1970-06-05

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
Queen's Printer for Canada, Ottawa, 1970

Oti;	-	* .. *
[Stage Direction]

Friday, June 5, 1970


[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence-Mr. Wahn.
[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, in both official languages-Mr. Serre (on behalf of the chairman).
[Stage Direction]
Fourteenth report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. Murphy.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I ask the Acting Prime Minister if we can expect more than this corporal's guard of ministers for the question period before it is over?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: I do not think that question is a point of order at all and it should not have been raised under the guise of one.



TAXATION


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he approves of the decision by the Liberal majority on the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to
bring down the guillotine on the hearing of representations from the private sector in regard to white paper on taxation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubts about the question. The hon. member is asking the Acting Prime Minister to comment on the proceedings of the committee. I wonder whether a question asked in those terms is acceptable. The hon. member is knowledgeable in the rules of the House. Perhaps he might like to rephrase the question.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Is it government policy to bring down the guillotine on the hearing of representations by the Finance Committee from the private sector on the question of the white paper?


George James McIlraith: It is well known that the conduct of committees in matters referred to them is their own responsibility. I have no comment-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George James McIlraith: -to make-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George James McIlraith: -about the conduct of the committee in its own work on matters referred to it. Any opinion I have on that subject would only be available in the House when the subject matter is being debated here as a proper item of business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am asking the Acting Prime Minister whether any instructions were given with regard to the length of the hearings for representations by the public?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker. No government of which I am a member-certainly no Liberal government-would instruct the members of a committee. The only authority empowered to instruct a committee is the House of Commons itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if he does not think that the Prime Minister has
7766	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry already done enough to destroy the parliamentary processes without inhibiting free discussion of this matter in this way?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a most improper suggestion by the Acting Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



UNITED STATES POSITION RESPECTING CONTINENTAL POLICY-INCREASED U.S. IMPORTS OF VENEZUELAN OIL

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in the not unusual absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources may I direct a question to the acting minister. More than a week ago I asked the minister a question regarding a letter which was sent to 25 United States senators from the office of the President of the United States. The relevant sentence in that letter which I asked him about was the following:
The national security ol the United States requires the conclusion of a comprehensive agreement with Canada with respect to all energy matters and the imposition of some quantitative limitations on the entry of Canadian petroleum pending the conclusion of such a pact.
The minister undertook to ascertain from the United States government whether or not the statement in this letter represented American policy. Can the acting minister now tell the House whether or not he has received a reply from the United States, and what is the nature of that reply?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that at this point in time a reply has not been received but I would like to check that more accurately.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Has the Canadian government been informed or has it made any inquiries regarding the announcement yesterday by the government of the United States that they are increasing their importation of Venezuelan oil at a time when they are curtailing importation of Canadian oil? Also, can the acting minister tell the House, first of all, what is the size of these increases in imports of Venezuelan oil and whether or not this action is related to the American attempt to influence Canadians into accepting the continental energy policy referred to in the letter from the President's office?
DEBATES	June 5, 1970


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know the size of the change in regard to Venezuela was not announced, and of course I certainly would not comment on the motivation behind the increase as part of the over-all policy changes going on in the United States.
Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands): Has the minister had his attention drawn to the statement of the Chairman of the Federal Power Commission in Washington last Wednesday in which he said that the United States is especially short of natural gas and electricity and the Nixon administration is using the carrot of a bigger market for Canadian crude oil to gain more Canadian natural gas and electricity? Also, is the department making any inquiries whether or not the Chairman was stating American policy as was indicated by the letter from President Nixon's office to which I have already referred?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would not read that as a statement of policy at all. Of course we have been aware for some time of the importance to the United States of various kinds of energy available in Canada, particularly natural gas, and have tried to be as aware of its value to the United States as possible in the course of our negotiations and discussions with them.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether the Canadian government was either consulted or notified of this announcement?


Otto Emil Lang: I would want to check that, Mr. Speaker.



BUILDING OF PIPELINE FROM WESTERN CANADA TO EASTERN MARKET

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the acting minister this question. In view of the important and deleterious effect of the United States announcement yesterday regarding Venezuelan oil on the shipment of western Canadian oil, would the government give new consideration to making public any studies which have been prepared either by the department or by private sources of the advantages or disadvantages of building a pipeline to Montreal so that the Quebec market could be supplied with western oil?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I shall bring that representation to the

June 5, 1970

attention of the minister, although I am surprised that there can be comment on the impact of the change when the size of the change is not known.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Real Caouelle (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs are absent, I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Indians of Canada met the cabinet and submitted a brief. Could the Acting Prime Minister tell the House whether the government intends to create a separate Indian affairs department?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Acting Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, as acting minister in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I can assure the hon. member that the recommendations made to the Prime Minister and the cabinet yesterday were very respectfully received. They were very interesting and very constructive. The government is going to address itself to the examination of the options suggested by the Indian leaders, including that kind of recommendation, but they are so wide-ranging that some time is going to be required, as the Indian leaders fully understand, to examine all the suggestions before any decision is made.



WIDENING OF TERMS OF REFERENCE OF CLAIMS COMMISSIONER TO COVER CLAIMS OF NON-TREATY INDIANS

Gerald William Baldwin: As a
result of the discussions yesterday and previously, is the government considering widening the terms of reference of the Claims Commissioner to include claims of the native people-Indians and Eskimos-in areas of the north not now covered by treaty and which consequently cannot be pressed before the commission?


Robert Knight Andras: note the hon. member's question, Mr. Speaker, and with respect, suggest that I could not add anything to the answer I gave a minute ago about the wide range of the recommenda-
Inquiries of the Ministry tions made yesterday, all of which must be examined by the government before any pronouncement is made.


Gerald William Baldwin: In view of the claims that have been advanced, including those by the native people of northern Quebec, will the minister please put this matter before the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the government so that adequate study can be given to this very important and current issue?



ESTABLISHMENT OF CONSULTATIVE BODY

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: In view of the fact that the Indian people yesterday made two suggestions, among others, of an immediate nature, one of which related to the creation of a new consultative body mutually acceptable to both the government and the Indians to deal with certain matters because of their urgency, would the minister agree to give that a priority position and arrange to have some statement made by the government on Monday or Tuesday of next week on its response to that request?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I could, of course, make no such commitment in my present capacity, but I shall be glad to draw the representation to the attention of the minister and ask him to provide a response at the earliest opportunity.


Frank Howard: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can put the same question to the Acting Prime Minister who may have a little bit more authority.


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker. The Acting Prime Minister has nothing to add to what has been said.



POLLUTION


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Transport. With regard to the press conference held yesterday by Dr. Patrick McTaggart-Cowan concerning the inadequacies of many ships flying flags of convenience in being able to prevent pollution and oil spills, is the government taking steps to bring this matter before an international forum?
June 5, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In fact, we did so in Brussels in November of last year. In addition, as I have advised the House from time to time, we are presently working on considerable and substantial changes in the Canada Shipping Act which will have the effect of bringing about the improvements that Dr. McTaggart-Cowan along with others, myself included, agreed with.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Can the minister indicate when these amendments may be ready for consideration by the House?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I wish I could be precise, Mr. Speaker. I would question very much if it will be possible to have the entire legislation completed during the current session. What I would hope, however, is that we could table the changes or make them public in some way so that there would be time over the next couple of months for the various interests to comment on them.



CHEDABUCTO BAY-COST OF REMOVING OIL

Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Are reports correct that the pollution from the Arrow will cost the people of Canada about $3 million?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, no final figure or assessment has been possible yet because the work is still going on. I can certainly say that not all of the amount will be a burden that will have to be borne by the Canadian people. There is a very considerable sum that we know has been earmarked out of insurance funds to offset the expenditures. The legal people in my department and the Department of Justice are now examining other routes that we might take to obtain a larger percentage of compensation from those who are responsible, once the inquiry determines in law who those people are.



CHEDABUCTO BAY-PUBLICATION OF TASK FORCE FINDINGS

Mr. Thomas S. Barneil (Comox-Alberni):: Will the research findings of the task force headed by Dr. Patrick McTaggart-Cowan be made public when the minister receives them so that we may have a chance to examine what we hope will be some important new knowledge?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, there are three com-

panion efforts under way. One is the inquiry by Mr. Justice Hart of Nova Scotia into the cause of the grounding of the Arrow. Some of the evidence has been published already. Second, Mr. Justice Hart will then proceed to conduct an inquiry into the events that occurred subsequent to the grounding of the Arrow and, third, Dr. McTaggart-Cowan is preparing a very comprehensive report along with the other scientists who have been involved in this matter. I expect that the report in the third aspect will be available by about the first of September.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Inasmuch as the recent unpegging of the Canadian dollar will have the effect of providing further advantages for the sale of foreign automobiles in the country and hence further aggravate the depressed condition of the automobile industry in Canada, can the minister say whether any offsetting measures are being considered to assist Canadian automobile manufacturers in light of this development and the current slowdown in the sale of passenger cars in Canada which is affecting the employment situation very considerably?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member may recall that we had a lengthy debate on this very point. Perhaps the hon. member did not receive the information he is seeking. It seems to me that if additional information is to be given at this time, it should be given to the House by way of a statement on motions.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, this matter was not dealt with in the debate. I believe it is a very urgent and pressing problem and I think that the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must say to the hon. member that that is not a question of privilege. I suggest that the information the hon. member is seeking is of a very general nature. If he has not obtained the information which he believes he is entitled to, may I suggest to him that he might ask whether it will be given to the House by way of a statement on motions. The hon. member might like to inquire whether such a statement is being contemplated.
June 5, 1970


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister consider making a statement on motions to the House very soon concerning this very urgent and pressing matter which affects many automobile dealers and employees across the country?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: No, Mr. Speaker, but I hope the hon. member can find a way to ask a question to which I can answer.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is impossible.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I will try to bring my question down to that level which the minister can understand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald MacInnis: Does the minister consider it an intrusion on his responsibilities as Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or on the responsibilities of any other ministers for the Minister of National Health and Welfare to go before the public and suggest that they buy foreign cars?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: On a question of
privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member is now rising on a question of privilege. Although I have suggested that a statement ought to be made on motions, the hon. member for Vegreville seems to consider the matter very urgent and the minister seems anxious to reply. Possibly by agreement the minister might be allowed to reply to the question which has been ruled out of order.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I was going to say that the advantages that Canadian automobile manufacturers and auto parts makers have gained from the auto pact are well known. Even this year exports have increased by 7.7 per cent, as reported in yesterday's Globe and Mail. Another very brilliant article in the same paper reported on the tremendous progress which had been made by the Industry. This article was, I am told, written before revaluation. The effects of revaluation are not yet clear. I have consulted with a number of auto parts makers, but they do not know exactly. We think that because of the advantages gained, because of the progress made in previous years and because of the government's programs for general adjustment, etc., they are, I assume, in a posi-
Inquiries of the Ministry tion to cope rather well with the new situation. We are willing and eager to help if some of them get into difficulty.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I appreciate the answer of the minister. In view of the fact that sales of domestic passenger cars have decreased by 20 per cent while sales of foreign passenger cars have increased by 27 per cent, does the minister not consider this a matter of great urgency?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary question is obviously argumentative. It is not acceptable in those terms.


Donald MacInnis: A supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Will the minister explain to the House what advantages there are to the auto pact in the purchase of Volkswagens as recommended by the Minister of National Health and Welfare?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I think we are engaging in a field of debate. I respectfully suggest to both hon. members that this is the kind of information which ought normally to be included in a statement on motions.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Keni-Essex):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Since supply forms the basis of much of the current agricultural legislation, can the minister indicate whether the paper commissioned on supply and not reported in the official task force report can be expected in the near future? Also, will it be made available immediately to the members of the House?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, when I understand more clearly what the hon. member is referring to I will see if I can obtain this paper from the task force. Following that, I will see whether it is the type of paper that should be made public.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: My question is for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the fact that
7770	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry elevator agents are expected to assist grain producers in the filing of necessary information for Operation Lift and in view of the fact that this additional workload comes at a time of year when the elevator agents already have a very heavy workload, can the minister indicate whether some reasonable remuneration will be made to elevator agents in recognition of their performance of these added duties?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the matter of the work involved in completing these forms was discussed with the various elevator companies. They gladly agreed to take on this work as part of their regular customer services.


John Stratford Burton: Has this matter been discussed with the employees of the various elevator companies? Have any representations been received from any employees of elevator companies or employee organizations? If so, what has been the response of the minister or the Wheat Board to the representations?


Otto Emil Lang: No representations have come to my attention, Mr. Speaker. I will have to check to see whether any have been received by the Wheat Board or my office that have not yet reached me. Our discussions, of course, were with the companies.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister.
Since the premier of Saskatchewan said that the minister was naive regarding the present situation in Saskatchewan, has the minister had talks with Premier Thatcher about the barter of wheat against other commodities from foreign countries and has he taken a new approach to the problem?


Otto Emil Lang: There have been many exchanges between myself and several of my colleagues and the government of Saskatchewan, and we have not revised our position in connection with the dangers involved in certain transactions which were suggested by Saskatchewan.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio

DEBATES	June 5, 1970
in charge of the Wheat Board following a question I asked him yesterday, now that he has had an opportunity to familiarize himself with the recent action of the Canadian Wheat Board in sending certain letters to farmers in connection with overdue accounts. Will the minister advise the House whether it is the intention of the Wheat Board to add interest on accounts due when farmers are unable to deliver wheat to repay their cash advances?


Otto Emil Lang: It is not the intention of the Wheat Board to treat as in default and therefore as subject to interest charges anyone who has been delivering grain as opportunity presented. The board issued a press release affirming this situation on June 4.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: May we have a copy of the document or of the decision made by the Canadian Wheat Board? Further, will the board now write letters to those farmers of whom it demanded payment of principal and interest, pointing out to them that as long as they have wheat on hand they need not comply with the request which was made?


Otto Emil Lang: Without doubt there has been confusion raised in the minds of some of the producers. I will check to see whether the release by the board has adequately dealt with this confusion. It should be forcefully stated that the Wheat Board had intended to draw to the attention of producers only the amount outstanding from the 1968-69 crop year and has now affirmed that as long as producers are making deliveries they will not be placed in default.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkfon-Melville):: Can
the minister still guarantee a four-bushel quota by July 31 to all country elevator points?


Otto Emil Lang: We have said a number of times that the four-bushel quota should be available to all producers for the crop year.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: My question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the offer made
June 5, 1970



by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in connection with a United Nations peacekeeping force in the Middle East, may I inquire as to the nature of the Canadian offer? Is one battalion now available or is a battalion ready on a stand-by basis? What is the extent of the offer?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: I do not know any more about this offer than does the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I believe it would be preferable to await the return of the Secretary of State for External Affairs when no doubt further clarification will be possible.


Mr. Fairweather:: May we be assured that Canada will respond to requests for peacekeeping in the Middle East or anywhere else only if they originate with the Security Council and after ground rules have been clearly established?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I understand that such requests generally originate with the Security Council.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Will the minister advise the House whether he has been consulted by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to ascertain whether sufficient forces are available to carry out any commitment which the Secretary of State might make or offer to make?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt that the hon. member's question is in order when he asks whether there has been consultation between two ministers. Perhaps the question might be rephrased.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. gentleman gave us to understand he was not aware of the nature of the offer. My question, naturally, is: are there sufficient troops available to carry out a commitment of the kind suggested? It has been indicated that there are not.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Even though you did not allow the question, Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will permit me to answer it. I would say there are sufficient troops to take care of the kind of operation envisaged. We have discussed on many occasions-the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of National Defence and the cabinet, as a matter of fact-what type of commitment could be undertaken, what facilities would be required and the number of troops likely to be in-22478- 2 i
Inquiries of the Ministry volved. I am sure the kind of offer about which the Secretary of State for External Affairs was talking could be met by the resources available to us.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Would the minister use his considerable influence to request that Canadian National Railways extend the courtesy of informing a community well in advance of its intention to cancel passenger train service and not adopt a secretive policy as is being followed in cancelling the Toron-to-Chicago service which is Sarnia's only international train service?


Mr. Speaker:: It is obvious that the hon.
member's question has been put in the form of a submission. He will have to assume that the representation has been noted.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: May I make a supplementary submission, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: According to the rules, the hon. member is only entitled to a related submission.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: It is related, Mr. Speaker. Would the government give consideration to the passing of legislation requiring the CNR and the CPR to return property to the people of Canada each time they reduce a service?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ABANDONMENT OF RAILWAY PASSENGER SERVICES-SUPPLYING OF EXPENSE FIGURES

['I answered this question a few days ago, Mr. Speaker, when I indicated that it is entirely within the power of the committee to set its own schedule. I understand there is an important matter now before the Transport Committee. I do not believe there will be a long delay in getting these other matters attended to once this subject has been dealt with.']
Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey):: Bearing in mind the very large number of applications made by the railway companies to abandon passenger services, would the minister consider introducing amending legislation which would oblige the railways to supply all the figures with regard to expenses in connection with these applications for withdrawal of service?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: This question has been raised on previous occasions and the objections are well known to the hon. member. Figures are pro-

June 5, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry vided for the Canadian Transport Commission and are taken into account by that commission when decisions are made following public hearings.



Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: As a means of throwing further light on the question of abandonment of railway passenger service, would the minister use his good offices to ensure that the annual reports of Canadian National Railways and Air Canada are placed before the Transport Committee for consideration?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I answered this question a few days ago, Mr. Speaker, when I indicated that it is entirely within the power of the committee to set its own schedule. I understand there is an important matter now before the Transport Committee. I do not believe there will be a long delay in getting these other matters attended to once this subject has been dealt with.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Are
Canadian Forces stationed abroad receiving the full benefit of the increased value of the Canadian dollar since it has been allowed to float? What is the situation as far as their pay and allowances are concerned?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: It is a floating situation, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Angus MacLean: May I ask whether Canadian Forces abroad are being paid in Canadian dollars or whether they are paid in the currency of the country concerned at the rate of exchange current on pay-day?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I would have to check.



VIOLENT DISTURBANCES


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: My question is for the Solicitor General in his

capacity as the minister reporting to the House for the RCMP. Has he had an opportunity to check the serious allegations that the RCMP is not co-operating with other police forces in connection with investigation of the outrages in Montreal in the last few days?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Immediately I saw the story published in the paper I had this matter checked into and find-


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Is it a canard?


George James McIlraith: Yes, it is. That is precisely the point, and today's newspapers so indicate.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It
refers to a question I asked the minister earlier this week regarding a meeting with the shoe industry, at which time the minister indicated he would be having such a meeting. May I ask whether the date for that meeting has been set and whether he will be attending that meeting with an agenda?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker, the date as far as I know has not been set but I have asked that a meeting be arranged and I have heard noises to the effect that it was being arranged. Apparently the industry is as pleased to see the Minister of Finance and myself as we are to see the industry. The agenda has not been fixed. A report has already been published on the subject by the shoe industry but the meeting will be of an investigatory nature.



MINISTERS' ATTENDANCE ROSTER

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Government House Leader. I welcome him back to the House and I hope he notes that in his absence we made considerable progress. Has the government officially dispensed with the revised roster issued on October 20 last, because according to that list seven ministers are absent today, or does the government intend to dispense with this phase of parliamentary activity altogether?
June 5, 1970



Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, with regard to Mr. Speaker, this matter is being quite thor-the responsible departments the hon. member oughly looked into. I am unable to confirm or will realize that in particular several of my deny the hon. member's allegations or the colleagues are attending the finance ministers information he has but in any event I hope to conference at Winnipeg. I can assure him that be able to have a report on the matter the roster system will continue in force and brought forward. I regret it has not been that if he has any questions for any of the possible to do so before now but it is simply-departments set down for today he can ask because the report was not completed, his questions.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, this question is prompted by the fact that we must be in a position to be able to prepare ourselves for this phase of parliamentary activity. Does the government intend to revise the list in light of the experience of very poor attendance as a result of the present list?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I suppose we might review it in light of the experience of the very poor attendance of the Leader of the Opposition.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The Leader of the Opposition is not responsible for any department.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Now that the government has seen fit to use closure in the committee hearings on the white paper on taxation, is this an indication that it is prepared to use closure in respect of the resulting legislation in order to get it through the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, some days ago I directed a question to the Solicitor General regarding complaints by the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured Peoples concerning racial discrimination at the United States air force base at Goose Bay, Labrador. In view of the fact that Canadians have now expressed concern regarding the investigation by security police of the United States of Canadian girls who are dated by coloured servicemen, a fact which has now been confirmed by one of the American sergeants, I should like to ask the Solicitor General if he has looked into this matter and can give the House any report on the result of his investigation?



AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND UNITED' STATES RESPECTING U.S. GOOSE BAY AIR FORCE BASE

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that the Solicitor General the other day said that only those matters relating to Canadian jurisdiction could be looked into, would the minister undertake to table the agreement between Canada and the United States with relation to the setting up of the U.S. air force base at Goose Bay?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, if there is such an agreement between Canada and the United States I would be willing to table it, but I am wondering whether this agreement was undertaken during the war because at that time it would have been with the British government. I am not quite sure about this. Whatever document we have I am willing to table.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of National Defence. It has something to do with a floating situation which has been pegged. It concerns HMCS Bonaventure. Has the government received any offers for the HMCS Bonaventure?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I believe that through the Department of Supply and Services we have received a few offers. I do not know whether they are being actively considered. Some of them were quite challenging and involved things like bringing the Bonaventure to the western prairies.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, would the minister please state whether he plans to accept

June 5, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry the offer of $500,000 by James Martin of Edmonton who plans to peg it at the west coast as a recreational centre?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think this question is in order. If the hon. member considers this to be a matter of urgency he might wish to ask the question at the time of adjournment.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question supplementary to that asked a moment ago by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre. It is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Will the Minister of National Defence give his assurance that the Bonaventure will be sold only to Canadian interests and not to some foreign power which may use it to add to its own naval force?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, it would be inconsequential if I were to give such an assurance because we have offered it for sale to many foreign governments.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY WALK-OUT BY LINESMEN AND DOCK WORKERS -ACTION TO PREVENT SIMILAR OCCURRENCES

Mr. W. C. Scott (Vicloria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Transport. It deals with the wildcat strike called on the St. Lawrence Seaway which lasted for 36 to 40 hours and tied up 30 to 40 ships. What action is his department considering taking to avoid such an occurrence in the future?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, about the only thing we can do is ask any employees who are involved not to undertake wildcat strikes which are not known of until they occur.


William C. Scott: Does the minister consider that any action will be taken by the companies to compensate them for the loss they suffered while their ships were tied up, probably due to the negligence of the department?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INDUSTRY


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of

Finance but in his absence I will direct it to the Minister without Portfolio from Windsor West. It was announced yesterday that the MacLeod-Mosher division of Lakeshore Mines in Geraldton, Ontario, will close its gold mining operation at the end of this month. More than 200 men will be affected by this closure and the economy of Geraldton will be seriously hurt. Company officials claim they are forced to close as a consequence of the freeing of the dollar. What steps is the government prepared to take to assist this community which will be so adversely affected?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, this matter is being looked into not only by the Department of Finance but also by the Department of Manpower and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, and I hope to have further information for the hon. member early next week.



NATIONAL CAPITAL


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancastar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. I should like to congratulate him again for doing an excellent job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Miller Bell: I wonder whether the Acting Prime Minister can answer my question of last Friday and report on any progress in respect of unresolved Ottawa matters such as the Fullerton dispute, the takeover of Harrington Lake and the pollution in the Ottawa River?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, while I am aware that pollution is a very important subject before parliament, I think it would be quite improper for me to seek to give a treatise in answer to a question on orders of the day.


Gerald William Baldwin: We like you when you are improper.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Are you having a garden party for Mr. Fullerton?



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: My question is directed to the Solicitor General. In view of
June 5, 1970

the potentially explosive situation in the penitentiaries because of the conditions prevailing in some of these institutions across Canada and the recent suicide of a 19-year old at Prince Albert penitentiary, would the Solicitor General initiate a public inquiry into the conditions prevailing in penitentiaries and the increase in the number of suicides that have taken place there?


George James McIlraith: welcome the members of the House of Commons committee on Justice and Legal Affairs who have just returned early this morning, I believe, from a tour of four or five of the institutions in the penitentiary service in western Canada. I have not yet had an opportunity to obtain information from any of them as to what they found, but I will take the hon. member's suggestion under consideration after I find out what the standing committee has learned on this matter.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, may I raise a brief point of order before I ask my question. I was a rather heavy smoker and I just gave it up, so when I rise in future it will be to catch Your Honour's eye to ask a question.
My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the extraordinary number of CNR freight train derailments in Newfoundland in recent months, in the latest of which a number of cattle ended up as hamburger, would the minister have his department investigate and report on these derailments in the interest of saving human lives in the future?


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


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I say that once again there have been what we call usual discussions. I think it will be found there is general agreement with respect to today's debate under Standing Order 58 for the principal speakers for each party to be allowed 20 minutes and all the rest 15 minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?
Agricultural Policies


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Alfred Pullen Gleave: That this House calls upon the government to reverse its present policies which have deliberately depressed the agricultural economy of this country, causing excessive unemployment, lack of income, slow economic growth and little hope for the future, and this House urges the government to take positive measures to ensure a dynamic rural community as an essential component of Canadian society.
He said: In speaking to this motion, I may say that our objective is to bring to the attention of this House and also of the country the situation that faces farmers as well as the urgent importance of providing for the needs of farmers in this country. The recent revaluation of the dollar threw into rather sharp focus the need to take measures to protect the income of farmers and to see that they share in the opportunities for improving their standard of living within the Canadian economy. The fact that when the dollar was revalued the offering price of wheat immediately dropped some 6 cents a bushel throws into sharp relief what happens when the fiscal policies of this or any other government are controlled and directed toward objectives that often are not helpful to the farmer. The same thing happened with regard to the sale of beef. The revaluation of the dollar had a generally depressing effect on many parts of agriculture. There was intrinsically and basically good reason for the government taking the action that it did with regard to the relationship of our dollar to other currencies, but there is a great contrast between the haste with which they moved to protect the textile industry and their lack of action to protect the farming industry, more particularly the grain industry.
[DOT] (12 noon)
Undoubtedly, the same pattern will be found in our export trade. At the time the International Grains Arrangement was negotiated, and this was a transaction between governments, the minimum price established was $1.954. The government of the day, the same government we have now, saw fit to

June 5, 1970
Agricultural Policies
support the price and to guarantee it to the farmers of western Canada for a relatively short period of time. They took good care to point out that it would be supported for a relatively short period of time. I say that at this time there are even better reasons for the institution of price support to bolster and maintain farm income even at that level, and this despite the fact that costs to farmers have increased since the agreement was signed. Indeed, the task force on agriculture recommended that we do away with the regular reports of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics which reflect the cost of goods and services to farmers. Whether or not the task force was right remains open to debate. What they said was that the index is out of date and does not accurately reflect the real costs with which farmers are faced at the present time. In the light of these facts, surely there is excellent reason for supporting the price of grain, and indeed of other farm products, and for ensuring that the farmers remain at least on an even keel during this period of rapid transition.
I would say that the trade programs which we have followed have been ad hoc. From what I can see, there has not been a definite pattern in our trade programs. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), on coming back from a trip to New Zealand and Australia a year ago, I believe, announced to the House that New Zealand beef and meat products would have increased access to Canada. This is what happened. According to the information which I received from the Department of Agriculture, our meat products imports from Australia increased from 9,306,000 pounds in 1967 to some 29,388,000 pounds in 1969, and from New Zealand the increase was from 5,506,000 pounds in 1967 to 74,803,000 pounds in 1969. These are pretty substantial increases, and according to press reports much of this product is moving on through to the United States. I inquired as to how much was moving through to the United States, but was unable to get any figure.
Surely we ought to have a clear, constructive approach to our trade policies. Those in farming and agriculture do not suggest that we can build a fence around Canada, with trade patterns as they exist in this day and age. That is not possible, but we could have a constructive policy, and we could have an idea of where we are going. At a point in time when we are saying to the western farmer, "You cannot seed 29 million acres of

wheat each year, or 24 million acres of wheat each year, or even possibly 20 million acres of wheat each year," we have looked with approval upon an increase in the importation of meat products into Canada. Those who are familiar with the economy of western Canada know that beef and pork, especially beef, can provide an alternative use for the land which farmers are advised must be removed from wheat.
We are advised by the task force that what acreage must be reduced. The government has instituted a very severe program to reduce the wheat acreage in the west. At the same time, the task force has advised the dairy farmer in eastern Canada, in certain instances, to move from dairy production into beef production. We know that there are two markets for Canadian red meats. One of those markets is in Canada, and the other is in the United States. These are the only two markets upon which we can depend. The United States is the export market which we can penetrate, but we do not advance our farmers' cause if we permit, and even more than that encourage, importation of red meats into our domestic market, then send some of those exports into the United States. This may eventually cause some restrictions to be placed on our export of red meats to the U.S. market.
It is about time we had a more clear definition of Canada's policy on this aspect of trade, as well as on other aspects. But at the same time, and to the credit of the government, we know they are providing credit facilities in an effort to find increasing markets for our grain and wheat. Again to the government's credit, they have negotiated toward a better tariff structure with Japan so that we can move more effectively into that market with our grain. Mr. Speaker, let us put together a more complete policy covering the whole picture, so that the farmer may have some confidence as to what his objective may be, what he may aim for, and where he may safely invest money which he has to borrow at high interest rates. Let us give the farmer a clear idea of the markets available to him.
Compare this policy which I have just described with the policy which is applied to the automobile industry, and it can be seen that there is quite a contrast. In the one, we have a trade policy which permits those who are investing to have a good idea of the market potential which has been reached by agreement between countries. As a result of
June 5, 1970

that agreement with our southern neighbour, investors here can gear up to meet that market. But the western farmer who is advised by the government to move into beef production may say, "Wait a minute; what kind of imports from other countries must I compete against? What kind of costs am I to anticipate? How secure is the market?" These are questions the farmer asks himself when he tools up. What is the monetary policy of the government if I invest, and how far can I look ahead?
The government should look toward stabilizing income. Certainly, I think that it is the intention of the government, through the provisions of Bill C-197, to look toward a stabilizing factor in marketing across Canada. This will have a positive effect, but as against that when I asked the minister questions about the cash advance program I discovered that farmers who have followed this program are now facing demands for repayment, and have no way of meeting those demands. This is an inconsistency in policy which should be removed. We need a consistent approach to the type of farming which we hope to have, and to the type of capital organization that we desire in Canada. I am going a bit far afield, Mr. Speaker, but the task force on agriculture decided to deal with this aspect. It must have been within their terms of reference and they must have thought it important. Unfortunately, as I read the report of the task force I judge that they favour an increase in corporate farming, larger and larger aggregates of feed lots concentrated in certain places, and feel this would be a workable solution to the farm problem. I doubt very much that it will be.
[DOT] (12.10 p.m.)
The task force said that we should contemplate many farmers going out of farming. It talked about the older people retiring, and it talked about retraining the younger people who are in farming so that they may seek other jobs. I doubt that this is a constructive policy. It grieves me that such a policy should be proposed, and that the government may readily accept it, at a time when we have a high rate of unemployment, which is now running at about 6.5 per cent or 6.6 per cent of the labour force. I suppose if you include those who are in manpower retraining programs the level would touch 7 per cent. To suggest that we take people out of farming at this time, or at least until this economic factor is corrected, is simply not a realistic or
Agricultural Policies
practical way of approaching things. At a time when the problem of pollution is facing our cities and urban centres, it is impractical to suggest that we concentrate feeding and livestock activity near such centres. It takes ten times as much eifort to look after the disposal of waste from a beef critter as from a human being. With 30,000 or 40,000 head of livestock in feed lots close to our urban centres the pollution in our streams and waterways would certainly be increased.
I do not think that this country appreciates the contribution of the individual farmer to its wellbeing. My serious advice to members of this House and the people of this country is to take a good hard look at what the individual farmer has done. Considering his contribution, we should take measures to see that the 400,000 or 500,000 who are left can survive and operate. I am not making a plea for subsistence farming, Mr. Speaker, I am making a plea for the ordinary farmer with workable amounts of capital who is ready to put his money and time on the line, who is ready to buck the tiger and feed the Canadian people. And they have been jolly well fed, Mr. Speaker.
The government seems to believe that the farmer can stand all kinds of competition without protection, that he can stand the winds of ill fortune and whatever is thrown at him and still come up smiling and survive. But he won't. I do not know how many of them will fail to survive the Lift program but I am sure it will be a considerable number. The government and the minister may consider the program a success but I am here to say to this House, Mr. Speaker, that the more it succeeds, the more it will fail and the greater will be the disaster.
I think the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) stated one day that the government had received the initial report of the task force some time in February. If this is so, I fail to understand why they consider doing in one year what the task force recommended they should do in three. It is unfair to force the whole impact of such a program upon the farmer in one short crop year when it would have been difficult enough for him to cope with it over a three-year period, which is what the task force suggested. In these programs the government should take into consideration not only its own objectives but the situation of the farmer. After all, farmers are people. As Shakespeare said, "If you cut me, do I not bleed?" This is where the short term

June 5, 1970
Agricultural Policies
ad hoc program failed to come to grips and failed to take account of the needs of the farmer.
Let me point out, Mr. Speaker, that on the cost side the government has had some reports which offered it an approach to some of the needs of agriculture. The Barber commission report indicated that we should do something about the cost of machinery and made several suggestions. If any of these suggestions have been implemented they have not been reported to this House. One suggestion was for a reverse dumping duty but apparently the government has decided against this although this would have been a most effective tool.
Reports of the Ontario food commission stated flatly that there was payola-I suppose bribery is the proper term-in the wholesaling of food and food products of western-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I have to interrupt the hon. member since his time appears to have expired. He can continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: Call it five o'clock.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Fine, I don't mind. If it bores you, I am sorry.
May I make a correction, Mr. Speaker? I said the payola in western Canada, but I should have said eastern Canada since the Ontario food commission was investigating a situation that existed in eastern Canada.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shameful.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: They said flatly that there was discrimination against local producers in Ontario. I have no knowledge of any action by the federal government to correct this situation or to demand an investigation by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. The government should insist that these farmers at least have access to a competitive market, Mr. Speaker, not a controlled market. They are being denied the ordinary right of a Canadian to take their products into the marketplace and face those with whom they seek to compete.
I appreciate the House giving me this extension of time, Mr. Speaker, and in conclusion I want to say that these are the areas which require consideration

the over-all policy, costs, marketing and fiscal policy. A fiscal policy that throws hundreds of thou-

sands of Canadians onto the labour market without employment has its effect on agriculture. Agriculture is the other side of the picture and if it is in a depressed state affects unemployed people in Brantford, say, and other places in Ontario.


Harold Warren Danforth: We, the members of the official opposition, certainly wish to support the motion put forward by the hon. member of the New Democratic Party on this opposition day. The motion indicates that the present policies of the government are far from appropriate to meet the present demands facing farmers today in all segments of the agricultural business. When dealing with agriculture policies, one is left wondering what actually is the basic policy of this government. When they took power six years ago they indicated in speeches before groups interested in the agriculture industry that they had the answers. Not only did the government have the answers, but it had the determination to make these solutions effective immediately. The government has been in power for nearly seven years and the agricultural industry of this country has had the opportunity to assess the results of this aggressive and dynamic approach to agriculture. Well, Mr. Speaker, although the government has been in power almost seven years I may say, without fear of contradiction, that every single segment of our agricultural industry today, with the possible exception of that engaged in beef and pork production, is in dire economic straits the like of which have not been experienced since the 1930's.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There are a few more exceptions, you know.
o (12:20 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: The minister should resign.


Harold Warren Danforth: So grave is the situation that some farmers must now decide whether they will seek and be able to obtain the credit which is necessary if they are to continue farming for just one more year.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The government ought to resign.


Harold Warren Danforth: The policy of the present government and its immediate predecessor has been to lower tariff barriers that have prevented the importation of food from other countries. This is the government's policy and these barriers will be lowered on a progres-
June 5, 1970

sive basis. It has said, and the process has already begun, that it will withdraw basic subsidies on farm products. Those subsidies have been built up over the years in order to make equal the lot of the farmer and those in other segments of the Canadian economy, and in order that his living standards might be the same as the standards of those who engage in industry. But the government has indicated that it will withdraw subsidies.
What has happened to the dairy industry of Canada, that industry which has always been the pride and joy of Canadians? What has happened to it? In the past five years we have seen the dispersement of, not of hundreds, but thousands of dairy herds in Canada.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Shame.


Harold Warren Danforth: Farmers in Canada today are producing enough to meet demands only because, as a result of the research undertaken by the Department of Agriculture into methods of feeding and production, production per farm unit has increased. The government's dairy policy is almost beyond comprehension. Dairy farmers in Canada, especially those involved with the manufacturing milk side of the industry, are told not only how much milk to produce but are fined if they produce more than their quotas. This is the government's policy at a time when the consumers of the nation are paying the highest price for milk in the history of Canada and when we are importing powdered milk from other countries.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Shame.


Harold Warren Danforth: That if what is happening in the dairy industry, that industry of which Canada was so proud.
We produce the finest grain in the world and had a tremendous share of the international market. Yet the government is now bribing farmers not to produce grain. When I say "bribing" I use the word kindly, because I think that blackmailing would be closer to the truth.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The government is bribing farmers with their own money.


Harold Warren Danforth: What has happened in the tobacco industry, that industry that is worth half a billion to us? The government is actively curbing the use of tobacco. I do not quarrel with that when health hazards are involved; but we must remember that Canada is one of the prime tobacco producers of the world. The industry is concentrated in regions
Agricultural Policies
of Canada where the technology of tobacco growing is second to none. Instead of condemning and selling an industry down river, is it not logical to expect the government to promote research in order that we might develop a tobacco acceptable to people which would not contain alleged harmful ingredients? This is not impossible and could be done through plant breeding and other processes. Our plant breeders with the Department of Agriculture are second to none and, if they were seized with this problem, I do not doubt that they could accomplish this. But they are not told to undertake this research, and I think the government ought to take the initiative in this regard.
What do we find in our livestock industry? Many farmers are being kept on the farm today only because they produce beef, poultry and swine.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: What about corn?


Harold Warren Danforth: Since the livelihoods of so many depend on these commodities, you would think that the government would adopt promotional measures to make sure that these parts of the agricultural industry do not fall victim to the government's economic policies. By actually encouraging the importation of poultry, beef, pork, turkeys and even of eggs, the government is crippling the only segments of agriculture that remain on the blue side of the ledger today. I think the hon. member who preceded me was correct when he said that the agricultural industry in Canada cannot survive unless the government adopts a long-range policy that will encourage the long-range investments which are necessary if we are to carry on the type of agriculture that will meet the world demand, world prices and world competition. But this should be the task of the government.
What is happening in trade? By its actions, this government has demonstrated that it no longer thinks Canadian agriculture important. I say this advisedly. The government is doing two things which actively demonstrate my point. First, it is entering into trade agreements involving development in some of the minor nations under which we shall accept agricultural products in return for heavy equipment. Second, the government is adopting today what it calls a new policy of supply management, whatever that may mean. What the government means by supply-management is that it will curtail Canadian production to meet the needs only of our domestic consumption and our dwindling segment of

June 5, 1970
Agricultural Policies
the international market. When it talks of supply-management it is talking about restricted, regimented and directed Canadian farming. Formerly, such a policy was unheard of in Canada. Farmers were free agents. They ran their own businesses and, rightly or wrongly, made their own decisions. This government feels that farmers are no longer capable of making those decisions and that those decisions must be made for them. That is the basis of the legislation we are considering today, and that is not right. In a day and age when we import almost $1 billion worth of foodstuffs a year, the government talks of restricted farming.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
If we had an additional $1 billion market for our farm products, we would not have this economic trouble today. An additional $1 billion worth of trade would be a means of survival for the Canadian industry. The government talks about restricted trade, restricted production and supply management. What are their solutions to these problems? The government says we should have this policy. We should not have as many farmers as we now have. There should be a policy whereby the farmers can be painlessly removed from farming. What an easy solution for the agricultural problems today! Take the farmers out of farming and the problems will disappear.
The world is going to need more food than in the past, especially proteins. Although Canada can produce an abundance of proteins, this government wishes to take the farmers off the farms and put them into the already large and sprawling cities. They will become welfare cases. The government talks about retraining. The average age of the Canadian farmer is in the late forties or early fifties. Are these the people we are going to retrain? Are we going to give them jobs at a time when we are suffering from our highest unemployment? It is ridiculous!
We in the official opposition not only support the principle of the motion before the House today, but we endorse it. I hope that after nearly seven years, one member from the government side will come forward with even one idea as to how the agriculture industry might be served by the present government. If that is done, Mr. Speaker, it will be a first for this government.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I was quite pleased when I had a

look at the motion put this morning because it states a realistic view. It says that the agricultural economy of the country is depressed and I agree with that. Indeed, this is not the complete picture. One has only to travel a bit throughout the country to realize that farmers are also depressed, not because they are unable to make their farm produce or to better manage their herd, but because, on the one hand, the production costs are constantly increasing and, on the other hand, the net income is decreasing year after year.
Mr. Speaker, businessmen in our rural areas who are used to doing business with farmers also suffer from those conditions, because the farmers are unable to buy the materials necessary to the maintenance of their farm buildings. Consequently, businessmen are worried when they see the local industry losing ground like that.
Another factor that is responsible for the considerable increase of farm production costs is the steady increase of farm implement prices. The price of spare parts keeps increasing also, but we are hoping that following the Barber report the government will take the necessary measures allowing farmers to obtain farm machinery and spare parts at a decent price.
In the province of Quebec, there is a basic industry, namely the dairy industry. I would like to speak briefly on it because demonstrations are still taking place in that province. Farmers are not that happy with the government dairy policy for the dairy year 1970-71, neither were they indeed with the policy for the year 1969-70.
Mr. Speaker, more than 80 per cent of Quebec farmers are milk or cream producers, and more than 60 per cent of their income comes from the sale of dairy products or livestock of the dairy type, and so on. That production is truly consistent with the natural avocation of our farm community and its progress reflects the unquestionable ability of a great number of our farmers in this field. The dairy policy is therefore of utmost importance for the province of Quebec, and until very recently, I was really confident that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) would agree to some changes in the dairy policy. But after his visit to Richmond, I am a little more pessimistic. However, I still ask in the name of industrial milk producers that the dairy policy for 1970-71 be reconsidered and improved so that farmers who are really engaged in dairy production, those who are
June 5, 1970

going to be true producers, will receive an income in keeping with their efforts.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
Therefore, farmers are not satisfied and for the progressive producers, the dairy policy represents a step backwards because of the penalty imposed on any production increase of output, even though such an increase is often required to ensure better use of resources.
The moment the government agreed to set a fixed budget for the dairy industry and allowed that policy to retain both its economic and so-called social aspects, it had to strike at the producers who were on the path of progress. This is indeed what it did. This move is a perfect illustration of the situation described earlier. It is unfortunate, because we were under the impression that we might gradually dispel the confusion already mentioned and which, once again, dealt a severe blow at the efficient and professional producers.
The price support policy of finished products at the same level as last year is not a true indication of the actual prices paid to producers. The cut in subsidies paid to producers and the penalty imposed on any production increase will seriously affect the income of farmers who are facing increased costs.
This summer, the cost-price squeeze will thus become even tighter, because in several fields, the prices of the commodities needed by the farmers to produce during a production cycle keep going up. The state may justify its decision by pointing out the imbalance between the supply and demand of dairy products. Such is the inconvenience of managing an industry solely through a pricing policy without due regard for that industry's economy of production. Such a method is likely to cause serious injustice to some categories of producers and to a professionnal group as a whole.
There is no doubt that agriculture is an essential industry in our Canadian economy, and it is extremely important that all levels of government take the necessary steps to ensure its survival and to give producers the assurance that, not only will they be able to earn a good living, but that they will have their due share of the national income and of the benefits of a "just society" in which I still believe. I am convinced that the government will sustain its efforts with a view to establishing a "just society" before it is too late.
Agricultural Policies
Recently I had the occasion in Paris, "the City of Light", to witness a demonstration that amounted to a riot. I was astonished to see how fast things happened. In fact, at 2.10 p.m. everything was quiet and at 2.15 a full-scale civil war was in progress. Barrels of oil and gas were spilled in the streets and set on fire; store windows were shattered; in a word, it was havoc. I asked one of the demonstrators why he was behaving that way. He answered that he did not know, that he was acting on his leader's orders.
Those European leaders seem to share the views of some Canadian leaders. In fact, it was reported in Montreal recently that people obey certain leaders implicitly. That is dangerous. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to take those measures designed to improve the lot of the workers, including the agricultural workers, so as to restore their faith in our country.
A census was taken of approximately half of Canada's farms. These are involved in growing wheat and raising livestock. They include some 20,000 commercial dairy farms and approximately 10,000 smaller farms, producing grain other than wheat. About 80 p. 100 of the country's arable land is in western Canada, most of it now given over to the production of wheat, rapeseed and flax-seed.
I saw the same thing in France. I visited vast expanses and I met peasants who are unhappy because they do not get a fair deal. They do not get the justice to which they are entitled and one gains the impression that there is a climate of dissent and that the farmers are dissatisfied.
In my opinion, the government, which has always been progressive and has always been able to take the required decisions at the most serious times, and I am convinced that the members of the opposition will agree with that, should immediately take action to further develop the economy as a whole and garantee a possibility of survival, particularly to the agriculture economy, so that young people between the ages of 18 and 22 now seeking jobs may have hope in our country and the faith they need because at that age if they are not busy doing good things they will do bad ones. That is the tendency that prevails now in the province of Quebec and in other provinces as well.
As a matter of fact, not too long ago, young people sitting in the galleries unexpectedly interrupted the proceedings of the House by their yelling and their shouting. And it is my opinion that if this motion is not seriously


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


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member might be permitted to continue until one o'clock.
June 5, 1970


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues and the minister in particular, for their courtesy.
In conclusion, so as to allow hon. members to go to lunch, I should like to deal with a subject which was discussed during the last electoral campaign in the province of Quebec. I have said on three occasions in this House- and I hope that my colleagues have understood that I did so in a good Canadian spirit- that dairy farmers have been penalized as the previous speaker said-so that they would get discouraged and would curtail their production, while in another part of the country- and I want to be well understood because I have no resentment towards western farmers-the government has established another farm policy. This dual policy leads us to division at the political and national level.
In the prairie provinces, in an effort to induce farmers to curtail their wheat production, the government has decided to grant them a compensation. I am not taking exception to the fact that these people will receive money to cut down their production, however I would like very much that the same approach be used towards milk producers with regular dairy cows. The farmers are expected to produce less Mr. Minister. I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, for addressing the minister directly. I know that this is not in order, but I would like so much the minister to finally understand my argument.
If, in order to curtail production, a subsidy is granted to take the land out of production, why not grant one to the cow so that it would not produce milk? The cow belongs to its owner just as the land does. Thus I believe we would have a more consistent policy across Canada. That would prevent incidents such as those we witnessed during the last election campaign in Quebec, when some people advocated the separation of our province from the rest of Canada by saying: You see how right we are when we want to separate from the rest of Canada. In fact, whenever western people are concerned, the government is willing to compensate them, it pays them so that they will not sow, but when it comes to eastern Canada, it levies a tax so as to penalize production and efforts.
When people are not informed enough to see the facts in their true light, attempts are
Agricultural Policies
made to secure the votes of those who always think that the grass is greener in the neighbour's pasture.
That is the reason why I should like this situation to be corrected so as to avoid any misunderstanding and so that we may work together harmoniously. As for me, I believe in a great Canada and I think I have a right, as a Canadian, on the entire country. The very reason of my presence in this House is to stand for those principles and those ideas, but also to point out to the government the farmers' needs, in every area, in every province and in Canada as a whole and to make demands if necessary.
That is one of the reasons that prompt me to support sincerely the motion under study so that the government will understand that we do not object for the sake of objecting, but because we want to work as all other members for the welfare of society and Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, in replying to the motion and the speeches that have been made so far supporting that motion, I am in the awkward position of having to take the motion as it is written and. of assuming that the hon. member meant what he said in the bottom. The motion reads: "that this House call upon the government to reverse-" I repeat the word "reverse" for emphasis-"its present policies which have deliberately depressed the agricultural economy". It is not within the rules of this House for any member to question the motives of any other member, so I am not going to do that. As both you and I well know, it is not within the rules of this House for one member to question the sincerity of another member, so I am not going to do that. Having said that, I have to assume that the hon. member is sincere when he calls upon the government to reverse its present policies respecting agriculture.
Having taken the motion as it is written, I would like to remind the hon. member that, for example, the Canadian government and

June S, 1970
Agricultural Policies
the Department of Agriculture have undertaken a very extensive research program, the objective of which is to increase the efficiency and the productivity of Canadian agriculture. Of course, as a result of that, we hope to improve the income of Canadian farmers to make them more competitive in the domestic as well as the export markets. I ask sincerely, does the hon. member mean that we should reverse that policy?
We have a far-reaching program of grading and standards that are designed to improve farmers' returns through creating buyer confidence in Canadian products. That is also a very important part of the policies of the Department of Agriculture. Is the member asking that we reverse that policy? Mr. Speaker, we have a series of programs designed, and in effect, that are part of the over-all policy for the better utilization of livestock, poultry, crop seeds and so on, to promote superior performance. This is a very far-reaching comprehensive policy designed for the purpose of improving the seed and livestock that we have. Is the member asking that that policy be reversed?
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
We also have a crop insurance program that is a mechanism whereby farmers can protect themselves, with government assistance, against some of the vagaries of climate and other natural hazards that beset them from time to time. This crop insurance program has been built up over a number of years, and it continues to grow with other crops being added to the programs within the various provinces, and indeed with more provinces coming within the national program. Is the member asking that we reverse that program? We have a wide ranging policy dealing with a meat inspection system, and we have similar programs dealing with Canadian crops to keep them free of disease to which they would be subjected a great deal more if we did not have this kind of inspection system. Is the member asking that that policy be reversed?
We have provided protection for farmers against undue fluctuations in the market place with respect to many commodities operating under the Agricultural Stabilization Act. That act was not brought in by this government. I believe it was introduced about 1958 or 1959. There have been some modifications made since then, and I must say that the modifications have been improvements to the act. During the last ten years or so there have

been many cases where the policy, taking its authority from this act, has been very useful in getting farmers over difficult marketing periods. Is the member asking that that policy be reversed? At the present time about $135 to $140 million per year is distributed to support the income of farmers from various commodities, but particularly dairy products. Is the member asking that we withdraw or reverse that program?
Throughout the years, and more recently within the last few months, we have made major changes to the Farm Credit Corporation's policy, the most recent being that we have allowed a wider range of their activities and functions to provide credit for such things as diversification and for debt consolidation. Is the member asking that that policy be reversed? I could continue enumerating policies for a long while, Mr. Speaker, but I will mention just a few more.
Some months ago we announced a feed freight assistance program that would be in effect for all of this year, from April 1, 1970 to March 31, 1971, paying a very substantial portion of the freight costs on feed that is brought from Thunder Bay into the eastern feeding regions, as well as from the prairies into British Columbia. Is the member asking that that policy be reversed?
We now have before the House Bill C-197, which has been introduced in response to the requests made over a long period of time by farmers, provincial governments and marketing boards. These requests go back at least 15 years according to my memory. Requests for this kind of legislation have been coming forward for perhaps even longer but, as I say, for about 15 years that I can remember rather vividly. Is the member asking that we reverse this policy decision? It is not a policy that is operative at the present time because certain members opposite seem to think that they can do a service to someone-I fail to see to whom-by talking this out and delaying it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Who is delaying it?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: But I know, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers of this country and then-representatives want this legislation to come forward in the House, so that it may be passed to committee and if necessary be amended.


Mr. Nowlan:: Bring it forward.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: They talk now about bringing it forward. Mr. Speaker, we have had that legislation in front of the House on seven different
days.
June 5, 1970


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Seventeen hours.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I
wonder if we can have order. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


David Réal Caouette: No, Mr. Speaker, I just want to know if the minister would accept a question.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If I have time at the end of my speech I will accept it.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: We will give you time.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that hon. members opposite have become exercised at the mention of this question because apparently it has finally gotten through to them that the farmers of this country wanted this legislation a long time ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They did not.


Harold Warren Danforth: In parliamentary terms, that is a gross misrepresentation.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I can tell by the way they respond that they have finally received the message. As I say, I could go on and on describing all the other policies that are in effect, including ones that the government inherited as well as the new announcements that have been made with respect to policy innovations and amendments to policy. But the motion asks the federal government "to reverse its policies" without saying which ones it should reverse. So, I have to take the hon. member at his word, and if farmers across the country know he is asking for all these policies to be reversed, then he will have explanations to make that will take him far longer than he has time in which to make them.
I feel hon. members do agriculture a disservice when they belittle the agricultural sector, and speak in the kind of tones and use the kind of words that we heard earlier today. I would like to remind hon. members opposite that agriculture is still one of the most important portions of our total economy. In fact, one-fifth of the total gross value of factory shipments from Canadian manufacturing industry is comprised of processed goods, the raw material for which comes from agriculture. The food processing industry alone employs over a quarter of a million workers.
Agricultural Policies One-third of the freight hauled through the St. Lawrence Seaway is of agricultural origin, and about 18 per cent of all the goods moved by our railways comes off the farms. So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that hon. members opposite will not speak of agriculture any more in the disparaging tones that we heard today.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: This speech is going to be an agricultural product. It will help a compost heap.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am the first to admit that there have been some difficulties in certain sectors of the agricultural community within the last two or three years so far as markets are concerned. It is fair for us to examine these. The most important sector has been in the grains economy, and even there in wheat almost exclusively. In fact, if wheat and wheat alone, not even all cereals, is removed from the calculations of cash receipts to Canadian agriculture, these show an over-all increase in almost every other sector of the commodity groups. Let us look at some of the important statistics. For example, in 1968 dairy products brought the farmers $644 million. That was increased to $677 million in 1969. I do not say, Mr. Speaker, that $677 million is satisfactory. I do not even say it has kept up with some of the other changes in the commercial and industrial sector of the economy, but the disparaging remarks to the effect that everything has gone down just are not true. For example, hog receipts showed a marked increase in 1968 from $410 million to $461 million. But hon. members do not like to hear these figures. They want to paint the whole agricultural scene and everything in it black. But I think this is wrong-
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Get a new speech writer, Bud.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Poultry receipts, excluding eggs increased from $228 million in 1968 to $250 million in 1969, and egg receipts from $164 million in 1968 to $188 million in 1969.
If I may digress for a moment, Mr. Speaker, there are some problems developing in the egg producing sector. It would appear that supplies are going to overrun the effective market demand fairly soon. If hon. members opposite want to do the agricultural industry a service they will get on with passing the marketing bill so that we can go ahead with the co-ordination of agencies involved in the marketing of eggs.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Bring the bill in, then.

778S

June 5, 1970
Agricultural Policies


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Receipts from potatoes showed an increase of 10 per cent, from $61 million in 1968 to $67 million in 1969. Corn receipts were down slightly because there was a shorter crop year. They were down from $29 million in 1968 to $25 million in 1969. Then, we can turn to rapeseed receipts which increased almost 50 per cent from $33 million to $51 million in 1969. Flaxseed is even more remarkable, the receipts having increased from $26 million in 1968 to $57 million in 1969. Barley receipts went up from $85 million dollars in 1968 to $92 million in 1969.
I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker, but these are just some of the other important sectors of the agricultural industry. I should like to talk for a minute or two about the dairy industry, though I see my time is getting short. There have been some serious problems in that industry resulting from production overrunning effective market demand. The policies we put into effect on April 1 this year have already caused a remarkable improvement in that industry and we are beginning to see some daylight after the difficult years we had in the past.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members do not really mean what is said in this motion. If they want to reverse all of these policies, then we will have unwarranted and chaotic conditions in Canadian agriculture. What Canadian farmers want and have a right to expect, and what some hon. members opposite may have been talking about although they did not articulate or define it too clearly, is more advance planning-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You have it in your notes.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member for Crowfoot sits there making a lot of noise, and is probably going to make more in a few moments, but all this is really not relevant to the problems facing people in agriculture. I was saying that I think farmers legitimately are seeking and are entitled to as much planning, as much advance market forecasting and so on, as anyone is capable of giving them.


An hon. Member:: Agreed; but can they participate?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The capability for planning has been enhanced considerably in the past few months. We announced some weeks ago that we were expanding the economic section of the Department of Agriculture. There are such things as Canfarm, a computerized system, to assist in making plans and to assess his operation, which is something that

needs to be done. To say that nothing has been done in the past is not true. There have been outlook conferences in the past years where experts were brought in to try and project a year in advance what the market situation would be and what the production level ought to be to fit that situation. Perhaps this type of thing has not been publicized widely enough but the information has been circulated. In addition there is a further midyear projection of the outlook conference published yesterday and this is expected to be helpful. There are other aspects of the market situation affecting Canadian farmers which result from decisions by other people and other countries. We do not have control over this situation, of course, but we must all respond to it.
I hope that members from all sides of the House, Mr. Speaker, will co-operate with the Department of Agriculture and the farmers in trying to improve the mechanics and the structure. These include such things as amendments to the Canada Grains Act, Bill C-197, the outlook conference and even some good advice that could come from the task force report published a few days ago. That kind of co-operation would do the farmers of this country a service rather than the disservice of these disparaging remarks which we heard from the Opposition earlier today.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I might say at the outset of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, that I have never listened to a minister of agriculture give such a naive speech about the problems with which he has to deal. A number of times during his speech I said that he needed a new speech writer. If he had written his own speech I know he could have done better because of his knowledge of the agricultural industry.
I wholeheartedly support the mover of this motion, Mr. Speaker. While I had nothing to do with the drafting of the motion, I should like to point out the wording, in part, is as follows:
That this House calls upon the government to reverse Its present policies...
I am not going to read any further than that. The minister was so confused about agricultural policy that he listed a whole host of policies that have been in existence for a long time in the Department of Agriculture. He mentioned agricultural research but this is not a present policy; it has been around for quite a while. He went on to list livestock, the record of the harvest of various crops,
Juii3 5, 1970

research into feed grains and crop insurance, which was introduced in 1960. He said the Agricultural Stabilization Act was introduced in 1958-59, but it was actually 1957. He mentioned the Farm Credit Act, but this was revised in 1959. He also mentioned debt consolidation and this is a present policy made necessary because of the mishandling of the agricultural industry by this government. He went on to mention feed grain assistance but this has been in existence since 1942, Mr. Speaker-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1944.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He could have mentioned a number of other things. He painted a vivid picture of how the opposition is holding up Bill C-197. But Bill C-197 has not been in this House since May 19, and as near as we can find out it will not be brought back until June 11. The minister talks about it going before the agricultural committee, but yesterday the chairman of that committee admitted he was having difficulty in getting a quorum. There has not been a quorum in that committee since March 26, and yesterday afternoon we sat for three-quarters of an hour waiting for a quorum. Most of the opposition members were there, it was government members who were not. Why rush this bill into committee when he knows that it cannot be dealt with without a quorum? The government has tried to tell the nation that we have been holding up legislation, whereas we have been examining it thoroughly in accordance with our duty.
Let us see whether Bill C-197 has been requested by the farm organizations. In my hand I hold a news release put out by the Alberta Wheat Pool, and this is what the president, Mr. G. L. Harrold, had to say on May 29:
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
Government Bills C-196 (Canada Grain Act) and C-197 (Farm Products Marketing Act) both provide for vague, sweeping authority to be vested with appointed officials. While the bills provide for consultation with, and opportunity for representation by agricultural producers, they fail to require direct policy participation by those most directly affected, the producers.
Canadian agricultural production is in the hands and under the management of about 150,000 owner-operators. They have demonstrated a desire and ability to manage agricultural production in Canada extremely well, and have rapidly improved the efficiency of the industry. Legislation affecting their markets is of extreme interest to producers. All such legislation should be based on the needs and desires of producers, who should have a direct voice in preparation and operation of such policy.
Agricultural Policies
Bill C-197 will deny the farmers such a voice. The motion before the House indicates that the government ought to be prepared to listen to farmers. The government ought to reverse its present policies. What are some of them? Consider Operation Lift, which the minister did not mention. He skipped around it. It will bring about a drastic reduction in wheat acreage. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) said that this program will encourage increased production of such commodities as rapeseed and flax. I question that, Mr. Speaker. This two-headed monster running our agriculture-on a previous occasion I referred to it as a cross-eyed rooster-is thinking negatively on questions of agriculture. The two ministers responsible do not want to understand the agricultural industry. They are merely following some of the policies laid down by the task force on agriculture.


Otto Emil Lang: Has the hon. member any new lines in mind?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If the minister will be quiet for a minute I will mention lots of new lines of policy. And what did the task force on agriculture recommend? It recommended that we establish a transition policy to keep farmers out of wheat production. On page 35 of the report, the task force recommends that all coarse grains produced in a given crop year should be sold in that crop year. When this question was put to the grain companies, they said the suggestion was ridiculous. Yet this is what the task force recommended. That task force was headed by five academics, four of them coming from eastern Canada who probably had never seen a wheat farm. There were two members from Quebec, two from Ontario and one, a Socialist, from the University of Manitoba.
In his speech, the Minister of Agriculture said pointedly that if we could solve our wheat problem we could probably solve the problems related to other commodities. The government thinks Operation Lift will help. That operation merely shows that the government is thinking negatively. It does not want us to expand any agricultural operations whatever, but wants us all to cut back. The minister talked about growth in the entire agricultural industry. The farmers, it is said, will be better off financially. How can they be better off if their production is to be curtailed? That shows how negatived is the government's thinking. Last year 4.5 million acres were taken out of production, and now

June 5, 1970
Agricultural Policies
those very same farmers are being penalized through Operation Lift. I say that because of the ignorant ruling which stipulates that July 15 is the cut-off date so far as summerfallow and forage is concerned. That ignorant ruling ought to be altered in so far as it applies to western Canada, because that is where most of our grain is grown.
The House is also considering Bill C-196, which we are told is to overhaul the grain marketing procedure. The committee was asked whether we had studied grain marketing in the United States. We said we had not yet done so but that we would. One of the elevator company representatives then said that we should only bring in a new grain marketing act after we have studied what a number of other grain marketing agencies elsewhere have been doing. The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) said that the government is setting up an extensive study program to find ways of modernizing the whole grain marketing and handling system. What are other countries doing in this respect? In his report for the Economic Council of Canada, published in January, 1970, Mr. Hudson has this to say at page 109: Australia
Wheat Production and Disposition-The area in wheat in Australia increased every year except one since 1956 to reach a record of 10.5 million hectares in 1968-
That gives you some idea of what some of our competitors are doing, yet we have fallen behind. Between 1950 and 1954 we had something like 32 per cent of the international wheat market. In 1968, our percentage of that market had fallen to 17 per cent. We are not selling. We have agreed in the last few years not to sell, and this government will not agree to make sales in the future, because it has adopted a negative, hopeless attitude. This is what the report says at page 114 about the United States:
Wheat Production and Disposition-The area planted to wheat in the United States in 1967 was 23.9 million hectares (50 million acres), the largest since 1953, and 18 per cent higher than 1966 and the five-year averages for 1959/1963-
At page 122 of the report this is said about France:
As a result of high price supports, production has increased irregularly from an average of 9.4 million metric tons for the 1954/1958 period to 14.3 million tons in 1967...About 80 per cent of shipments of wheat out of France are to non-EEC destinations.
That gives us some idea of what our competitors are doing. The report says that the

Argentine as well has markedly increased its wheat acreage.
I wholeheartedly support the thinking behind the motion we are considering, because it urges the government to take positive measures to ensure a dynamic rural community as an essential component of Canadian society. We are told that Bill C-196 will bring about a re-organization of our system of grain marketing. It seems to me that we are re-organizing our system before having studied how such systems work elsewhere. It is like putting the cart before the horse, and indicates negative thinking of the government. It cannot go quickly enough to wreck the agriculture of this country.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We are going too fast for the opposition.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: At page 1 of the brief presented to the committee by the North-West Line Elevators Association and Pacific Elevators Limited, we find this:
R. J. Shepp, special advisor to the Grains Group attached to the Honourable Otto Lang, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board envisaged in Winnipeg just a few weeks ago that the country elevator system will consist of only 20 to 40 country elevators-
This statement indicates why the people across the prairies ought to be concerned. The government has failed to take positive steps to ensure that there is a dynamic rural community as an essential component of Canadian society. The Minister without Portfolio had this to say about our grain handling system. I am about to read from a newspaper clipping:
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
"-the West is characterized by a profusion of small elevators located on closely-spaced railway branch lines," ..substantial improvements could be made that would both reduce the costs of handling and transporting the products and shorten the reaction time of the system in moving grain-
That is, if this whole system could be reorganized. There is concern all across the country. On page 5, the brief to which I referred earlier reads:
The licencing powers of the Commission are so broad that the industry feels that the Commission can make arbitrary decisions by way of licence to control the location of elevators and thereby affect the efficiency of the grain handling system and the very destiny of Western Canadian towns.
I might say that one minister has been very closely connected with those who presented this brief. He does not want Bill C-196 to be
June 5, 1970

hurriedly dealt with by the Standing Committee on Agriculture. This morning, when the committee started to deal with a small amendment that added only three words, after a very limited amount of discussion the hatchetmen were rolled out. A motion was made that the amendment must be dealt with by way of a vote. We were told that we must move on. These are the steamroller tactics this government is prepared to use in committee. Any member of this House who is concerned with the negative attitude of the two ministers responsible for agriculture should watch very closely the willingness of the government to adopt constructive ideas presented from time to time in this House and in committees.
The minister can say, all is well and good regarding Bill C-197, but there is now a constructive amendment to this bill before the House. If it is accepted, I am sure that when the minister has enough nerve to bring Bill C-197 back into the House it will be dealt with rather quickly. The minister must not fail to give adequate assurance that Bill C-197 will provide for producer participation. As Mr. Harrold, the President of the Alberta Wheat Pool, has said, the producer should have a direct voice in the preparation and operation of such policy. There will be no hold-up in agriculture legislation if the producer is given that assurance.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Could I ask the hon. member a question? It is with regard to the situation the member encountered this morning in the agriculture committee when he moved this formal amendment. After 20 minutes of discussion, it was moved that a vote be taken on the amendment. I would like to know if this move was made because the government members thought they could not hold their quorum any longer, in view of the lack of a quorum since March.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That could very well be. I am not a member of the office of the Government Whip, but the rarity of the occasions on which a quorum has been present in that committee could very well be the reason.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: The
hon. member for Matane.


Mr. Roberts:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: The
Chair is not at liberty to permit another question.
Agricultural Policies


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It can be done with unanimous consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Does the House give unanimous consent to a further question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Moody) Roberts: Can the hon. member tell me whether he and his colleague rehearsed their spontaneous questions and impromptu answers before they came into the House?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: When like minds are thinking on a given subject, rehearsals and speech-writers are not necessary. We speak from the heart about what concerns us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. I think the Chair was right in the first place.


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the demagogy indulged in by the previous speakers for the opposition shows that they are not sincere when they criticize the present policy. As far as I am concerned, I am not saying that there will be some improvements, but I regret this demagogic manner of tackling a problem that so seriously affects the agricultural population.
Maybe I am not as competent as some of the speakers who preceded me on the subject of agricultural policy, but I nevertheless believe that it is my duty to speak on behalf of the farmers of my riding and their association, the U.C.C., more especially as I find their claims are justified in fact and in law.
The problem may be stated as follows: both levels of government and all kinds of theoreticians have geared a large part of the labour market of my province to farming for economic reasons as well as in the name of a scale of mystic and social values. I say "geared" and the unfortunate thing in that planned economy is not so much the contempt shown for free choice as the unjustified taking over by governments of responsibilities implied in that planned economy. That is the problem, the whole problem.
When a government encourages a large proportion of the labour force to take up farming, I suggest that the authorities have no right to make the agricultural class pay for their lack of foresight. In a way, it is not even a financial problem, considering the huge investments made directly or indirectly,

June 5, 1970
Agricultural Policies
by the two levels of government for the benefit of the agricultural class, more especially as subsidies of all kinds are greater than the annual per capita income of farmers.
The plain truth is that after having encouraged a great number of people to take up farming, agricultural workers are less and less needed.
Such is the cruelty of a system aimed at stifling, by the mere inequality of the opposing forces, those who are completely defenceless.
I say that it is unfair to reduce grants in an irresponsible manner. I submit that responsibilities should be fully assumed and it should be readily admitted that the farming industry is no longer what it was, that it is profitable for a small number of farmers only. As for the others, they should give it up. The government should recognize that it is the sole responsible for the shaky situation prevailing and immediately invest huge sums of money to enable farmers to retrain.
In a word, the just society cannot tolerate any longer a farming policy which has remained constant through various political systems.
Agriculture is infinitely more sophisticated than has been suggested, and a number of those compelled to leave the farm will not likely be able to adjust any better to an industrial society. This makes the government's responsibilities only more tremendous.
I must say here incidentally that not only is it ill-advised but also indecent to tax eastern farmers more, while western farmers are getting more assistance. Both need help, and I think it particularly misleading to state that the subsidies paid in eastern Canada with respect to industry and exports are greater that those granted to western Canada. The farming community is involved. It must be looked after and that must be done without always taking into account the moneys given to others sectors of the economy.
In short, I want the government to admit it is the sole responsible for the present state of stagnation. If people must be retrained, nothing will be achieved by pushing them around. The just society requires that same society to pay the cost of correcting misguided efforts. Farmers must not be told that they must remain outside the affluent society and bear alone their misfortune.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I am asking the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) cordially but forcefully to make

the cabinet understand that it is not enough to recognize the heavy responsibility to assume for a particular economic sector, but that it must admit that retraining is the prime responsibility of the government, all the more as history tells us that the people who settled on farms did so with the blessing of the governments.
However, we now find that the federal and provincial governments are reluctant to tell the farmers that only a small number of them will be able to live off the farm. They are reluctant to admit that the responsibility for this situation lies entirely at the government's door and that the latter will entirely absorb the cost of retraining.
I wish to say, finally, that from now on, agriculture will only be economic for those who can run their farms according to the sophisticated methods of our time. Keeping this in mind, I feel it is imperative for the federal government to consider not only granting subsidies, but also making the services of experts available to those remaining on farms.
Finally, I would like to congratulate the minister on the various measures he has taken in related fields. I must however deplore the demagogic attitude of the opposition, particularly the official opposition, which gave the sad performance of people more interested in stirring up passions than in acknowledging the acute problems faced by the government.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: After listening to the minister speak in this debate, I am left wondering whether it is the intention of the department to put forward measures of real assistance to the agriculture industry or whether it is pursuing a policy of divide and rule, the policy being followed by this Government in so far as the Indian people are concerned.
The minister tells us that there are many who will concede that certain things have been done for the good of the agriculture industry. I am equally certain that there are many thousands of producers who will indicate areas in which nothing has been done by the department or by the government despite urgent need. I am sure the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) was pleased with the action of the Wheat Board in sending out letters on May 29 last demanding payment in connection with cash advances. I was pleased to hear the minister tell us today that instruc-
June 5, 1970

tions were issued on June 4 under which the letter was given a different interpretation. Of course, the farmers concerned have no possible way of paying back their cash advances, in view of the amount of grain they were able to deliver.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) recited a long list of things his department had done for the benefit of agriculture. Fair and good. They cannot be losers all the time. Nevertheless, other policies could have been followed in an attempt to bring hope to farmers now faced with acute financial difficulties. On May 13 a letter was addressed to me by the minister with regard to the Lift program in which he said that the program was designed to improve the cash flow to farmers with grain on hand. There are many farmers in the west who do not have grain on hand. The department's letter is an example of the attempt to divide and conquer the rural community of this nation. We are all well aware that agricultural rural areas throughout the nation are in dire need of cash. Nothing has been done under present legislation to make money available to producers, to keep the communities in which they live viable.
The minister tried to suggest that we on this side would reverse the trend which the government has introduced over dozens of years. But the motion is clear. It refers only to those policies which have deliberately depressed the agricultural economy-the policies which have caused severe unemployment and lack of income resulting in slow economic growth and little hope for the future of any engaged in the industry.
What of the report of the task force which has been filed in this House? A task force was set up in France recently to report on the state of agriculture in that country. But at least it considered the problems of the industry in a positive way, realizing what a great contribution agriculture was making to the good of the nation. This is not true of the task force report which has been filed here. It states that farm policies should be oriented to the efficient producer and suggests that the federal Department of Agriculture be renamed the Department of Agricultural Industry. Big deal. It looks as though some of these people had no real contribution to make to the work of the commission so they proposed renaming the department, believing this would solve the problems to be encountered.
The report also says programs are needed to stimulate demand in markets and potential
Agricultural Policies
markets. We in this group have stated many times that we have complete confidence in the Wheat Board but that the Board must be given the tools with which to do its job. Canada cannot expect to produce a good sales record consistently unless we establish trade missions abroad. Instead of resting on its laurels and on its past successes, the government should set up trade missions in foreign countries so that we may sell our products more easily. The returns will flow back to the producers.
The report also said that subsidies and price supports had failed to help farmers to become more viable and should be dropped as soon as possible. Mr. Speaker, anyone who has done any reading on this subject knows that Canada is the only grain exporting nation which does not look after its producers-the only grain exporting nation which expects its producers to subsidize the treasuries of other nations. The Minister without Portfolio must be well aware of this, but he has not suggested that a basic price should be established for grain sold domestically. Even though 25 per cent is about the maximum amount used domestically, the fact remains that the domestic price could be raised without undue harm being done to the economy.
The task force further recommended that young farmers who lacked the potential to become viable operators should be moved out of the industry through welfare programs, retraining and the provision of jobs in other sectors of the economy. The young farmers in this nation today are the very ones who have attended university in many cases. They have attended agricultural courses. They are the very people who will be taking over the reins of production. Yet here we find a proposal that many of them should be moved from the farms to the metropolitan areas where they will encounter poverty and a polluted environment.
o (3:00 p.m.)
I suggest that if this government does not intend to divide and conquer the agricultural economy it should look at the rural areas and realize that any report which suggests that we should break down the rural centres is performing a disservice to the nation. Another task force report recommends, for the farmers that remain, that there should be the provision of money to stimulate management training, sophisticated information processing systems, market and price forecasts and similar management tools.

June 5, 1970
Agricultural Policies
In one breath the government says that our producers are producing too much and are too efficient, and in another breath the task force comes out with the suggestion that these people should seek training in order to do a more efficient job. How irresponsible and nonsensical can such recommendations be! Again, this makes me wonder whether the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government of the country are really suggesting to the agricultural producers that they should do their own thing and sell their own products even though there are already avenues open to them to look after the situation.
I am sure all of us appreciate the fact that Canada's agricultural industry is in a state of transition. At the same time, however, many millions of people throughout this world are in a starvation situation. Canada is faced with an increase in her bilateral food aid program. While this may take the form of outright payments in the form of local currencies, there is still a need for some concessional terms in respect of our produce. Again, we can refer to situations which exist in the United States. There they have concessional terms. With these concessional terms there is a requirement that those countries which produce wheat shall also produce commercial grain. This, of course, has resulted in Canada losing a great many of her markets.
We also know that today Canada actually lags behind the amount of $100 million in foreign aid programs. When we speak of cutting back in our produce while this situation exists, I am a little amazed. It would seem that in effect we are telling the people in these areas that we are not concerned about them even to the extent of concessional or bilateral aid and long-term credit programs.
There has been considerable debate in this House, particularly during the question period, about bartering our wheat. We all agree that the bartering of grain, if it affects the orderly marketing of grain, is not in the interests of our agricultural economy. At the same time, however, the United States has Public Law 480, title 3, which allows for the bartering of United States' grain to meet the needs of United States government agencies. If at any time this government could arrange the barter of grain with underdeveloped or even developed nations which would not affect the balance under the Canadian Wheat Board regulations, I suggest there is really nothing wrong in so doing. If it does not mean disruption of orderly marketing I
[Mr. Skoberg.l
should like the Minister without Portfolio to tell the House why he is so adamantly opposed to bartering in respect of grain.
There is another point which I think should be made absolutely clear. We heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) speak about opposition to Bill C-197. The New Democratic Party is absolutely in favour of a national marketing board. At the same time we want to make sure that the government of the day realizes there must be ample producer representation on that board. If the Minister of Agriculture, with all his great words of wisdom and criticism, today had stood up in respect of Bill C-197 and said there would be producer representation on the board, I am sure the bill would have gone to the committee, would have come back to the House and probably would be in effect at this time. That is, if the government had ever intended that it should come into effect in that way.
We have also heard many people say that there has been a belittling of the agricultural economy. If there is any basis on which the government can suggest that the opposition parties are trying to belittle the agricultural economy, the members of the government should stand in their places and say so. The fact remains that the government of the day is belittling the agricultural economy and the producers. Members of the government, particularly those from central Canada, when they make remarks about the agricultural industry in Canada generally are, in effect, belittling the agricultural economy.
I was pleased to hear the Minister of Agriculture say that agriculture is one of the most important industries in Canada. I wish he would tell some of his colleagues in the cabinet that agriculture is also important in Canada and that they should realize this fact if they do not intend to have a complete breakdown in our country at this time. We know there is an agricultural crisis in Canada. The government is also aware of this fact. When we look at the situation in central Canada of various implement manufacturing companies and automobile workers, and consider the vast amount of unemployment as well as the adverse effect this has on the agricultural economy, we should realize it is high time something was done to give some capital input to the farmers.
We know that Canada could immediately supply grain to some of her overseas markets. However, the same thing happens in that regard that has happened too often. There is a lack of selling capability on the part of our
June 5, 1970

government. I suggest sincerely that if this government is really concerned about attempting to better the conditions referred to in the motion before us today, it should not be difficult for the government to do something about it. It seems to me this is the only way Canada could become credible in the eyes of the world.
I am not an economist, but I fail to understand why Canada does not have a more flexible credit payment arrangement for these other countries. In conclusion, I say there is an urgency in respect of co-operation with other nations of the world. It is not good enough for Canada to stand on her own so far as grain sales are concerned. There should be co-operation with the other grain exporting nations of the world. But Canada could lead the way instead of alone entering into a reduction program such as Operation Lift. There is no mention of this by other countries, but they have great words of wisdom for Canada in respect of her wheat reduction program. I am sure that in this context the Canadian farmers are not pleased with the action of this government.


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak briefly in this debate. I hope to use this privilege to place on the record from a farmer's point of view some of the bright spots and some of the concerns that are affecting our agricultural economy. I may also make some suggestions for government action in regard to some of the problems that undoubtedly exist.
At the outset I wish to make it clear that I cannot support a motion which suggests that the government has deliberately pursued policies designed to depress the agricultural economy. It may be true that some policies have had, and are having, some unfortunate side effects on farmers, such as the battle against inflation, tightening of credit, balancing the federal budget and revaluation of the dollar. Certainly these were not deliberately aimed at farmers. On the other hand, the government has taken positive steps to bolster the farm economy. Cash advances have been doubled in the past year or two. The price of domestic wheat was pegged at $1,954, so that farmers are assured of that price on wheat used in Canada for human consumption. On that point it should be noted that wheat was worth about that much 20 years ago. Now that the principle of a two-price system has been established, I call upon the government to raise the domestic price of wheat to $3 per
Agricultural Policies
bushel to bring it more nearly in line with the advance in price levels and costs in the past 20 years.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Canadian farmers, with few exceptions, are at the mercy of world markets where often prices are subject to manipulation and subsidies by various countries. We need effective legislation to allow farmers to organize their business on a nationwide basis so that they will have effective control of their production and, subject to the forces of competition, will have much more to say about the prices they receive for their products. There is legislation before the House at present, but I suggest it may need additional safeguards to make sure that producers themselves have some control over their marketing agencies.
The supplementary estimates for 1969-70 which were approved by the House a few weeks ago are indicative of the government's concern about agriculture. Out of a total of $200 million, over $150 million went to agriculture and $48 million was voted to cover the Wheat Board deficit in meeting the initial prices of wheat, oats and barley for deliveries in the 1968-69 crop year. Over $6 million of that sum was allocated to permit the Wheat Board to make final payments on Durum wheat deliveries.
If the government had been inconsiderate of the needs of farmers, this payment would not have been made; the Wheat Board Act would have simply required the use of that money to reduce the deficit from $48 million to $42 million, to the benefit of the federal treasury. The thousands of farmers who received those payments for Durum wheat are well aware that they did so because of a sympathetic and conscious government decision to that effect. On behalf of those farmers, many of whom have written to thank me for my part in promoting the government's decision, I wish to thank the government on this occasion for that very welcome addition to the cash receipts of the western grain farmers. There was an item of several million dollars in the same supplementary estimates for the Farm Credit Corporation. The corporation is now authorized to make loans for the purpose of consolidating burdensome short-term debts for land, buildings and equipment and to spread the payments over a longer term of years at much less than current rates charged by various other lenders.
The largest item in the supplementary estimates was $100 million to finance the wheat

June 5, 1970
Agricultural Policies
surplus reduction plan, commonly known as Operation Lift. While we can find some faults in this plan-as I have on occasion, notably in the debate on March 2-one must give credit to the government for being willing to use as much as $100 million for the purpose of trying to help farmers get supplies somewhat more in proportion to demand. It may well be that farmers will not participate fully enough in the program to earn all of the $100 million, but many in southeastern Saskatchewan and southern Manitoba are beginning to have a higher regard for this offer because weather conditions have prevented them from seeding wheat and thus the amount of land they will not be able to seed at all this year will be increased.
The point I want to make is that the government, in spite of its determination to control inflation by holding down government expenditures as well as by other methods, has been willing to devote over $150 million in the supplementary estimates for 1969-70 to the benefit of agriculture. This is not the action of a government which has deliberately set out to depress the agricultural economy, as suggested in the motion we are discussing this afternoon.
Many sectors of the farm economy are doing fairly well, as the Minister of Agriculture has already stated this afternoon. However, as he also said, the grain industry is in difficulty. Let me quote just a few figures for Saskatchewan, the main wheat growing province. In 1966 the income from wheat in that province, including final wheat board payments, was $629 million; in 1967 it was $642 million; in 1968 it was $553 million, and in 1969 it dropped to $318 million, about half the level of the wheat income in 1966 and 1967. Of course, this problem has largely resulted from a general decline in world wheat trade. It is quite apparent that a concerted drive for sales by the Wheat Board, supported by new government facilities, is starting to pay off in increased sales, which is the best way to solve our farm income problems.
A few days ago our dollar was set free in response to market pressures. It immediately jumped about four cents in terms of the U.S. dollar. The Wheat Board, in order to maintain our competitive position, had to immediately drop the price of wheat by six cents a bushel. The prices of other grains and export farm products have also dropped. I now call again on the government to support the price of export wheat at $1.95|, which was the agreed minimum in the International Grain Arrange-

ment. The IGA is a government agreement which was broken by government action, but farmers seem to be expected to carry the burden. Now that the burden will be even heavier because of the revaluation of our dollar, it is more than ever the government's responsibility to support the price of wheat as stated in the IGA.
There could, of course, be some minimal benefits to agriculture as a result of the reduced prices of imports which should follow the value of the change in our dollar. I call on the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) to take steps to ensure that any such reductions in prices of imports are fully and promptly passed on to the consumers of Canada, many of whom are farmers who probably have to purchase much more goods than the average consumer.
The task force on agriculture has now made its final report. Canada has never, under any government, had a comprehensive, national agricultural policy. I am sure the government will lose no time in devising, in close consultation with farmers and farm organizations, policies to promote a vital, progressive and economical agricultural industry in this country. I cannot agree with some of the things the task force has recommended but I certainly approve of their suggestion that farm policy should be directed toward improving the per capita farm income in Canada. Nearly half of our farm families are suffering from below normal incomes. I am sure that the government, with its demonstrated sympathetic concern for the welfare of agriculture, can be relied upon to produce long-term policies which will continue to benefit this important industry. I urge them to lose no time in coming to grips with this important responsibility.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I will not follow it with a motion and I do not raise it for the purpose of inviting debate. I do it because under the rules of the House I must raise it at the earliest possible opportunity. It involves an issue which I consider to be a breach of privilege.
I have just been advised through press reports and otherwise that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has issued a statement in Winnipeg with regard to the imposition of wage controls and other pertinent measures. I rise first to object strongly to this being done in a place other than this House and, second, to point out that in the face of a number of
June 5, 1970

questions which were directed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) yesterday and to the Minister of Finance the day before regarding this particular issue, and in respect of which there were in fact denials, the Minister of Finance now, without regard to what are his responsibilities to the House, has done what he said he was not going to do and has not done it in the House.
I raise this question now, although it probably will be our intent to raise it again at a later date, because I must now file it by way of a caveat to indicate my strong resentment at this course of action.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: What the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has just told the House is another example and a clear illustration of the problems that are inflicted on this country.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has raised a question of privilege which he qualified in two ways, first by saying that he was not prepared to move a motion-which of course makes the raising of a question of privilege clearly out of order- and second, which perhaps made the question of privilege partly acceptable, by saying that he was not going to pursue the matter now and that his question of privilege was based on indecisive and inconclusive press reports. It seems to me it would have been more proper for him to suggest that he would wait until Monday before pursuing the matter further. It is certainly out of order for any other member to allude to this matter as if it were a statement of fact.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) earlier today and thought it was pretty vacuous and vague. Now the Minister of Agriculture, after I have had a chance to utter about six words, anticipates and conjectures that there may be no question of privilege in what I am going to say. This confirms to me how vacant, vague and negative is the mind of the Minister of Agriculture on this occasion, if there is any mind there at all. I used to listen to the-
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: Oh, get on.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The young man from Calgary South can always speak from his seat, where his brains are, but he very rarely gets up- 22478-3}
Agricultural Policies


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. The Chair recognizes that there is nothing before the House at the present time but the motion. I would ask the hon. member to proceed with his speech within the allotted time.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I would be only too happy to proceed, but the point is that I was dumbfounded when the Minister of Agriculture stood in his place to raise a question of privilege on something I had not even said. If that is the type of prognosis we can expect from the Department of Agriculture-and it is corroborated when you have a Lift program, which is supposed to free so many acres from wheat, and then we try to find out how much wheat we really have-it is an indication of the mentality of the minister.
The first six words that I was able to get out before the heckle-reckle of the vegetable computers over there were that the statement of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) was just another example of the uncertainty that there is in this land about government policy, including agricultural policy. We have statements made in this House one day, two days or three days ago and then in a press conference in the corridor at a press conference in Halifax or at a press conference such as was held in Winnipeg this afternoon we have statements that either complicate or run counter to the substance of statements in this House.
The best example of that was the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), who sits right in front of the Minister of Agriculture. Perhaps one has infected the other in their parliamentary prognoses. Anyway, the Minister of Finance stood in his place on Wednesday last and said no, there would be no change in the floating exchange rate when the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) asked that simple question.
I just love to hear from the hon. member for Prince George because the people of B.C. do not hear much from him at all. If he wishes to speak, I will resume my seat. So far as the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) is concerned, I have a few things to say to him. Do you want to ask a question, Otto?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is the
minister rising on a question of privilege or a point of order?


Otto Emil Lang: Does the hon. member not realize that when a member asks such a stupid question with respect to what the rate of

June 5, 1970
Agricultural Policies
exchange for the dollar is going to be, he should expect not to be answered or to be answered in the simple negative?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. I would ask hon. members to come back to the subject matter of the motion. As the House realizes, this is taking up the time of the hon. member.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, it is my time, but I appreciate the problem you have. That problem is confounded and compounded when the Minister without Portfolio stands up and starts to rationalize the simple answer of the Minister of Finance to a question by the hon. member for Dauphin about a floating exchange, a flat exchange or a high exchange, which was the same answer the Minister of Finance gave to me in the Finance and Economic Affairs Committee when he said that the policies of the government are for the stability of the dollar. The Minister of Finance was caught out. He made a stupid answer to a very important question and now he is trying to weasel around it. But he does not not need the Minister without Portfolio to help him weasel. That minister has enough problems to weasel around Operation Lift and other agricultural programs.
Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon in the quiet hours of Friday we are speaking on an opposition motion under the new rules, directing attention to the agricultural problems of Canada. Oh, there is another voice. Is that the voice from Algoma East? Since the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) walked out of the chamber we have not heard much. We heard some sound from the hon. member for Algoma East, but he is a nice fellow and we don't want to get him involved.


An hon. Member:: You are all heart.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Well, I have a big heart. There is the member from Lanark. He preaches outside this House and makes noises inside the House, but he very rarely makes speeches inside the House. I don't mind hearing him. Actually, he can contribute. I have heard some of his speeches and they are not too bad.
This is a motion presented by one of my good friends in the NDP, although they are not my political friends. On this occasion I support as far as I can the principle behind this motion which is trying to direct the attention of the government to agricultural problems. Unfortunately, under the new
[Mr. Lang.)
rules-and I think Parliament should look at them in the context of the experience we have had in the last session or two-there is no vote on this motion. The bite is taken out of the motion. It is like a dog without a bark. That is why we have to try to make a little sound, so that people outside may hear. We hope others may listen and respond to some of the things that are said here today on agriculture, because if there was ever a basic industry of Canada that needed some response and a receptive hearing, it is the agricultural industry from coast to coast. I do not care whether you are representing the chicken interests of Fraser East or the apple growers of Annapolis Valley-all segments of agriculture are in trouble, are bothered, concerned and most uncertain about the future. And they are not helped by some government policies of the immediate past.
On that basis I have no hesitation in speaking to this motion. In doing so, I agree completely with what the Minister of Agriculture said earlier today, that the farmers of this land want some planning, some organization, some direction and some co-ordination. Of course they do, but they do not want to lose their voice. It is the only thing they have, other than the soil they work and the products they grow. They have a voice and a vote. The vote comes once every four or five years. But surely this Minister of Agriculture, representing a government that practices something called, in those long ago days, participatory democracy, does not want to take away the voice of the man of the soil who wants to contribute at least his voice to the direction of those policies?
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, and to any government member of this House-and I have not yet had it contradicted-that Bill C-197 does in fact take the direct voice away from the farmer. I say "farmer," but let us not just talk about the farmer on the farm because Bill C-197 affects every individual and group involved in the agricultural community of Canada, right from the seed to the sale of the product. With respect to Canadians who live in the city and who think they are not going to be affected by the bill, I ask what happened to them when the Dairy Commission was set up? Did the price of milk go down? No, the price of milk went up and the price of other commodities has gone up.
If Bill C-197 could give co-ordination and direction, we on this side would be all for it. But we are also for producer participation at some stage in the formulation of the policies
June 5, 1970

that affect the producer and the consumer. We are absolutely opposed to a bill superimposing on all segments of agriculture a board appointed by the government. No matter how well-intentioned or sincere the government or the minister may be, that is still bureaucratic control of a basic industry and we are not prepared to swallow the underlying principle of Bill C-197 without getting into a debate, not on semantics but on the question of whether this is socialization of the most sophisticated kind of the agricultural industry of Canada.
If the government thinks this type of bill is good for agriculture, it may soon ask why is it not good for another primary product. Why is this type of bill not good for the oil industry? Oil is another primary product. The government may well say, "Let us take it away from the Energy Board and put it under a marketing board." Let us speak about lumber in British Columbia. What would happen if they had a board which first of all determined who could grow the product or cut the trees, and then how many trees could be cut down? That is the purport of Bill C-197, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I think the Minister without Portfolio is a young minister with some promise, although the promise has become tarnished with the responsibilities of his office and with the load of the Lift program-that is not meant to be a pun-which is unfortunately breaking the back of the young Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon. This is the time of year when he could have been marking exam papers at the law school of Saskatchewan. No doubt he would find that task much lighter than trying to support the Lift program.
The thing that amazed me and indicated his inexperience-just the same as the hon. member for Lanark and Renfrew (Mr. McBride)-was when he uttered a few comments on the whole parliamentary process, saying in answer to a member on this side of the House that there was a filibuster on Bill C-197. Regardless of the principle of Bill C-197 on which hon. members can honestly disagree, because my interpretation may be extreme and others may have an interpretation equally as extreme, let us look at the facts involved which make hollow and hypocritical the words of the Minister without Portfolio when he uttered "filibuster" a few minutes ago, and the words of the Minister of Agriculture when he said "filibuster" some time ago.
Agricultural Policies


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I said that sincerely.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That shows how sincere the minister is, if that is how he looks at it. But I am too good a friend of his in the House or away from the House-or I was-to accept his standard of sincerity. If that is his standard of sincerity, then I have to watch what I say to him outside the House because you cannot be serious, Mr. Minister-I say this through you, Mr. Speaker-in talking about a filibuster on a bill as important as C-197 when there have spent a total of 17 hours-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Seven days.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Oh, no. Let me come to that, Mr. Speaker, and see if the minister disagrees with these facts. There has been a total of 17 hours, spread over nine weeks, ranging from a minimum of a half-hour debate to three or four hours of debate on any one day.


Otto Emil Lang: With no one saying anything new.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Seventeen hours spread over nine weeks! If the Minister without Portfolio had ever been exposed to Parliament before he walked out of the ivory tower of law school and got seated by the seat of his pants on the treasury benches, he would know what filibuster means. When I put to him, as I put to the minister, that the task force which they both swear by-or swear at, maybe-says that 10,000 agencies, committees and commodity groups will be affected by Bill C-197, and 120 marketing agencies will be directly affected by it, then I refuse to accept the minister's saying he was sincere when he said it was a filibuster on such a basic bill involving such a basic industry.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Yes, certainly.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to ask the hon. member if he is prepared to accept the responsibility and face the farmers if he will not lift the blockade on this bill so that it will get through the House this session.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am in no position to commit anybody, but I say to the minister that this bill has not been in this House since May 19.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It has been in here for seven days.

June 5, 1970
Agricultural Policies


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I say that if the minister has the guts of his convictions-or if he has any convictions, because he may not have any guts-and brings that bill to the House he may be rather surprised at what happens to it. We may get it into committee. Bring it here so we can talk about it. It has not been here since May 19. I can understand the Minister without Portfolio because he does not know any better, but the minister was very experienced in procedural debates when he spoke for the Social Credit Party. He is now seated on the treasury bench, so when he tells this House that he is sincere in saying there has been a filibuster on Bill C-197, I say that remark is as hollow as his policies on agriculture.
We have been in this House 138 days since last fall and have spent a total of 17 hours on Bill C-197, which I think is the most important bill affecting agriculture to come before any Parliament that I have been in. The minister has more experience than I have. I wonder if he would answer this question, Mr. Speaker. Has there been any more important bill on agriculture than Bill C-197?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, to stay within the rules of this House I have to ask the hon. member a question. I cannot reply to his questions during this period so I should like to inquire if he is now prepared to give an undertaking that his party will pass the bill if we bring it out again, because we have had it out seven different days already.


Mr. McBride:: Answer the question.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The hon. member for Lanark and Renfrew is good at talking from his seat, where his brains are. If he would get to his feet we might find that he has no brains. In answering the minister, who did not answer my question, I would say when the bill comes back I do not want to participate again in the debate. I do not know what other members of my party will do. For the last few days we have been asking you to get the bill back to committee. I ask the minister if he knows of any more important bill than Bill C-197. If he does and can answer that question-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I agree.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It is the most important bill on agriculture?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is very important. We only bring in important measures.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I would point out, further, that if it is one of the most important and in 17 hours in this chamber over a nine-week period-the minister talked about nine days, but on one of those nine days there was a half-hour debate and the minister knows it, and let us not get into these canards of the Prime Minister-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. Does the House give unanimous consent to the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: There is not unanimous consent.


An hon. Member:: It hurts.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) has raised the question of the definition of "filibuster." He is right that I have not been in this House long enough to have witnessed some of the classic filibusters that have taken place, but I have been here long enough to hear a great deal of nonsense spoken by members opposite. I have also been here long enough to recognize, when hon. members opposite speak hour after hour on the same matter, repeating the same words, that they are accomplishing nothing except delaying the passage of legislation and delaying the business of this House.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Is that your idea of democracy? Is that your idea of debate?


Otto Emil Lang: It is passing strange, Mr. Speaker, that we can see a situation where spokesmen for all parties express their support of the principle of the bill, which is the issue on second reading if I understand procedure correctly, and then they speak on and on and on instead of allowing the bill to go to committee where it can be dealt with clause by clause.


Harold Warren Danforth: We have had experience with some of your material.


Otto Emil Lang: I have heard questions this afternoon about where farmers stand on this bill. I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members a release from the Saskatchewan Federation of Agriculture of May 12 in connection with Bill C-197.
June 5, 1970

[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is a well-known rule in this House that when we are engaged in one debate we are not permitted to take part in another debate. Bill C-197 is not before us now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I agree with the hon. member.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House clearly sets out the idea that hon. members question government policy in this field. Bill C-197 is part of that policy and certainly comes within the ambit of the language of the motion.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I was about to say in referring to Bill C-197 , which is part of government policy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
minister's remarks would still be out of order.


Otto Emil Lang: Hon. members opposite have raised the point as to where responsibility lies for the fact that this bill is not moving forward. Reference was made by hon. members opposite to the opinions of farmers on this issue. I wish to refer to this statement by the Saskatchewan Federation of Agriculture of May 12, which says:
We are extremely disappointed that the opposition has moved an amendment to Bill C-197 asking for the establishment of an agency only upon a successful national plebiscite and election of agency members.
We believe such a move is not at all consistent with their respective party policies of developing a national agricultural policy for Canada.
They go on to ask, "Why do you not allow the bill to go to committee, where it can receive study clause by clause and where representations may be made?"


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Will the minister permit a question?


Otto Emil Lang: After I have finished, if the hon. member does not mind.


Harold Warren Danforth: The minister will be finished shortly.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I shall certainly ask a question then.


Otto Emil Lang: When the opposition moves a motion such as the one before us, it is of course showing that it is unwilling to look at the positive things the government is doing in
Agricultural Policies
terms of coming to grips with the agricultural problems of this country. I must say that the final words of the motion, that the government ought to "take positive measures to ensure a dynamic rural community as an essential component of Canadian society," are words that we agree with completely because they are basic to our whole policy in this area.
Hon. members opposite, however, insist on ignoring the many things we have done and are doing in our attempt to produce a dynamic agricultural society in this country. We are taking action on almost every front, and hon. members opposite know it. Recently, on another occasion I indicated the things which are being done from a financial point of view to assist the Canadian agricultural community at this time.
Reference was made by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) to cash advances. The interest on those will cost the treasury of this country $12 million this year. The Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, brought in by a Liberal government will be costing the treasury the estimated $72 million to be spent in assistance to the agricultural industry. The food aid program, which the present government has significantly increased as compared with the program of the previous period, will amount to nearly $70 million worth of wheat and flour. The recent sale of about 22 million bushels to India is an example of what this program means in terms of moving our farmers' grain to markets abroad.
Also, within the last year and a half, annual additional credit facilities have been made available for the expanded marketing of Canadian grain. An item of $12 million appears in the estimates of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to allow for an aggressive grain sales approach by the Canadian Wheat Board. As a result of this, sales recently have been made to Peru, Syria, the United Arab Republic and, most recently, to Brazil. This will clearly and definitely assist in moving Canadian wheat and grain to markets. The movement of grain from the prairie regions will be at near record levels in the next several months and wheat and barley will be moving in record proportions. The movement of rapeseed and flaxseed has been very good throughout the year. The movement of rapeseed will reach new record levels.
This does not mean, of course, that the cash position of farmers has been put right or that

June 5, 1970
Agricultural Policies
our whole agricultural situation in the grains industry has been put right. On the transportation side, this government has recently witnessed the creation of the block system, with co-ordinators at Thunder Bay and Vancouver to ensure the most efficient use of the existing transportation system. We have stepped up the activity and participation of trade commissioners throughout the world who are involved in the wheat selling process. Hon. members opposite frequently seem not to know how much freedom of action the Wheat Board has, or about its agents throughout the world who are involved in the selling of wheat on its behalf. We have recently examined a report from the quota system committee. It has looked at the quota system which has a direct effect upon the efficiency and therefore income of the grain farmer. The system had not been looked at for many years and it deserved looking at. Action will be taken.
We have set up additional studies into the research facilities available. We have faced up to the question of inventory. Hon. members opposite are extremely unready to even face the question of whether it is right to ask what the inventory of grain and the level of grain storage in Canada ought to be. We saw that it was necessary to ask those questions and to have them answered. The government saw fit to make available $100 million to assist in the attempt of bringing down the inventory of wheat, which was particularly large, to reasonable proportions.
The sum of $100 million is not an insignificant amount, although hon. members opposite have referred to it as a small crumb. The Lift program will put many millions of additional dollars into the hands of prairie farmers this year. There will be a very marked reduction of wheat acreage and a marked increase of minimum maintenance and forage acreages to take up the money which is available under the Lift program. This money is in addition to the money which otherwise would go to the grain farmers from the expected sales of their products, because these sales of grain will be coming forward with ever-increasing vigour. In these ways the income position of farmers is being improved. But above all, we are facing the question of how to tackle these problems properly.
One of the major issues now before us for consideration is the question of the transportation and handling system. Yet once again, Mr. Speaker, I gravely fear that opposition

members will be taking a negative and fearsowing approach to this matter instead of attempting to see what ought to be the best approach to the issue of transportation and handling. Some of the references which have been made to the press and statements indicate that. Hon. members opposite surely must agree that we are taking the right approach. We say that we ought to analyse the cost of alternative systems of transportation to propose to producers, that they ought to know what the costs of the alternatives are, that we should in every way pass on to the producers the benefit which can flow from an alternative system. The producers have the right to know the differences between the existing system and the proposed system. Hon. members opposite would sooner see us remain static and never change. They do not want us to face the issue of studying the question at all.
I do not believe that is good enough. I do not believe the grains industry can afford to carry 500 million bushels of wheat above any commercial need at a probable cost to the industry of $50 million a year. Bo hon. members opposite think that money should be thrown away and not go to the agricultural producers? I do not think those producers will want to throw away cents per bushel on an inefficient handling system if an efficient handling system is available to them. Surely hon. members realize that we are simply seeking the opportunity to present to producers an analysis of what alternatives are available and what the benefits will be.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I wish to underline that there should be no doubt about this. It is my firm belief that we must examine the alternatives in handling systems. We must analyse the possible costs and benefits to the producers. Because the producers will have to accept any changes in the system which may ensue, it is up to them to decide which system is right. It is also important that the benefits from a changed system flow back to the producers. The catalogue of what we are doing to solve the problems that exist should surely convince members opposite, as step by step it is persuading the farmers, that the government is trying to come to grips with the real problems facing the grains industry of this country. Surely this should make hon. members opposite want to withdraw words that appear in this motion
June 5, 1970

which suggest that there is anything but the very best intentions on the part of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, will the minister accept a question? It relates to his statement about getting Bill C-197 into committee. Will the minister advise the House what amendments in principle, if any, the government will permit in the Standing Committee if the bill reaches that committee? I have never seen any amendments in principle allowed by the government.


Otto Emil Lang: I do not have the advantage of having served in this House very long. I certainly do not have the obvious advantage of the hon. member opposite. I thought the majority on a committee could approve any amendment.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The majority in the committee are Liberal members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam).


Gordon Harvey Aiken: You are admitting that there will be no amendments.


An hon. Member:: No.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Of course you are.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.
Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose
Mountain): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and duty to take part in this debate this afternoon as the representative of a western riding in which I am deeply involved in the economic welfare of agriculture. I wish to commend the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) who moved the motion and brought this serious problem of the agricultural industry to the attention of this House. I wish to read the motion to refresh the memory of hon. members:
That this House calls upon the government to reverse its present policies which have deliberately depressed the agricultural economy of this country, causing excessive unemployment, lack of income, slow economic growth and little hope for the future, and this House urges the government to take positive measures to ensure a dynamic rural community as an esesntial component of Canadian society.
This motion is very basic in content. I compliment the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth) for the very capable way in which he placed before the House the support of our 22478-4
Agricultural Policies
party with respect to this motion. I also congratulate the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) and the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) for following up that support. Every member who represents a rural riding, regardless of his political affiliation, should support the motion presently being debated. It appears that the present government's agricultural policies, such as they are, are designed to provide cheap food at the expense of the producer.
On Monday last the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) announced the unpegging of the Canadian dollar. What will this do to our agricultural industry? If the Canadian dollar floats up to par, it will cost Canadian farmers untold millions of dollars per year. For example, if we sell 350 million bushels of wheat in the next crop year, it will cost the farmers $21 million if our dollar reaches par and remains there. The moment the dollar increased 4 cents, the price of wheat was immediately lowered by 6 cents a bushel in order to compete in world markets. If the dollar should rise even higher, wheat prices will drop still further. These facts apply to all other export grains such as oats, barley, rye and oilseeds plus the many millions of dollars worth of livestock or livestock products that Canadian farmers export from year to year.
I listened with interest this afternoon when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) listed the long catalogue of legislative items dealing with agriculture. Most of what he referred to goes back 10 or 12 years to the good Progressive Conservative agricultural legislation. No matter how good this legislation may be, we need more legislative programs to meet today's needs. On Tuesday of this week, as recorded at page 7602 of Hansard, I directed the following question to the minister:
I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the serious plight of agriculture, a situation aggravated by the unpegging of the Canadian dollar on Sunday, may I ask when we can expect the long-awaited announcement on the government's over-all agricultural policies?
The minister replied as follows:
There have been many policy announcements made from time to time and the aggregate of these announcements is the over-all policy, which may be amended again from time to time.
This is not good enough. It is what we have heard from this minister ever since he took office, as well as from previous ministers. There does not seem to be any co-ordinated policy. As far as agriculture is concerned, we have a piecemeal situation. From time to time there are announcements based on whatever

June 5, 1970
Agricultural Policies
the minister has in mind. From time to time some new legislative programs are introduced. These appear out of a blue sky. The Lift program was thrown at the farmers without first consulting them. Only two weeks ago the Premier of Saskatchewan, who does not lean to the side of the official opposition, stated on a television program that he had not been able to find five farmers in Saskatchewan in favour of the program. Why should members of the official opposition be criticized for condemning the government for their piecemeal, ill-conceived and ill-thought out agricultural program when a Liberal provincial Premier is so critical?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Soulham:: To add insult to injury, this afternoon the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) referred to a telegram he had received in connection with Operation Lift. I have received two such telegrams. I wish to refer to one received from Mr. W. G. Gilbey of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool Employees Association. This telegram points out the serious problem of the elevator agents in western Canada, who are trying to fulfil their duties as agents and assisting the government as best they can by moving all the grain they can before the end of the crop year, having to stop work to assist farmers to decipher the Lift program. In spite of the thousands of dollars that have been spent, and the hundreds of thousands of pieces of literature available with respect to this program, the farmers still do not understand the government's intentions or the rules and regulations. The elevator agents spend half their time trying to explain, and in some cases to excuse the government for its ineptitude.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Nevertheless, here is a bona fide complaint involving a thousand or so elevator agents. I suggest, as did the hon. member for Regina East this morning, that the government should take note of the situation and amend the regulations so as to compensate these people for the time required to administer this ill-conceived program.
Much has been said about the two bills before the House at the present time, C-196 and C-197. I support what my hon. friend from Crowfoot said this afternoon in criticism of the proceedings in committee this morning. I have the honour to be a member of that committee. We were dealing with amendments to Bill C-196 and we on this side were

hoping to advance an important amendment which would have clarified an important point in the bill. Before there had even been a chance to debate the motion put forward by the hon. member for Crowfoot, a member on the government side moved that the question be put.
This is the answer to the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) when he talks about a democratic approach. To my mind, what took place this morning was one of the most undemocratic procedures I have ever witnessed-an attempt to steamroller an opposition which was only trying to do its duty. Perhaps that bill is not as controversial as Bill C-197, but if it is the intention of the government to follow a similar course with regard to that legislation I am sorry for the poor farmers because the legislation will fall far short of what the industry expects from the House of Commons or of what members of the opposition would like to see.
There are several things seriously wrong with Bill C-197. Some commitment must be forthcoming from the government with regard to certain of its principles. Producer participation must be provided for. If a commitment to this effect could be obtained from a spokesman for the government, we would be content. In the last debate which took place on the subject of agriculture a speech was made by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle), a government supporter, a member of the Standing Committee and a man very knowledgeable in the field of controlled production. He was seriously concerned about Bill C-197 and made critical comments to this effect in an article which appeared in the April issue of the Canadian Poultryman. I feel he was justified in making these comments.
The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) also expressed critical views about this legislation and advocated some changes in basic principles. There was a measure of altercation in the House the other night on the subject-some cross-fire during the debate-and once again the hon. member for Fraser Valley East was involved. The issue arose because the hon. member had accused the opposition of filibustering and had sent out some literature to this effect, literature which would mislead the average farmer because it suggested that basic principles were capable of being amended in committee. It is my understanding of the rules that this cannot be done; that the principles have to be agreed on by the House before a bill goes to
June 5. 1970

committee for clause by clause study. In this case the official opposition is willing to cooperate with the government if the government is ready to be honest and fair with the agricultural industry with respect to the serious questions which have been raised.
Another basic principle, and I am thinking particularly of Bill C-197, is that there should be written into the legislation a right of appeal. There has been a misconception with regard to our demand for a producers' plebiscite. The demand is not that there should be a national plebiscite before the bill takes effect; producers in many areas have already had successful experience with provincial marketing boards. What is suggested, and I want to make this clear for the record, is that if an when this legislation becomes effective and a certain group of producers feel it is not acting in their interests, those producers should have the right to call a plebiscite within their industry and be permitted to withdraw in certain circumstances. I feel such a right should be granted under our democratic system in Canada. Here again is a matter of basic principle which should be agreed on before the bill goes to committee. Certain changes can, of course, be made during a clause by clause study but the basic principles of the bill may not be changed.
I could go on at greater length, Mr. Speaker, but I should like at this point to quote part of an article which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of June 2, 1970, with reference to Bill C-197. It says:
Agriculture seems destined to become one of the most controlled industries in Canada.
The days of the independent farmer making his own decisions and not checking with some bureaucrat, or reporting to some inspector to find out what he can grow and where and for how much, are numbered.
This trend emerges in the findings of the federal government's task force on agriculture. Main principles of its recommendations call for sharp reductions in surpluses and those surpluses brought under control. If necessary there is to be a drastic reduction in production.
The general public is now beginning to understand the reason for the stand taken by the official opposition with regard to these proposals. We are in favour of legislation which would add to the well-being of agriculture, but if we are to maintain a democratic form of government and if people are to live happily under a democratic system it is essential that all sectors of the economy should have a right to be heard. The traditional channel of the expression of their opinion is their elected representatives in the 22478-41
Agricultural Policies
House of Commons, where they can expect that their wishes and views will be translated into legislation likely to be of benefit to them.
I trust the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister without Portfolio will take note of the principles involved in today's motion and will govern themselves accordingly.


Mr. Bruce Howard (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word or two about the motion which is before the House today. I suppose we should not be too surprised at the things which are said about agriculture by members of the opposition. We regularly hear a forlorn tale from them on the subject, though there are very few positive suggestions made. I often hear sad stories from one of the hon. members who spoke in the debate today; he is a very wealthy farmer from Alberta who tells us about the troubles he is having.
I am not saying there are no problems in agriculture. As long as the rains come late or do not come at all, as long as the sun gets too hot sometimes, as long as the winter frost is more severe than it ought to be, or as long as there is intense competition in world markets there will always be problems in agriculture. What really matters is not so much the problems themselves as the way in which we approach them. I am surprised by this opposition motion. A rumour has been circulated by the New Democratic Party that it is the progressive party in Canada.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: That is just a rumour.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Yes, as one hon. member has said, it is just a rumour. It is a strange rumour. It seems to me that the only thing that is progressive about the New Democratic Party is that when the government suggests the minimum wage should be $1.65, we can count on members of the New Democratic Party saying, "Let us make it $1.70". That is how original and progressive they are.
If there should be a government bill that would have the effect of giving away $50 million to somebody, the members of the New Democratic Party would say, "Let us make it $75 million." That is the extent of their progressiveness in Canada. In fact, the New Democratic Party is, on the political spectrum of Canada, far to the right of the Conservative Party of Canada. So it is not surprising that the motion before us today is one that would have the effect of throwing the whole

June 5, 1970
Agricultural Policies
agricultural program of Canada into reverse. They want to stop everything and go backward. It is not surprising but it is distressing that the New Democratic Party should be so unprogressive.
There are problems that need to be cured. There are problems in some of the agriculture industries in my riding and there have been problems in the past. On occasion winter frost has damaged the fruit trees in the Okanagan Valley. Also on occasion the federal government has come to the rescue with financial assistance. At the present time there are problems in respect of certain types of apples. They have broken down in storage for some mysterious reason. The federal government is carrying on research to determine what has caused that breakdown in storage. There has been excessive competition this year from international markets because of over-production of apples in other parts of the world.
There are problems involving the importation of cheap concentrate juices from Switzerland and other European countries. There has been the problem of synthetic juices being masqueraded as the real thing in the Canadian marketplace. I have directed the attention of the ministers concerned to these problems and they are being investigated at the present time. I have made many appeals in private to the ministers but today I am making the appeal publicly as well because I believe these things should be said in the House of Commons.
There are always problems in agriculture. This year the Department of Agriculture has a budget of $360 million to aid the farmers of Canada in various ways. This fact is completely glossed over by members of the opposition. I suppose it would be glossed over if the figure were $360 billion. They seem to regard any effort by the Department of Agriculture as being of no significance whatsoever. If any other industry in Canada required a $100 million assistance program in one year, I wonder whether there would not be questions asked in the country about the solidity of that industry.
I say that members of the opposition continually want to ignore the facts in respect of agriculture. They complain that people are moving off the farms as if this were some reversible process. It has been going on ever since this country was formed. In 1939, 31 per cent of our population received its livelihood from agriculture. In 1941 the figure had dropped to 27 per cent. In 1951 the figure was 20 per cent, in 1961 it was 11 per cent and in

1966 it was 9 per cent. The projection is that by 1970 it will be down to 3 per cent or 4 per cent of the population.
All of us have to face change from time to time. It is regrettable that members on the other side of the House resent the fact that the world is changing, that things are changing and that people must adapt to the change. I ask hon. members opposite what they would have the people of Canada who are engaged in agriculture do. Would they have them sit on the farms and starve because there are no markets for the products they produce? Would they have us ignore the improvements in efficiency and in new machines that are available? If we did this, I ask how long would these people survive in agriculture. The only way in which any agricultural industry can survive anywhere in the world, and the only way in which we can feed the hungry people of the world, is by having an efficient agricultural industry. This requires up-to-date and modern methods. Let us be practical about this and see what can be done about it. Let us see whether there is an opportunity to channel people into productive and useful employment in other areas of our economy.
I have heard the leader of the New Democratic Party sanctimoniously say that surely with the hungry people there are in the world we should be able to give away this food and find some way to dispose of these surpluses. Well, it is a pious thing, but the leader of the New Democratic Party knows as well as I and others that there are limitations in respect of the amount of food we can give away around the world. A while ago the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) mentioned that we are giving away about $75 million a year in the form of wheat flour and other wheat products. Our total food aid program this year will be about $90 million.
I should like to mention to the two members of the Conservative Party who are in the House this afternoon that this figure might be compared with the $10 million which represented the give-away in food aid when the previous Conservative government was in power. Yet we hear that we should do more. Of course we should, but the underdeveloped countries of the world are the developing countries. They are producing their own food products more efficiently.
Let us take India as an example. Now that India is producing nearly all it requires, if we were to give that country more than a certain amount it would mean that their own agricul-
June 5, 1970

tural industry would not be able to dispose of the production it produces. We would destroy their industry and reverse the process of trying to help the developing countries sustain their own economies. There are other limitations. The very effective aid programs in the world in the past decade or two have produced some remarkable developments such as in the productivity of wheat and rice.
I am sure members of the House are familiar with these developments which have been made in many countries, which have helped them become completely self-sufficient in respect of the food they require. Yet we still hear sanctimonious statements such as those made by members of the New Democratic Party. They suggest that surely we can find someone who will dispose of our surplus food. They would seem to suggest that all we need do is find someone to take it and then find enough taxpayers in Canada to put up the hundreds of millions of dollars required to do it.
So I suggest to the members of the New Democratic Party who proposed this motion today and to other opposition members that it would be more reasonable to face the facts as they exist. These facts are that the population required to produce the necessary food in Canada is declining. So I say, let us turn the people into productive employment in other areas of our economy. Many jobs will be required in western Canada and in agricultural areas to absorb the rural population and the people who will be shifted out of the agricultural industry. Let us do something about this. Perhaps we should have looked at the $100 million we gave in the form of an emergency payment to the grain growing industry on the Prairies. Perhaps we should have decided to put this money into a longterm program to develop employment for these people so that instead of giving them a relief program for one year we would be giving them a program that would have longterm benefits in respect of employment year after year.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
This is the area in which we must strive. There are good things that can be said about agricultural development in Canada and that need to be said. It is not just a matter of decline. We all know that the livestock industry is growing very rapidly and will need to grow if it is going to keep up with demand. We all know that the oilseed industry is growing very rapidly, and we will need all
Agricultural Policies
that production. But there is increased competition from abroad. The socialist states are beginning to become a little more productive in their economies and they will be more competitive with us. They will require less of our products. We are going to face increased subsidization of agriculture in some intensive manufacturing countries of Europe and elsewhere.
Let us face these problems realistically. Let us hear some constructive suggestions from across the way. Let us hear the ideas which the opposition has on how to tackle these problems, instead of hearing their condemnations and suggestions that all we should do is go in reverse. I hope that in the weeks ahead and in the session next fall we will not be treated day after day to cries of lament from the opposition who refuse to face the facts of life and refuse to face the economy as it exists today. I hope that we will hear some progressive and helpful suggestions from them. I sit on the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and I also listen to them in this House, but I seldom hear any such suggestions. I hope that in the months ahead we will have something along that line that will aid the people of Canada and especially the farmers of this country.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very timely that the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) introduced this motion today because it covers a number of very important matters that affect the future of rural Canada. In the first place, the hon. member made reference in his motion to the fact that there are policies which are depressing the agricultural economy of this country. In the second place, he made reference to the economic impact of the situation facing the agricultural industry on other sectors of the economy as well as the total economy of Canada. He made reference to the fact that this is causing excessive unemployment, lack of income, slow economic growth and little hope for the future. Finally, he went on to urge the government to take positive measures to ensure the survival of a dynamic rural community as an essential component of Canadian society.
I was really quite amazed by the contributions made by the two ministers in the debate this afternoon. First of all, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) trotted out the same speech that he has made on I do not know how many occasions in the House. It is the same tired, old record about the things that

June 5, 1970
Agricultural Policies
the government is doing, and he simply cannot understand why the opposition does not appreciate everything the government is doing. He said the agricultural industry is doing quite fine. He trotted out a number of income figures.
True enough, he quoted a number of figures regarding rapeseed income, flax income, potato income and several other items on which in 1969 there was some increase. But regardless of these selective statistics which the minister used, he cannot escape the fact that the farmers' cash income in 1969, as shown by DBS, dropped by $167 million for Canada as a whole. For my own province of Saskatchewan it dropped by more than that amount, by $177 million. In Alberta it dropped by $77 million, and in Manitoba by $12 million. That of course means that there were other areas in Canada where there was some increase in the cash income. Nevertheless, I think it can be illustrated that across Canada as a whole there is in fact a very serious situation facing the agricultural industry, and this has profound implications for Canada.
Of course, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) tried to show the House that the government is moving on every front in dealing with the problems that face agriculture in rural Canada. He went on to say that a new quota system was recommended by a special committee. But of course he failed to make any mention of the fact that these recommendations were totally ignored when the government came forward with its program for the coming crop year. I could give other examples to illustrate the inconsistency of the Minister without Portfolio.
There is one particular matter that I drew to the attention of the House this morning which I think illustrates some of the approach and attitude of the government on many matters affecting agriculture. When I asked the minister if any consideration was going to be given to the elevator agents who will have to do a great deal of extra work in dealing with the administrative aspects of Operation Lift as it was introduced by the government, the minister informed me that they had obtained an agreement with the elevator companies to look after this particular matter. He gave no indication, in answer to my question on the matter, that there had been any consultation with the employees of the elevator companies or indeed the employees' organizations. According to my information, there is no question that the elevator companies do look

after the permit books. With respect to the other forms, I am not familiar with the complete picture. However, I understand that there is a good deal of confusion and there is certainly a grey area which requires further examination.
I think the elevator companies and their employees are not happy with this aspect of the program. The fact is that the farmer does go to his elevator agent for advice. This is a time-consuming activity. The question might be asked: Why not use the PFAA man? The PFAA personnel have been designated as the people to administer this program. Why are they not the ones to act as liaison? Why is it that the municipal secretariat throughout western Canada who were asked if they would look after the job refused to do so? Finally, they secured some sort of an O.K. from the elevator companies and agreed to their employees looking after some aspects of this program. This is a further example of the administrative bumbling which has been a feature of just about every aspect of the government's agricultural programs over the past two years that I have been in the House.
I think it is timely that we have a debate on agriculture today in view of the fact that the task force on agriculture has at last produced its report or, I should say, at last the government has made the report public. There are many recommendations in this report which require a great deal of study. Time does not permit me today to go into all these matters. However, I would like to know why there is apparently a considerable degree of hesitation involved in its recommendations to deal with agriculture as an industry rather than from the viewpoint of the people who are making their livelihood in it, from the viewpoint of the communities and from the Viewpoint of Canadian society as a whole.
I think there is still some redirection of emphasis required if we are going to find adequate solutions to what are admittedly difficult problems. In addition, as has been noted, there is legislation before the House at the present time on this matter. The Canada Grains Act is designed as a vehicle to enable the introduction of a protein grading system at some time. The government had this item on its list of legislation a year ago and it was not introduced. This year it was again on the list of legislation to be introduced but the government held off for months and months before introducing it. Apparently they had to carry on consultations with the Canada
June 5, 1970

Grains Council and other groups, following which they finally produced the legislation.
This idea has been kicking around for over 20 years but the government was not able to come forward with legislation until a very late stage in the session. Now it appears very doubtful that the legislation will be passed in time to be introduced effectively during the coming crop year. This is one of the most pressing needs in the total grains picture if, in fact, we are going to improve our marketing prospects in the worldwide picture. We also have the farm products marketing bill before us, again introduced at a late stage of the session.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
There has been some controversy about who did what and who didn't do what. I do not intend to get involved in that question. I simply want to make it clear that my party supports the principle of this bill. We want to see it pressed forward. We feel some changes should be made in the legislation, but we are wholehartedly in favour of its principle. We feel there is need for machinery whereby farmers can be involved more effectively in the operation of the legislation.
It is also timely to discuss some of these matters today in view of the crisis which is faced in western Canada. Operation Lift can only be termed a disaster. There is a lack of guarantees and of underwriting with respect to some of the very unstable features in the agricultural situation of western Canada.
We have seen a great deal of administrative bungling by the government over the past two years. Examples have been given of it on many occasions in this House and I do not intend to go over that ground again. But it is important to know something of the government's approach, which leaves something to be desired. It<*seems that the government is taking the attitude, "We know what is good for you." This is best illustrated in Operation Lift, when the government devised its own program in fundamental variance to that which the task force on agriculture is recommending. This has become clear since publication of the task force report. Nevertheless, the government has bulled ahead with its program regardless of objections from every quarter in western Canada. In the marketing legislation bill the government is taking the attitude, "You are not going to have any say in your own affairs. We are going to do this whether you like it or not." Throughout this
Agricultural Policies
whole series of agricultural programs and other programs affecting rural Canada there has been insensitivity and callousness displayed by the government to the detriment of the public good.
I want to make specific reference to one matter involving exchange rates, something which has been debated during the current week. Certainly members of the NDP approve the government's measure in principle. We feel it is in the national interest that there be a floating exchange rate, but it does not solve all our problems. It simply provides new opportunities to deal with some of our serious economic problems. As I indicated in my statement on behalf of the NDP in reply to the minister's statement on Monday, there are of course problems. There are bound to be, in an economy as complex as Canada's. The problems created for the export industries must be taken into account. In his statement during the emergency debate on Tuesday the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) indicated that consideration would be given to special cases where problems have been created. In answer to my question as to whether he considered the 6-cent drop in the price of wheat, which took place the next day, to be a special case that should be considered, the minister said yes. I welcome his statement in that regard and I hope he will come forward with action and a program to deal with this problem in the very near future.
This step is going to hurt western Canada. The farmers of western Canada should not be expected to bear the load of this particular policy when the policy is in the national interest. If it is in the national interest, and if problems are created in particular sectors, then those sectors of the economy should be compensated. I also note the impact that current conditions are having on the urban economy and indeed on the entire Canadian economy. In my own province of Saskatchewan, where there is a serious economic situation, we have experienced within the past year a decline of 18,000 in our population. This reflects the over-all state of conditions in the province. Retail trade, to take one economic indicator, was down by more than 9 per cent in the first three months of this year. In my own city of Regina well over 100 businesses were forced to shut down during the past year. Other centres in Canada are feeling the effects of this situation. Brantford, where the farm machinery industry is locat-

June 5, 1970
Agricultural Policies
ed, is affected. Oshawa, where a great deal of automobile manufacturing is carried on, is also affected.
1 acknowledge the need for adjustment in agriculture. Technology and the economics of the situation dictate that change must take place. In the past this was always accompanied by a degree of hardship, suffering and privation. The only answer of some people is to depopulate the rural areas, to move farmers off the land. It seems to me that the task force has partly adopted this attitude. I agree that some changes have to take place, that some adjustments have to be made, but we must be concerned about the future of the rural communities of Canada. Much of our rural life is undergoing change. This change is taking place throughout all levels of the rural community. The entire rural pattern of life is breaking down. I am not referring to a change in the old traditional way of doing things; I am referring to the whole pattern of community life, of serving the economic and social needs of people. We must be concerned with this. Farmers and rural people today demand services of the same calibre and type as are enjoyed by urban people. Skills are involved in the provision of those services.
Many of our rural people centre their activities on communities which provide modern services, but we have seen many examples where farm machinery agencies, automobile agencies and other businesses dependent upon such communities have been forced out of business.


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


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in rising on the motion now before the House, which reads as follows:
That this House calls upon the government to reverse Its present policies which have deliberately depressed the agricultural economy of this country, causing excessive unemployment, lack of income, slow economic growth and little hope for the future, and this House urges the government to take positive measures to ensure a dynamic rural community as an essential component of Canadian society.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I first wish to congratulate the mover of that motion, because I do not think that a motion has ever been so much to the point. It is useless to say that we, in the Ralliement creditiste, support such a motion.

This afternoon, when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) rose in support of a policy that I would term "untenable", I was quite surprised to hear him accuse the opposition of questioning the integrity of a government member. I wonder now, having witnessed all what happened in the farm sector in Quebec and in other provinces as well, if we should not challenge the integrity of a private member or that of a whole government.
Our farmers are so revolted that they no longer know whom to blame. The minister is defending his farm policy by pointing out the measures adopted, such as the studies, the inquiries, the surveys, the classifications to improve cattle, etc. He has even alluded to the Crop Insurance Act to which the farmers contribute. However, the minister is forgetting that the farmers do not only live from royal inquiries, scientific studies and technical surveys but from the production of their farm operations.
Today, we should deal with what the farmers are complaining about. Now that they have done what they were asked to do by great government technocrats, that is build up economic units, and now that they have gone into debts for several years to mechanize their operations or to increase their livestock in order to meet the government's requirements, the farmers are penalized for their good work.
This is how this government is rewarding those who are working towards our economic development. Here again, we hear some Liberal members say that the motion moved today is retrograde. I am wondering if it is not more so to destroy what has been built, to reduce to nothing our lands, to drive our farmers into the cities and to say to them: Go and ask for welfare-as it is done in my own riding and elsewhere, where more than 50 per cent of the farmers must apply for welfare- all in the name of reform. At least, the government should put an end to that nonsense and find more logical reasons.
What has happened to the requests, demands, representations made by the farmers here in Parliament, outside as well as inside, during committee meetings? I shall simply quote an extract from an article published in the farmers' paper of my riding called: La Terre de Chez-Nous:
Telegram to Prime Minister Trudeau.
In a telegram to Prime Minister Trudeau the Quebec Federation of Industrial Milk Producers objects to the dairy policy for 1970-71 and asks that its enforcement be suspended immediately.
June 5, 1970

The producers, says the telegram, have given serious consideration to the problems of overproduction and, at their annual general meeting held on April 22 and 23, voted for a quota system in marketing. Therefore, they want new talks with the federal government-
At present all doors are closed.
I remember that last year, some farmers were still able to discuss quotas with representatives of the Canadian Dairy Commission but this is no longer possible because the door has been double-locked.
Consequently, the farmers call for the reopening of negotiations with the federal government in order to establish a fair and just dairy policy. Besides, here is the text of a telegram from the Quebec Federation of Industrial Milk Producers:
The Quebec Federation of Industrial Milk Producers, at its general meeting in Quebec City on April 22 and 23, 1970, objects publicly to the dairy policy of the federal government-Requests your intervention in order to suspend immediately this policy which unfairly penalizes the dairy producers of Quebec. These producers, who have just voted for the adoption of the quota system for their production are asking for new negotiations in order to establish a fair and just dairy policy, considering this new situation.
These are farmers from Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean. We must not forget that those from the Lower St. Lawrence and from Nico-let are making the same request and are against the government policy. I will not have time to read the whole article but I will say that not only farmers from Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean but also those from the province of Quebec as a whole are not satisfied.
When hon. members from western Canada take the floor in the House, they talk about wheat. It is natural since it is the West's main production.
As for us from Quebec, milk is our main product. Unfortunately, when it is the subject in the House, the members from Quebec remain seated or they rise to try to defend an indefensible dairy policy.
Mr. Speaker, it is about time to stop that nonsense. We must no longer remain silent, but show that we represent an area which needs to be defended. This is why I am speaking this afternoon, because once again I want to point out to the government the injustice that prevails in eastern Canada, particularly in the province of Quebec.
The minister said earlier that the government is paying about $140 million to help dairy producers. I wish he were in the House, because I would ask him to tell us how much
Agricultural Policies
money he takes from farmers through that penalty of $1.25 per hundredweight of milk.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
One hand gives what the other takes back. Then, it is said that something was given. Why? Because farmers cannot stop the cows from giving milk. Indeed, the cows are not used to regulations. They give milk just the same and that is why farmers are imposed a penalty of $1.25 per hundredweight. When they get assistance, it amounts to 26 cents per hundreweight. The maximum is 56 cents.
However, when it comes to the penalty, farmers have to pay $1.25 per hundredweight. No small amount. It is absolutely ridiculous! I have no doubt that if western wheat producers had had to pay $1.25 per hundredweight, they would have marched on Ottawa with guns.
Western farmers are paid not too produce. I am not envious. I feel they should receive more money, and once again I ask the minister to think sincerely about that injustice. Subsidies are paid to channel production in another direction, and this is all right.
Western Canada receives a lot in proportion to its population. Indeed, the three Prairie provinces have less than 3 million inhabitants. They take advantage of the act providing assistance for grain marketing which gives them a large return in addition to another $40 million which they had obtained before receiving those last $100 million granted by the government. Even if they received $500 million, we would be pleased.
But the 6 million inhabitants of the province of Quebec should at least get a third or half of the assistance granted by the government. On the contrary, they are deprived of $100 million. They are penalized instead of being helped.
If milk producers were allowed a decent price, they would be ready to channel their production in another direction, although at the government's urging they made the mistake of getting into debt for 10 or 15 years to mechanize their operations and today they have to give up.
They are no longer in a position to pay their debts and the government, behind the scene, collects its $1.25 dollar at the source. It will not lose that amount.
This is the reason for the surpluses and our farmers want to take steps to streamline their production. The government should help them instead of stifling them. The government

June 5, 1970
Agricultural Policies
should pay them yet on their feet again instead of imposing new burdens on them.
What matters is that hon. members should appreciate this unbearable situation. People say: The Quebec farmers demonstrate and shout in the streets. No wonder that they indulge in such demonstrations when they are the victims of such glaring injustices. If the same thing were to be done in the western provinces, we would soon witness a rebellion, but in the province of Quebec, we are used to be abused, and-


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


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, for a few moments this afternoon I should like to speak in this debate which concerns agriculture and the problems of rural people. Fortunately, many of the debates which take place in this House refer to agriculture and farmers. Although the percentage of farmers in our country is declining steadily and we are becoming an urban people, we must not underestimate the importance of this industry to our country. Surely many of us have a background related to the rural areas of Canada. Urbanization in our country has taken place in recent years only.
As our country changes, so must agriculture change. Many of these changes are catalogued and predicted in the task force report on agriculture. These changes will effect us all, especially the people living on the smaller farms and those of advanced years in life. The responsibility for smoothing this transition from farming to other jobs or retirement will fall on government, and especially the federal government. The Canfarm system, which is a farm management data system, is an example of co-operation between provincial and federal governments and universities to bring the advantages of technology to aid the practical commercial farmer. In the old days when a farmer had a half dozen cows, a few chickens and a team of horses this sort of technical assistance was not necessary, but it is today when you see more specialization and larger farm units.
However, for every farmer going into farming in a larger way and requiring tools like the Canfarm data system there are many more going out of farming. The federal government has just signed a new agreement with the province of Ontario for some $60 million over the next five years under the

ARDA program. This program will give assistance in retiring marginal farms in many areas of the province. It will also consolidate small farms on good land, regroup them and lease them back or sell them to viable farmers with viable units. A good provision in this agreement is that many of these farms can be leased, instead of purchased, for a period of ten years. Improvements to the land can be made with ARDA funds. The big advantage of this program is that the farmer does not have to raise the capital for these farms but can simply lease the land at very reasonable rates for a period of years.
An important new provision in the Ontario-Canada agreement is that for special assistance to farmers retiring from uneconomic farms. There are so many areas of our country with farmers of advanced years who have not enough assets to retire on. If they sell their farm, often they do not realize enough out of it to buy a house in town to which to retire. The program, I hope and trust, will bridge this gap.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that our production technology has gone far beyond our marketing ability. We can produce too much food but we cannot sell it at a price that enables the producer to obtain a decent return on his investment, management and labour. All too often he does not even get reasonable wages, let alone anything for his management or as return on investment. I trust that out of the task force report on agriculture will come a comprehensive farm policy which will bring a better life for our friends and neighbours on the farms of Canada. Indeed, one of the reasons for establishing the task force was so that a comprehensive national policy could be designed comprising of new structures and plans for orderly marketing which would bring reasonable returns to producers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. It being five o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 58 the proceedings on the motion before the House are deemed to have expired.


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House would agree to revert to motions in order that I might make a short announcement about the tragic situation in Peru. The message to the House is brief.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is there unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 5, 1970	COMMONS



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


James Edgar Walker: Mr. Speaker, the House is aware of the tragic situation now faced by the government and the people of Peru in the wake of the devastating earthquakes which spread through that country a few days ago. Since that time the Canadian government has been examining on an urgent basis the requests of the Peruvian government for relief assistance in an effort to determine the quickest and most effective way in which Canada could come to the assistance of the victims of what will certainly prove to be one of the greatest calamities of this century.
Hon. members will recall that the Prime Minister indicated in this chamber a day or so ago the immediate cash grant of $25,000 to the Canadian Red Cross Society for relief purposes in Peru. The Prime Minister now wishes the House to know that the government has this afternoon authorized the immediate dispatch to Peru of six Canadian armed forces aircraft for use in ferrying relief supplies into the affected areas. Five of these aircraft are of the Caribou variety designed for operation in challenging airstrip conditions. The other is a Hercules transport which will act as a mother-ship for the navigational assistance of the Caribou. These aircraft will depart from their bases in Canada during the course of the evening and will be available to the Peruvian authorities immediately on their arrival in that country early next week. The government is continuing its examination of other means by which it can come to the assistance of the earthquake victims.
I wish to thank hon. members, Mr. Speaker, for their courtesy in permitting me to revert to motions to make this statement on behalf of the Prime Minister.
DEBATES	7811
Assistance to Peruvian Earthquake Victims


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the government for seeking practical means of expressing in a practical way the humanitarian feelings of the people of Canada for the citizens of Peru who have suffered this catastrophe. I think that the Canadian people will be pleased to know that some of our armed forces aircraft have been dispatched to render aid in this situation.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party also welcome the statement that has just been made. I must say that we felt a bit embarrassed the other day when it was announced that only $25,000 was being given. This amount seemed terribly small in the wake of the tremendous suffering in Peru. We realize now that that was only an immediate response. As the seriousness of the situation was impressed upon the government, the government realized that the Canadian people wanted to do everything they could to come to the assistance of these people in Peru. This action has our support. The government will also have our support of any further steps it may take to help these unfortunate people.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wish to confirm the business for next week. Monday will be an opposition allotted day. On Tuesday we will call first Government Order 87, third reading of Bill C-202 with respect to Arctic waters pollution prevention. This will be followed immediately by the completion of second reading and committee stage of Government Order 98, Bill C-215 with regard to the Elections Act. On Wednesday we hope to complete the Elections Act bill. On Thursday in any event we will call Government Order 6, Bill C-4 regarding the Corporations Act.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.



Monday, June 8, 1970