provide the necessary treatment plants. There are enormous pollution costs. These things are all a reflection of the new enclosure movement. The old way of life has been altered. All over our country we find that railway stations and post offices have been closed.
The reduction in farm income has been such that small communities across the country have vanished. I believe small communities are a living testimony to human endeavour; they are part of the history and achievement of our people. But now they are dead; they are merely monuments of the past. Where are the sidewalks, the churches, the schools and the small businesses, as well as the people who depended upon these things? This trend has continued without any real regard for its social consequences. Do we really know the cost, in social terms, of the disruption when a rural family is forced into the city?


In my view, if a cost-benefit study were ever undertaken we would find that in the long run it would be better to keep the dairy farmer and the grain farmer on the land to produce the food the world needs. I believe it is evident that we will need more of them in the future, even if it becomes necessary to subsidize them at a higher level than is the case today. What is the difference between subsidization of transportation and welfare costs in the cities and subsidization of the rural way of life? Many people find rural life attractive and do not wish to leave their farms unless they are forced to do so.
I do not know why there is all this fascination for urban growth. I wonder if anyone knows what it is all about. This trend has developed not only in Canada; we see it also in the nation to our south. Much of the difficulty in respect of the farmers is that they have never really been told what to do. They were told to produce, and then to diversify. They have been over this route two or three times. Then they were told to become more efficient. I believe much of the problem in respect of our farmers stems from the fact that they have become too efficient.
The farm increase in productivity has been much greater than that in many other industries. At the same time that their productivity has increased, their reward has become much smaller. When people are forced off the land, what takes their place? I will tell you: it is the factory farms. This type of situation leads to vertical integration about which we heard this afternoon: a large corporation owns the land, plants the crop, processes it and sells it in the cities. They really control the price, and it becomes a non-competitive price. This has an effect on the cost of groceries in the cities. Such corporations control the market. This trend is continuing.
Earlier we heard that 300,000 farmers have left the farm in the last 25 years. What has become of them? Who is taking their place? I believe this situation should be examined. I am not pointing a finger in any particular direction. It may be that a trend toward urbanization is going on everywhere in the world. However, I believe we should look into the situation to determine whether it would be more efficient to keep people out of the large cities and do what we can in order to maintain the size and viability of the rural communities.
We have often heard that the family farm is the basis of the agricultural industry. We must protect the family farm. For whom, and
February 19, 1970

from whom, must we protect it? From the socialists? Not from us, Mr. Speaker, but from the corporate farmers; the new, collective farmers. We have heard that the collective farm system will not work. The new, corporate farm is the collective farm in which people are employed in a way similar to that used in a factory, where there is complete control of the industry from planting to selling.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
As I said earlier, British Columbia does not receive a great deal of benefit from this particular subsidy. My province gets less than 1 per cent of the $125 million. I will tell the House the reason for this. It is that we have switched to an almost totally fluid milk market. I should like to cite some figures which I think will explain this situation. I will quote from a submission by the Mainland Dairymen's Association. Out of Canada's five billion pounds in terms of fluid sales, British Columbia sold roughly 10 per cent. Out of seven million pounds of butter, British Columbia sold 1.5 per cent. Of almost 2 billion pounds of Cheddar cheese, British Columbia sold 1.3 per cent. Of about 350 million pounds of skimmed milk powder, British Columbia sold 1.67 per cent.
So of all the manufactured milk used in factories, totalling some 11 billion pounds, British Columbia produced about 3 per cent. Therefore, we find that of the manufactured milk which is causing problems of surplus butter and skimmed milk powder, British Columbia is producing about 3 per cent. I should like to assure the House that we could produce more if we wanted to. I should like to quote further from the submission of the Mainland Dairymen's Association. This is what they said:
In the picture shown by the figures above, it is difficult for us to accept some responsibility for the surplus of manufactured milk products. We would point out that the picture of the B.C. dairy industry as shown above, did not come about accidentally. The comparatively high cost of all inputs used in dairy farming in B.C. and the national market climate for manufactured milk products, forced us to take some action to ensure the fluid milk supply and survive as milk producers. This resulted in the kind of provincial milk industry legislation that we operate under today, which is based on high fluid utilization producer quotas.
This did not come about painlessly. In 1962, all fluid milk quotas were reduced to less than 66 per cent of the previous level, and since that time quota increases have been based on the increase in fluid sales.
Government Dairy Policy
I could quote at much greater length from this brief, but the picture is clear. In 1962, the legislation forced the dairymen to reduce their production of milk by two-thirds and kept them out of surplus production. Further on the brief reads:
We do not need to be convinced of the value of, or the need for supply management at the national level as a means of avoiding increasing surpluses and of regulating our milk supply to the domestic demand for fluid milk and dairy products.
However, our progress at the provincial level puts us in a position where we find it difficult, or perhaps impossible to participate in any of the methods of supply management that have been proposed thus far.
It is impossible for us to accept the concept of market sharing quotas based on individual production, in any base period, for the following reasons:
The B.C. fluid market has maintained a reasonably constant increase since 1963.
But this increase has come about, not because of increased consumption but an increase in the population in that area. This does not mean that we do not have any problems in British Columbia, that we have solved all of them and "Ha, ha; tough luck for the rest of you." Dairy farmers in British Columbia are becoming less numerous, and they

I think it is only fair to say what the previous speaker said: we have to be frank about these things-do not believe they are getting their fair share of the $125 million subsidy.


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


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in the debate on the motion of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert).
Besides, having heard the speech of the mover and that of my friend, the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), who both described the agricultural situation in Quebec and in Canada in the gloomiest terms, I am somewhat puzzled and I wonder whether we are not wasting some of our time dealing with an industry which, according to them, would be on the verge of bankruptcy.
I confess frankly that being from Quebec, I was not particularly pround to hear these hon. members, who claim to speak on behalf of farmers from Quebec, and even from Canada, showing so little logic and, should I say, a sheer lack of intellectual honesty. From
3872	COMMONS
Government Dairy Policy what they say, one could think that all Quebec farmers are beggars.
Mr. Speaker, although I am not a farmer,
I represent a riding which is mostly rural and I strongly object to the impression that is being deliberately created among members of Parliament. I repudiate the whole idea, because in my riding which is far from being the top one in the province, there are about 800 farmers. In agriculture as in any other profession, some people are entirely successful, others do reasonably well, and unfortunately some are poor and, for various reasons have trouble making ends meet.
To claim that the agricultural situation in Quebec is desperate-


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


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


Bernard Dumont: I would like to call your attention to the fact that according to the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, the members for Bellechasse and Joliette said that the farmers are beggars. But these two members have never said such a thing. They only said-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. It is not a point of order.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Marcel Lessard: I said that was the conclusion I arrived at from the arguments put forward by those hon. members.
Mr. Speaker, I do not claim that there are no problems and that the government should disregard the situation of agriculture, quite the opposite. However, it should not be considered that the mere fact of today's debate in the House will solve the problem. Absolutely not, because several hon. members made political and partisan speeches which made no constructive contribution to the debate. I can even mention my friend from Joliette (Mr. La Salle) opposite, who went so far as to mention this afternoon that some of the ministers were absent from the House, whereas the hon. minister of Regional Economic Expansion sat there an hour listening to his speech, so that-


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a question of privilege.

DEBATES	February 19, 1970


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have just heard the member for Lac-Saint-Jean say that the proceedings of the House do not settle any problem whatever.
I feel this is an attack on my privileges as I think that if we want to and if we are responsible, we can settle the problems that crop up. But if we adopt the attitude of the member for Lac-Saint-Jean we will never settle anything here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Marcel Lessard: We are all
aware, as are our friends in the galleries, of the type of co-operation offered by the Credi-tistes when certain members want to express their opinions in the House.
Fortunately the many farmers in the galleries have not all been fooled by our discussion today. It seems that empty talk does not necessarily produce practical solutions to the situation. It is rather the positive concrete dialogue such as we had in the committees today, for instance, and during previous meetings between members of Parliament and the farmers themselves, that is profitable.
The conversations we have with the minister in caucus, when a problem may be discussed at length, provide real opportunities to find actual solutions.
Personally, I know what it means to be in the opposition and how easy it is to criticize the government. But it is not that easy for somebody with ministerial responsibilities to find concrete solutions to problems.
The situation is difficult and I admit it. But it is far from being desperate considering the facts and figures. When it is maintained, for instance, that the number of farmers engaged in the dairy industry has greatly decreased, I can give official figures in this connection.
In 1956, for instance, there were 398,000 farmers engaged in the dairy industry in Canada, whereas there were 221,000 in 1966. A closer look at those figures reveals that
172.000	of those farmers, therefore quite a bit more than half, had herds of 17 cows or less, and an interesting point is that in 1956,
135.000	farmers had only from 3 to 17 cows.
So, it is normal that the group should be
smaller, as the farms were consolidated. I know very well, as I have discussed the matter with the farmers themselves and with their leaders, that they admit that for a large number of these small operators who, after all, derived only a supplementary income
February 19, 1970

from their land, dairy farming was not their main occupation.
Now, it could


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker,
I realize that I am going to be interrupted, like that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order!


Marcel Lessard: -across-


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on i point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member-


H.-Pit Lessard: You see, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: -for
Bellechasse, on a point of order.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean may be assured that it is not a filibuster. Only the-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order-


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: It is the figures that you quoted-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order!
I would suggest to the hon. member to address the Chair.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
I should like that the hon. member from Lac-Saint-Jean tells the House how many dairy producers were registered at the Canadian Dairy Commission.


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


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: -in 1966.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member knows very well that it is not a point of order.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I will come back to that. I was referring to Catalogue No. 96 published under the auspices of the Department of Agriculture by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. If this is not good enough, where can we find anything better.
In any event, I have here statistics which show us that there exists a group of people- and the fact is recognized by everybody-

Government Dairy Policy which should engage in something else to turn than the dairy industry.
In reply to a question on the order paper- and this answers the precise question of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert)- it is said that there were 68,500 registered industrial milk producers in 1966. There were
103,000	cream producers. In Quebec, at the same time, there were 41,000 industrial milk producers as against 16,000 cream producers. In Ontario, there are 22,000 industrial milk producers compared with 15,000 cream producers. I am talking about producers registered with the Canadian Dairy Commission in 1968-1969.
In 1967, there were 65,000 industrial milk producers in Canada and 88,000 cream producers according to the official figures of the government.
It would be interesting to study the evolution of the production in each province. I think this is an important factor.
To sum up, when you consider dairy production as a whole in Canada-and this is why the situation is far from being hopeless- I say it is a question of technical adjustments.
In 1964-still according to the figures of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics-the production of milk stood at 18.5 billion pounds.
In 1968, four years later, it stood at 18.335 billion pounds. There was a decrease in all provinces except New Brunswick, Quebec and British Columbia.
Therefore, this is not a desperate situation, far from it. It is a matter of technical adjustment and I think that is precisely what is being done at the moment. Governments, federal as well as provincial, together with farm associations, are in the process of working towards those adjustments which will bring good results in the end.
The Commission was established just over three years ago. It has set up quotas and increased the financial contribution of the government. I have here an official government paper. Again it is a question put on the order paper in answer to which was given the amount of the subsidies paid directly by the government, through the Canadian Dairy Commission, to industrial milk producers.
We can see that for 1965-66 $7,546 million went to Quebec while the whole of Canada got $19 million. With the setting up of the Canadian Dairy Commission, the figures were as follows: Canada $70 million and Quebec $31 million in 1966-67. In 1967-68 it was $93 million for Canada and $41 million for Quebec.
3874	COMMONS
Government Dairy Policy
Therefore there has been some progress and there are figures to prove it. Is it enough? This is another question and I think that we can all agree to hope for better and more.
I do not think that anyone will object to that.
In fact, following a study by the committee, a report was tabled. Its main recommendations were accepted, I think. Personally I do not agree, and I am not alone, with some of them.
I would now like to reply to the hon. member who said earlier that in the province of Saskatchewan the quota system ought to be restored. Because if there are surpluses now, they are found only in central Canada, Quebec and Ontario, which is no fault of the rest of Canada which should not be penalized for it.
I will tell him in reply that there are no wheat surpluses in eastern Canada either. Wheat surpluses exist in western Canada and I do not think that eastern Canada should be penalized for the wheat surpluses in western Canada. This is a two-way street.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
We agree that Western farmers should receive some assistance, but I think that our Western colleagues from all political parties will understand that Eastern farmers must also be helped when in need, as I believe they are now.
The dairy industry must receive some assistance, in order to be in a position to go through that adjustment period which we are now experiencing. I am sure that this is not the time to let it down, because better days are showing up.
Indeed, co-operation has now improved between the two levels of government and the farming organizations. For my part, I am fully confident. When the Minister of Agriculture will announce, probably at mid March, the terms of the new dairy policy,
I am convinced that he will then have recognized the validity of our argumentation. I am one of the members who met the responsible minister, and other ministers as well, to defend maintenance of the farmer's income at least at the level of-


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


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member for Frontenac rises on a question of privilege.

DEBATES	February 19. 1970


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, I have interrupted the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean. However, at seven o'clock, when I had the floor, he himself interrupted me on three occasions. Had he spoken as the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) has, we would have cheered, because we are able to recognize-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: That is not a question of privilege. Order.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate which condemns the government for its indifference-


An hon. Member:: It does not condemn anyone.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -to the needs of the dairy industry and its failure to deal realistically with urgent problems confronting the dairy farmers of Canada. I believe that on analysing the performance of the Canadian Dairy Commission it is reasonable for any Canadian to conclude that the performance of the commission has been far from satisfactory. Simply put, it just has not fulfilled the task it was set up to tackle. I believe it has failed to provide stability and that orderly marketing which was felt necessary so far as our dairy industry is concerned. In all fairness, however, I do not believe we can entirely blame the people charged with administering the commission.
By and large they do a reasonably good job; the best they can do considering they are hobbled by the minister and the lacklustre department he heads. I believe they are a dedicated group of people who have the best interests of the dairy industry at heart; but they are victims of a set-up in which political expediency and ministerial ambition take priority. In the face of the political interference they have had to cope with, it has been almost impossible for them to administer the program in a businesslike and equitable way. Perhaps they have been victimized and have had to take from frustrated farmers criticism for much of the blame that rightly belongs elsewhere. As a result, many dairy farmers and dairy producers in this country have been left in a state of confusion; their future is somewhat questionable.
I commend the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) for his contribution this evening, for his frank remarks and his dedication in serving those who elected him and who sent
February 19, 1970	COMMONS
him here to represent their interests. I agree with his submissions but I do not agree entirely with the sentiments he expressed and the accolades he extended to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). Frankly, I do not believe the Minister of Agriculture has put the problems of the farmer and of agriculture squarely before the cabinet.
I think he has developed a rather indifferent attitude toward the problems of agriculture as a whole and the dairy industry in particular. It is an attitude which amounts almost to disdain. The minister has come to the point of displaying airs of arrogance and flippancy. He seems to find it difficult to answer questions in the House without displaying those airs. I sometimes think that with all the fervour any new convert is recognized as having he is trying to pattern himself after his leader and even outshine him sometimes. When the minister sat in this House as a member of a splinter party, he was a leading critic of the very characteristics he now displays. In my view, his performance since gaining cabinet rank and changing his political coat has been a total failure.
If one looks objectively at the problems of the dairy industry one need not be an expert to understand what the problem is and where it lies. Certainly, the problem is one of oversupply-the very problem the Canadian Dairy Commission was set up to solve. It failed. Why, Mr. Speaker? I suggest it failed simply because it was forced to adopt the Liberal concept of bigness. It was compelled to develop policies and programs that cater only to the big operator.
The natural corollary of building bigness is the destruction of smallness; in this instance the destruction of the small producer in the dairy industry. This general policy may be seen in every aspect of the departmental work carried out under the direction of the Minister of Agriculture and his part-time, academic assistant from Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang). I recall clearly the statements of the Canadian Dairy Commission and the minister that farmers producing less than 420 pounds of butterfat could not be considered as being serious about the dairy industry. What do we find has happened? Harsh impositions have been applied in an attempt to eliminate those people from the industry.
Again we witnessed a build-up of the big in order to make them bigger and in order to destroy the small and get rid of the inconvenient individual. This, Mr. Speaker, has resulted in the elimination of subsidy to 20,000
DEBATES	3875
Government Dairy Policy producers in western Canada out of a total of 26,800 in the 1968-69 dairy year. We must add to that the 2,000 out of 3,000 producers who were eliminated in the 1969-70 dairy year.
This entire group did not stop production, as the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Kor-chinski) said. They did not stop production merely because their subsidy was eliminated. They carried on producing as before. The six million pounds they produced might be insignificant, but they carried on. These farmers had been engaged in the dairy industry and their dairy production was needed to supplement the income they received from their mixed-farm operations. This group represents a very significant part of the national agricultural community-the small, family farmer.
So despite the sentence of death pronounced on them by the Liberal party, and despite the government's intention to drive them out of business, they continue to operate and probably will so continue. In order to save less than $3 million, the treasury benches and Canadian Dairy Commission discriminated against a total of 30,000 small producers throughout Canada who were regarded as doomed to failure and irrelevant to Canadian life.
The government's method of attempting to balance production with consumption has been a failure. What was needed, instead, was the setting of a realistic, maximum production figure with proper incentives supplied which would discourage overproduction. A minimum requirement, I submit, was the wrong method to utilize. This is evidenced by the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Agriculture that the government ought to remove the minimum quota. I hope this recommendation will be incorporated in future dairy policy.
As a result of the existing policy of creating large, so-called viable dairy enterprises, we now have gigantic surpluses in skimmed milk powder and butter. One of the reasons for these surpluses is the unrealistic approach in developing a balance between development and production, a problem that is much more regional than national in nature. To my mind it is totally unfair for producers in large areas of the country, who maintain a fairly close relationship between production and consumption, to be penalized because some producers in other areas of the country disregard methods of supply management. The hon. member for Mackenzie adequately spelled out this fact.
3876	COMMONS
Government Dairy Policy
That is why it is vital, in my estimation, to build a high degree of flexibility into a national policy taking into consideration the regions, because that is the only way this imbalance can be overcome. Here again, a recommendation was put forward by the standing committee. I hope the government will pay attention to it. Some of the Liberal members on the committee suggested that this should be a problem for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to overcome, and not one for the Department of Agriculture or the Canadian Dairy Commission. One has only to consider the designated regions in this country to realize there would be very little hope of ever overcoming regional disparities in western Canada.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
The other point pertinent to the surplus of dairy products is the failure of the government to pay adequate attention or give impetus to a program to encourage wider use and consumption of dairy products both at home and abroad. Just as in the grain trade, the government has allowed itself to become obsessed with control and supply management and the usage of terms such as adjustment; but it has no energy or ideas in the field of sales and marketing.
I wish to quote from a speech delivered by Mr. D. R. Marshall, president of the National Dairy Council of Canada. This is what he has to say about sales performance:
It is the considered view of our council that the main thrust of government policies and industry goals for the decade of the seventies must be directed toward the growth and expansion of the domestic market. The Canadian market is fully capable of absorbing the total milk production potential of this country if the appropriate attitudes and policies are adopted to permit of greater flexibility in new product development and diversification, a vast expansion in merchandising and promotion campaigns and educational programs.
Only through aggressive promotion of sales can we ever hope to develop and maintain a viable dairy industry. This applies, of course, to the whole field of agriculture. Unfortunately, the minister appears to be completely engrossed in political salesmanship, selling his party and his leader to those engaged in agriculture rather than promoting sales connected with the produce of the industry over which he presides. It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the dairy industry is beset by the same confusion, uncertainty and fear that exist in the grain producing industry. The

DEBATES	February 19, 1970
departments responsible are under the stewardship of the gentleman farmer from Medicine Hat and the academic from Saskatoon.
There is utter chaos in the agricultural industry today. Farmers small and large scarcely know what the situation will be from one day to the next. What policies exist are negative and disruptive. It is high time we had a minister with strength and determination, who had an impact on cabinet and could bring order out of the chaotic condition in which Canadian agriculture finds itself. There is no better place to start than the dairy industry, and no better way to produce a national dairy policy that will be just to all and reasonably matched to the facts of the domestic and world markets.


Mr. Florian Cote (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I am participating in this debate on the non-confidence motion moved against the government. One of my colleagues spoke of "verbiage". As for us, farmers, we often call that applesauce, and that is what was dished out here since the beginning of the sitting.
I tried to find out, as a farmer, to what extent the persons who dealt with this problem did so to ensure a political capital for themselves or tried to deal with it as businessmen, as the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. LeBlanc) pointed out, or simply wanted to impress visitors in the galleries or to have the members who did not have the opportunity to sit on the Committee on Agriculture believe that we are ready to do the work for them, which is unfortunate. And it is precisely what I found deplorable when I sat in the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order please. The hon. member for Lotbiniere rises on a question of privilege.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to recall the provisions of Standing Order 35 which reads as follows:
No member shall speak disrespectfully of Her Majesty, nor of any of the Royal Family, nor of His Excellency or the person administering the Government of Canada.
For the guidance of the government member who can not be bothered with read-
February 19, 1970	COMMONS
ing the Standing Orders, I shall read the last sentence of that section, and I quote:
-use offensive words against either House, or against any member thereof.
Now, Mr. Speaker, ever since the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cote) started his remarks, he has been out of order. First of all, he is not dealing with the motion before the House, but instead is using offensive words against the members who were elected, as he was, and are trying to fulfil their duty honestly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I thank the hon. member and I trust the hon. member for Richelieu did not intend to offend his colleagues.


Florian Côté: Mr. Speaker, I can prove that I do not intend to offend my colleagues.
Someone from that corner of the house said a while ago that I was a reed in the desert, with a poor head on a wealthy body; I shall not use the same language because it would be disrespectful toward my hon. colleagues.
I merely want to see whether they are sincere when they speak of agriculture.
First of all, I am very disappointed that no member of the opposition took this opportunity to point out the real work that was done in committee. At the start there were procedural wrangles, in an attempt to equivocate. But what the farmers wanted, like all the members of the Committee on Agriculture, was that the $125 million subsidy to the Canadian Dairy Commission be maintained.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker,
speaking as a member of the committee, I want to say that I have put forward an amendment to clause 2, of the resolution so as to emphasize the views of the organizations, of the association and of the C.F.U.-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order please. The hon. member has made his point, but the Chair asks him to tell the House on what standing order is based his point of order. The hon. member for Richelieu.


Florian Côté: The mover, whom I respect very much indeed, is one of those
DEBATES	3877
Government Dairy Policy people who really know a lot about farming, because he has lived on a farm, but the way he handles his arguments seems to me a bit clumsy.


André-Gilles Fortin: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.
The hon. member for Richelieu now has the floor but the hon. member for Lotbiniere, I believe, is raising another question of privilege.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, 1 will quote, on behalf of the hon. member for Bellechasse, Standing Order 37(1), which reads as follows:
No member may speak twice to a question except in explanation of a material part of his speech which may have been misquoted or misunderstood:


Florian Côté: Mr. Speaker, I hope that those who listen to us in this House will realize that when one tries to speak about facts, there are always some who try to interfere. If hon. members wish to acquire some knowledge on agriculture, I ask them to let me have my allotted time, after which they could ask me questions. I will be at their disposal here in this House until midnight if need be.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.


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


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The member for Richelieu pointed out that he must not be interrupted. However, when I spoke at seven o'clock, he interrupted me twice. It is just a case of the shoe being on the other foot.


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


Florian Côté: Mr.	Speaker, a
moment ago when I was saying, in order to define my thoughts about what was said earlier in this debate, that it was all applesauce, I did listen to the outstanding speech of the member for Bellechasse who, in order to explain the difficulties facing the farmer, described the situation in a most realistic way. I do not know how long since he has studied the balance-sheet he has drawn because on January 20th-I refer to the
February 19, 1970

Government Dairy Policy report of the Committee on Agriculture-he asked the president of the National Farmers Union, and I quote:
I would like to know if you have any figures which might inform us with regard to incomes of industrial milk producers. Are their incomes exaggerated, reasonable, or insufficient? You mentioned that the farmers had not contributed in bringing about inflation in Canada. I would like to know what is the average income of industrial milk producers who belong to the National Farmers Union.
That afternoon of January 20, he seemed to be well informed. However, I would have preferred him to put forward some concrete solutions, because after having learned about all the problems and all the answers from those who attended the committee meeting, the hon. member for Bellechasse, just like me and many other members who were on the committee, was facing serious problems, so that he often said: Yes, that is the crux of the problem. We must find solution. We had the rope in his hand and could not tie the knot and I understand him as I was somewhat like him. I do not blame him, but we should not, because people are listening, pretend to have all the answers.
I believe it would not be quite in keeping with regulations to quote certain suggestions and I shall try to be as brief as possible in order to come to the recommendations of the committee on agriculture.
I feel I have to give an outline of the statements. The hon. members for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) and the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin), eloquent speakers both and men of imposing stature, made splendid statements and I must take my hat off to them since the two of them represent 50 per cent of Quebec's conservative representation in the House. At a certain time I was under the impression that the hon. member for Joliette, who is a close friend of mine, with whom I have serious discussions, was mistaken in endorsing his party's policy. As he was a travelling salesman at the time when the Progressive Conservatives was in office, he must have realized that things were not going well for agriculture, and there was no opportunity for us to sit on the Committee on agriculture as we have done this year.
When it is claimed that I kneel before the Minister of Agriculture, or when I try sometimes to report on articles signed by Pierre Courtaud and that I am supposed to have said that I am pleased with the minister's decision, then I open a report from the Committee on Agriculture and I try to figure out when I was

pleased. I realize then that at the meeting held on January 13, the Minister of Agriculture had stated that the members of the committee should try to find some way of increasing the net income of farmers.
He then pointed out that, for the current year, $45 million would be used for marketing dairy products and that, when the Treasury Board grants $125 million to the Canadian Dairy Commission, 94 per cent of the population think that this goes to the farmers when, actually, they only receive 70 per cent. It was in this connection that the Minister said: We must change our capitals. He even disclosed some ideas from the program he was to bring forward. I then said: I am happy to see a politician, whatever his political party, thinking of the net returns of the farmer, which I had never seen before.
When one speaks of the returns of a farmer in this House or elsewhere, one should think of the net returns.
I understand why the hon. member for Frontenac said that I groveled before the Minister. But this is not so, and it will soon be possible to know where I stand in respect of the dairy industry. At the present time I am speaking about the whole of Canada without distinction. Maybe are we forced in Eastern Canada today to take a firmer and more direct stand. Why? Because the milk problem is more acute with us than in other parts of the country, as my colleague has just mentioned. Quebec is the only province which in 1968-69 not only went over its quota figures but which could not receive the subsidies it was entitled to.
I understand the difficulties experienced by the Prairie Provinces and I have much sympathy for them. That is why I am in favour of the Department of Agriculture helping them. But at this time it is the milk question which is being discussed and we have to deal with the province of Quebec because it is in this province and in the Province of Ontario where the dairy industry is active. But the Province of Quebec is more seriously affected as its quota for 1968-69 was 153.1 million pounds of fat which was exceeded by 2.1 million pounds. How come? Because there is nothing else than the dairy industry in the province of Quebec. I would have liked my colleagues to tell the farmers who are now listening that among the ten resolutions submitted to the cabinet and to all those who must look after the welfare of that category of citizens, we asked, taking into consideration the productivity of the farming indus-
February 19, 1970	COMMONS
tries, what would be the results of the reduction of available funds under the support program to the dairy industry.
The committee urges in the strongest possible terms that the government consider maintaining the dairy support programs at the 1969-70 level for the period 1970-71, namely $125,000,000.00.
And in section 3, we recommend, and I quote:
That the holdback-
-this action has been suggested by the hon. members of all political parties.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Florian Côté: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Bellechasse would kindly


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


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member for Richelieu would give an accurate account of what happened at the committee meeting. At item 2, I suggested what the Federation des producteurs de lait industriel had recommended, that is, to take into account the 5 per cent increase in production cost-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order!
iEnglish]


An hon. Member:: The truth hurts.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 
Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I would like to point out to hon. members that there are hardly 10 minutes remaining before the end of the debate, and that the next speaker will be the loser.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member for Frontenac on a point of order.
DEBATES	3879
Government Dairy Policy


Bernard Dumont: At seven o'clock this evening, Mr. Speaker, when I rose to speak, I was interrupted four times, and I have not been allowed to make up for the time lost. The time allotted to the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cote) is up, and I therefore ask that the Standing Orders do apply.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I think that the hon. member for Frontenac is right. We have not taken into account the points of order and the questions of privilege during the debate.


Florian Côté: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


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


Florian Côté: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that I started my speech at 9.40 p.m. With your permission, I shall take the 15 minutes I am allowed and then I shall be through.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. 1 am sorry, but the time of the hon. member has expired. The hon. member for Shefford.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker-


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


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


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why so many members of the Ralliement Creditiste are present tonight? It is the first time I see so many of them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. There is no point of order.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact there are still many speakers who wish to join in the debate and only seven minutes remain, might we ask the House for unanimous consent to prolong the debate for another hour or half-hour?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: That will be possible only if the House gives unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: No.
3880	COMMONS
Government Dairy Policy
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Bechard): There is not unanimous consent.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that I have only a few minutes left, because I have been waiting since this afternoon to be recognized.
First, I should like to say to the parliamentary secretary of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Cote) that his watch is not keeping time and that it is as misleading as his agricultural po.icy. In fact, he was out by five minutes in fifteen.
Then, I should like to tell the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) that he is never present in the House. Therefore, he cannot blame us in any way this evening, we are dealing with a very important matter.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I ask all hon. members to co-operate in order to end properly this debate on the dairy industry.


Florian Côté: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


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


Florian Côté: Mr. Speaker, I merely want to point out to you that the hon. member for Saint-Boniface may not be always present in the House, but the one who has the floor has never sat on the Committee on Agriculture and has never spoken about agriculture.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Richelieu knows that there is no point of order.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Saint-Boniface on a question of privilege.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, if the Creditistes suggest that my attendance in the House is of any significance, I am ready to compare it with theirs. I am convinced that my record of attendance is superior to theirs.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, it is true that I am not a member of the committee on
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
DEBATES	February 19, 1970
Agriculture, but my constituency is mostly agricultural and I have some idea what agriculture is all about. On the other hand, if the parliamentary Secretary of the Minister of Agriculture thinks he is an expert and wishes to be recognized as such, I would advise him to buy some cows, because, as far as I know, all his cows have been sold.


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Cole@Richelieu: Why not?
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. Again, I would like to ask for the co-operation of hon. members so that the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) can continue his remarks.


Florian Côté: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


Florian Côté: Mr. Speaker, it would be working against the farmers if I bought cows for myself, because they do not want people that work part time, but only farmers who work full time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Shefford.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Cote) on his point of disorder.
Mr. Speaker, I noticed like other hon. members that all through his speech the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture stood on the defensive. Normally, he should have been above all political considerations in view of his position.
He accused us of making political gains out of this. In the few minutes I have left I have to set my speech entirely aside. I must say, however, that the members of the farm unions who wanted to file a petition in the House got in touch with all the members of the other parties before getting in touch with the Ralliement creditiste. Our party alone had enough courage to file that petition.
We are accused of trying to make capital gain with the petition bearing 25,000 names tabled yesterday by the hon. member for Bel-lechasse (Mr. Lambert). Why did not the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture table it himself instead of passing the buck-
February 19, 1970	COMMONS


John Cole: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member for Richelieu on a question of privilege.


John Cole: Mr. Speaker, even though I did not table the petition, I can prove that on page 3 of the document tabled by the hon. member for Bellechasse, my name appears with my signature and the name of my parish.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Cole: Not only of them-
[DOT] (10:00 pm.)


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Had the hon. member for Bellechasse not tabled the petition yesterday, we would not have known that the signature of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, who is not a farmer, was one of the 25,000 signatures. Seeing I was so annoyed-


John Cole: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Richelieu on a question of privilege.


John Cole: I know I did not sign as a farmer. However, article 2 of the petition says, and I quote:
-whether they are producers of manufacturing milk or cream, or people interested in the farm policy.
Well, I am interested in the farm policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. It being ten o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to standing order 58(11), to inform the House that the debate on the motion before us is now deemed to have come to an end.

It being ten o'clock p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 58, proceedings on the motion are considered to have expired.


[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
21701-35£
DEBATES	3881
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [Translation]
Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, on February 12 last, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) what explanations himself and the cabinet could give about Great Britain's eventual entry in the Common Market and the repercussions on farm products exports from Canada to Great Britain.
We want to notify the Prime Minister early enough to prevent him from saying that he was not aware of the problem. We want to warn him of the fact that Great Britain, to which during the war, we sold much milk and other agricultural products-which enabled them to win the war and enjoy freedom-will soon enter in the Common Market.
Since Canada exports great quantities of milk powder and cheddar cheese, as we were told by members of the Catholic Farmers Union or any other organization, other difficulties could arise.
In Great Britain, a white paper was published on this topic. The Prime Minister recently met his counterpart from Great Britain. The latter stated this at a press conference before leaving by plane for New York, and I quote:
-that his government was aware of the problems created in Canada by Great Britain's entry in the European Economic Community. "We know the resultant difficulties for our trade partners".-
He added the following:
We know that Great Britain will likely become the seventh member of the E.E.C. in 1970. This economic alliance with Europe should restrain greatly Canadian agricultural exports to England. At the present time our country constitutes the main outlet for Canadian tobacco and agricultural products, such as potatoes-[DOT]
-and pork.
If the Canadian government does not immediately make the necessary representations to Great Britain, in view of the fact that it is a country to which we have rendered great services, and if England does not concern itself with those problems, 25,000 farmers and not only 300 like today will lay siege to the Canadian Parliament to demand justice.
I am urging the government to make representations to the government of Great Britain. One may read the following in the February 11 issue of the Devoir, and I quote:
London-The British Treasury is considering the possibility of refunding before the end of the year all Britain's international short-term debts.
February 19, 1970
3882	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
As I was trying to explain earlier, since Canada has extended so much help to that country, I am sure that if our Prime Minister or any other minister would start discussing straight away the possibility of maintaining our agricultural imports, we might be able to avoid the very serious problems which will confront us at the end of the year unless the government takes the necessary steps.
That is the reason why I had asked this question which deals with a very urgent problem and I urge the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and also the Minister of Agriculture to send right away some officials to meet the responsible people who are aware of the problems in store for Canada, if they want to avoid a disaster for Canadian agriculture.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to state in three minutes the effect that Great Britain's entry into the Common Market will have on Canada's agricultural exports. One would have to compare tariffs to be applied to Great Britain and to the Common Market countries, although it is not yet known under what conditions Great Britain will finally join the group, as the Prime Minister stated some time ago.
This point having been taken care of, I have a few comments to make. First of all, we have not yet had the opportunity to study the White Paper, for the very good reason that we have not yet received it. We shall study it at the earliest opportunity.
Then, we are well aware of the volume of agricultural exports from Canada to the United Kingdom and of the fact that negotiations have taken place since 1961 on that matter. Recently, a discussion took place in Ottawa between officials of the United Kingdom and Canada. At the last meeting between the Prime Ministers of the two countries, the matter was discussed.
Agricultural exports represent approximately 25 per cent of total exports of $2,1 billion. Wheat accounts for some $105 million, cheese for $15 million and tobacco for $49 million. They are consequently extremely important products.
What will happen if Great Britain joins the common market? That is anybody's guess.
As far as wheat is concerned, we know the common market's protectionist policy, particularly for agricultural products.
Canada is now exporting as much wheat to common market countries as to England.


If Canada manages to export some into the common market now, it is most likely that she shall continue to do so when England has joined it.
The minister without portofolio in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) discussed recently with English buyers who were quite optimistic about the future of this kind of export.
As regards cheddar cheese, the situation will deteriorate since the free access we enjoy to England, the preferential treatment we are accorded by her, not only will be lost but the Common Market members will themselves enjoy it for this product.
On the other hand, since a transitory period will certainly take place following England's entry into the common market, it is possible that we might convince the Europeans themselves of the good quality of Canadian cheese.
In any case, the United Kingdom and the Common Market are well aware of our concern in this regard. We are insisting, have insisted and will insist with the British, as the Prime Minister has said before, on an exchange of views before during and after negotiations. Some discussions took place very recently and we wish-


Mr. Speaker:: Order! I very much regret to interrupt the minister, but his time has expired.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, on January 13, as recorded at page 2305 of Hansard, I posed a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in respect of the unapprecialive attitude of the city of Ottawa. I asked:
-will the Prime Minister give serious consideration to decentralizing federal civil servants by moving government departments to the west and to the maritime provinces in order to give those areas a shot in the arm, so to speak?
At that particular time my intention really was to draw the attention of the government to the fact that there was a dispute between the government and the city of Ottawa. My colleague from Surrey (Mr. Mather) made that point very well in a previous question when he asked whether the Prime Minister would consider implementing the decision of the previous Parliament and encourage the establishment of a committee of Parliament to deal with all matters pertaining to the national capital.
February 19, 1970

The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) suggested that this could be done at an early date. It would appear to me from some of the correspondence I have received since this question was asked that many people in Ottawa, particularly some in the municipal government, do not realize the benefit that is derived from a federal civil service payroll such as there is in this city. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, whether or not the federal government tries to treat the city council of Ottawa as a small brother, I do not believe this is really the point. If they do, then the revitalization of the committee about which the hon. member spoke is most urgent.
I would suggest there is great merit in taking into consideration some decentralization of our federal departments. I can think of some points to which these departments might be moved. What better place would there be than Moose Jaw for the Department of Agriculture? I would think in that area the department would be close to the troubes affecting many people of this nation. I believe the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) would be only too pleased to move his office to the constituency of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). I am sure such a move would be appreciated by the people in that area.
I believe one point we should remember is that a civil service payroll in any city is one of the most important items to any government whether municipal or provincial. The fact remains that whether or not we decentralize our civil service payroll so that it is smaller in the city of Ottawa is a matter about which all of us should be concerned. If the city of Ottawa believes an industrial payroll is more important than a civil service payroll, it should say so.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Let us decentralize the departments and locate them in areas of Canada where they can be closer to the action that is developing.
I well remember the time last summer when the then member of the legislative assembly of British Columbia, Bill King, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, wrote to the Prime Minister asking him to locate the forestry department in Revelstoke. I thought it was an excellent idea and that this was a good place for locating the department.
What better place could there be for locating the new Arctic department of the Department of Transport which is now being reorganized, than the Arctic? The minister said he plans to do this and I give him due credit

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion for it. At the same time, I believe it is most important when we consider decentralization-if the government is sincere about it-to try to place the departments of the government in those areas of Canada which will give all people of Canada a voice in our federal government.
A few years back it was argued that communications would be the main stumbling block, but all of us know today that under the capable hands of the Department of Communications it is no stumbling-block. We can have more or less instantaneous communication with any area of Canada through satellites and other means. There is no reason to say that we have to be close to the seat of government to be able to communicate with the rest of Canada.
I believe the government should give serious consideration to decentralization so as to give all the people of Canada a say in the federal government, for which they are paying and in which they should have a part.


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary-Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) with a great deal of sympathy for the theme which he advanced of the beneficial effects of the decentralization of national institutions including government departments and other government agencies.
I cannot accept the premise that this should be based upon some presumed difference in attitude between the city of Ottawa and its citizens and persons working in the government service here. I do not think there are any difficult problems between the National Capital Commission and the city of Ottawa. It is true that there has been an increasing dialogue, which I think is a very healthy and necessary sign and a way of getting perspective on the expansion which will undoubtedly come to the national capital region through the impetus given by the National Capital Commission.
A good deal of decentralization has been going on as part of a continuing policy. This is nothing new. To look at the departments, the Department of Public Works has six regional offices across Canada. Only last week in the town of Cranbrook, B.C., a federal building was opened to consolidate a number of offices including Manpower, the Unemployment Insurance Commission, Customs, Indian Affairs, and so on. If you look at Crown corporations, the National Film Board is not here
3884	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion in the national capital region, neither is the CBC, Polymer, Air Canada nor the CNR.
With regard to the research facilities which the hon. member mentioned, there is no reason why the regions of Canada mentioned by the hon. member would not be the best places in which to locate a fisheries research centre and other research centres on forestry, pollution and other matters.
It might be of interest to note that when the act governing the Canadian Mint was amended, the requirement that the operating facilities be located in the national capital region was deleted. All the efforts to plant regional offices of federal institutions in different parts of Canada are part of a continuing policy to give people in all regions not only economic benefits but a sense of belonging and of having physically some federal presence in their own communities.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-APPLICATION RESPECTING FLOODING OF LAND NEAR SKAGIT RIVER
David Anderson: Before I start, Mr. Speaker, I should say that the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) attempted to get your eye earlier today. However, I was fortunate in getting it and he was not, so I happen to be speaking tonight rather than him.
The question I raised of the Skagit Valley is one of increasing concern to British Columbians and indeed to all Canadians concerned with conservation. I should like to briefly outline the sequence of events. In January, 1942, the International Joint Commission granted a permit to the city of Seattle to erect the Ross dam on the Skagit River in the United States. The upper end of the lake formed by this dam extended a quarter of a mile into Canada. In this 1942 agreement provision was made for a second and subsequent agreement which would further raise the height of the dam and further extend the lake into Canada.
In 1957 there was a hearing in Ottawa at which the second agreement was considered, but at that time no such agreement resulted. If my information is correct, these hearings came to naught and it was only in 1957 that there was a second agreement entered into between the province of British Columbia on the one hand and the city of Seattle on the other. This agreement called for a further flooding of some 5,800 acres of land for the payment of approximately $34,500 to the province of British Columbia-some $5.50 per acre.
IMr. O'Connell.]
DEBATES	February 19, 1970
Mr. Speaker, if the matter stood there perhaps there would be no cause for me or for the hon. member for Fraser Valley East to raise it in this House and express our concern. But there is another factor which must be mentioned, and that is, in 1955 the federal government passed the International River Improvements Act which states in section 4:
No person shall construct, operate or maintain an international river improvement unless he holds a valid licence therefor issued under this act.
"International river improvement" as defined in section 2 means:
-a dam, obstruction, canal, reservoir or other work the purpose or effect of which is (i) to increase, decrease or alter the natural flow of an international river-
Therefore, it appears that in 1955 the situation was materially altered and the federal government acquired complete control by this act. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that the purpose of the act was to protect the people of British Columbia from the folly and greed of the provincial government of the day on the Libby dam question, which is not dissimilar to the Skagit affair.
My question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) earlier today was whether an application under the International River Improvements Act has been received from the city of Seattle by the federal government, and whether the minister has accepted or rejected any such application. Perhaps if I read a few lines from the Newsletter of the Federation of British Columbia Naturalists Your Honour will understand why I regard it as very important for any application by the city of Seattle to be most carefully examined by the federal government. This Newsletter is dated December 9, 1969, and reads as follows:
Fishing values are also very high-it is said that as many as 6,000 are in there at times for the fishing. The loss of spawning beds with consequent decline in later years of fishing quality is probably the greatest adverse effect the damming will have but loss of most of the wider part of the valley is also important as this is a readily accessible area for the heavily populated coast area.
The narrow valley of the Skagit to the northeast is uncut for about six miles and is under reserve by the forest service as a buffer zone along the river. Under the circumstances should this ever be lifted as it is an exceptionally beautiful valley, the fishing is excellent in the river, and the old gold miner's access trail from the U.S. runs up the river on the east side and is still in good condition.
I should like to say a word, finally, in describing why this valley is important and why this is a matter of urgency at this time,
February 19, 1970

which perhaps earlier today Your Honour was not able to fully understand. Only a few days ago in the B.C. Gazette bids were called for the cutting of timber in this valley. There can be no doubt from the statements of the provincial minister of resources, Mr. Ray Wil-liston, as quoted in the Province and Sun of February 11 and 12, that this invitation to bid is to clear the valley of timber, to destroy its fishing and recreational value in anticipation of further flooding for which no permit has been granted by the federal government.
It is most important for the federal government to make clear now that it will examine the application of Seattle City Power, when it comes, on its merits and that this crude attempt to destroy the resources of the valley and its value in the area will have no effect whatsoever on the decision of the federal government. We must point out very clearly that an attempt at a scorched earth policy is about to be made on the Skagit Valley; this will not lead us to decide that the valley is worthless and that we can, therefore, grant a permit to raise the dam and flood this area.
It is for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I regard this as a most urgent and important matter and raise it tonight.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to acknowledge the forthright submission of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) and recognize that the other part of the pincer is the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) who was not able to catch Mr. Speaker's eye this afternoon. The Ross dam was built by Seattle Light and Power, now taken over by the city of Seattle, on the Skagit River in the state of Washington to meet part of the city's electrical power requirements.
The dam was built to raise the water level of the Skagit River to an elevation of about 1,600 feet above mean sea level. At this level the reservoir reaches the international boundary; but there is no appreciable backwater extending into the province of British Columbia. When the reservoir is absolutely full, a maximum of possibly 5 to 10 acres of British Columbia land is under water at 2 feet or less in depth. The Ross Dam was built with the intention of its being raised ultimately by 125 feet, which would extend the

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion reservoir into British Columbia when the water reached the new maximum level of about 1,725 feet.
Nearly 40 years ago the city of Seattle acquired ownership of virtually all the approximately 640 acres of privately-owned land that would be flooded with the reservoir filled to the 1,725 feet level. The remaining area of British Columbia that would be flooded is about 5,710 acres of land owned by the Crown in right of the province. In preparation for this future construction to raise the Ross dam to the 1,725 feet level, the city of Seattle made application which resulted in the issuing by the International Joint Commission of an order of approval on January 27, 1942. This order of approval contained a condition that the city of Seattle must arrive at a mutually acceptable agreement with the province of British Columbia to cover the damages caused to British Columbia by the raising of the Ross dam.
On January 10, 1967, British Columbia and Seattle Light and Power reached an agreement. However, this was never formalized. In 1955, a new element of the situation had been introduced with passage by Parliament of the International River Improvements Act. The city of Seattle has not yet applied for a licence or an exception under the In' ernation-al River Improvements Act, which provides a requirement for such licence or exception to cover a work which has the effect of changing the water level at the international boundary by more than one-tenth of a foot. The city of Seattle has not begun any of the construction required to raise the Ross dam to result in a level of 1,725 feet. It is understood that the city of Seattle also must obtain a new or amended licence from the United States Federal Power Commission to permit the flooding of land in the United States.
In conclusion may I say that, naturally, the government of Canada would want to be assured that any agreement between the British Columbia government and Seattle Light and Power Authority would be in accordance with the IJC statement of 1942. In all probability as well, public hearings will be called for by the government, particularly since we recognize the fundamental rights of Canadians living in British Columbia.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Friday, February 20, 1370