1973-11-01

["Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege of which I have given you notice. It has been brought to my attention that yesterday, in response to a question from the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), I may have inadvertently misinformed the House regarding the reference of the document on the forthcoming Law of the Sea Conference which I propose to have tabled on the government's behalf tomorrow. It has been the government's intention all along to recommend to the House, through an appropriate resolution, that the paper in question be referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, and not the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, as suggested to me in the question put by", "November 1, 1973\nStatement on Energy\nthe hon. member for Skeena yesterday. I simply wish to reconfirm the government's intention to seek to have this paper referred to the External Affairs and National Defence Committee."]
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I draw the attention of all hon. members to the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a very special parliamentary delegation. These distinguished legislators are members of the parliaments of Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom; but they are here today in a very special capacity. They are with us, and we welcome them, as members of the European parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Mr. Speaker:: The members of the House of Commons of Canada wish to extend a warm welcome to their distinguished colleagues. Meetings during this visit are naturally taking place in a spirit of friendliness and human understanding, and we are all happy about them. What will result from these meetings will certainly prove most welcome and useful.
Meetings and discussions thus conducted in a spirit of co-operation and friendship are bound to have constructive and beneficial results. On behalf of all hon. members, I welcome to this House the distinguished representatives of the Parliament of Europe.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) rose on a question of privilege to suggest that certain words spoken in the House the previous day by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) were not accurately recorded in Hansard for October 30 at page 7351. The hon. member suggested that the words "and other" had been removed so as to alter the sense of the minister's statement. The minister in reply acknowledged that some changes had been made, and the Chair undertook to look into the matter.
A look at the so-called "blues", which are the transcripts of the reporter's original notes, indicates that the words "and certain other" were actually used by the minister. The rules or regulations governing the correction of the blues are not too clearly set down. The only reference the Chair could find was the report of the committee appointed by the House to supervise the actual report of the debates of the House, which report was presented on May 26, 1948, and concurred in by this House. Paragraph 4 of the recommendations of the committee reads as follows;
Your Committee recommends: That the pages of the daily edition be kept intact so that, after permissible corrections are made, the pages of the daily edition can be used for the bound edition as originally printed, and that changes suggested by members be confined strictly to correction of errors and essential minor alterations.
I think it has long been accepted practice that the editor of debates should have the responsibility to determine whether changes suggested by members are acceptable or not. In other words, the editor of debates should be allowed to exercise his judgment as to whether changes suggested by members are really corrections of errors or essential minor alterations. I am sure that hon. members will want to encourage the continuance of this practice.
At the same time, changes or alterations of the same nature which have not been suggested by a correction on the "blues" can be proposed to the House on motions. Here again this practice conforms with the provisions of Standing Orders. When changes are made to the record of the House either in accordance with provisions of Standing Order 32 at the request of members on motions, the correction appears in the revised edition of Hansard. In this particular instance I gather it would be the wish of the minister and hon. members who have given some thought to this matter that the revised edition conform with the minister's actual statement.


MR. SHARP-REFERENCE OF POSITION PAPER ON LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE TO COMMITTEE ON EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege of which I have given you notice. It has been brought to my attention that yesterday, in response to a question from the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), I may have inadvertently misinformed the House regarding the reference of the document on the forthcoming Law of the Sea Conference which I propose to have tabled on the government's behalf tomorrow. It has been the government's intention all along to recommend to the House, through an appropriate resolution, that the paper in question be referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, and not the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, as suggested to me in the question put by

November 1, 1973
Statement on Energy
the hon. member for Skeena yesterday. I simply wish to reconfirm the government's intention to seek to have this paper referred to the External Affairs and National Defence Committee.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, may I seek the consent of the House with respect to an arrangement for a statement to be made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources? The proposal is that we might revert to motions at eight o'clock this evening for the statement and comments from opposition spokesmen, and that in order to provide an opportunity for questions to be asked following the statement, that we might agree to have part of the question period now with the remaining 20 minutes after the statement this evening, on the understanding that it would not be the wish of members of the House to ask questions on energy in this part of the question period and that the minister would be available this evening in particular to answer questions on that subject.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, we agree to this suggestion. In fact, we had part of the idea in our minds. The only thing we would request is that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources make the statement available to us as soon as possible before eight o'clock. We are expecting quite a lengthy statement and we want to study it very carefully. We have many pertinent questions to ask and an advance copy would be appreciated. The only other comment I have to make at this point is that these last minute changes do not contribute to the orderly conduct of the business of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we have been party to these arrangements and we agree to them.
[ Translation]


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, we are also party to this arrangement and we agree. However, we insist that we should receive a copy of the statement before that time.


An hon. Member:: In French!
[ English]


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I just ask a question, supplementary to the comments of my party's House leader? Can we have the assurance that the minister's statement will be available, at least to the party leaders, not later than five o'clock this afternoon.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister could reply to that question.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I will see whether that can be done.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We went along with this request for the unanimous consent of the House to defer the minister's statement on the basis that there might be something in it which might affect the stock exchanges. The stock exchanges are all closed by five o'clock, our time. The minister either has a statement ready or he does not, and if the statement is ready, it could be made available at five o'clock on the limited basis I have suggested.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite prepared to make the statement available on the understanding that it would be received in confidence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we should try to understand one another. If there is going to be an order of the House, the order should be in clear terms so that we do not get involved in difficulties, either at eight o'clock or between six and eight.
My understanding is that there is agreement in the House that we will revert to motions at eight this evening for the purpose of allowing the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to make the statement, which will be followed in the usual way by the statements made by representatives of parties in opposition to the government, followed by the second part of the question period for 20 minutes, which would complete the proceedings relating to the minister's statement.
I believe that there is also a condition attached, a condition to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred, that this proposed statement be made available some time before 8 p.m.-the time was not made clear by the minister responsible for the department-and the minister has indicated he was prepared to do this on the understanding that the statement would be given to the representatives of the parties in opposition in confidence. I hope I have indicated clearly and properly what hon. members have in mind.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, if your last comment is to be made part of the order, I do not think I would be satisfied with the order to the effect that the statement would be made available to the leaders of other parties some time before eight o'clock.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Five o'clock.


David Lewis: If the minister agrees then you, Sir, can put it to the House that the statements are to be made available to the leaders of the parties at or by five o'clock.
November 1, 1973

[ Translation]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to repeat what I said earlier, that is that we agree to this arrangement providing a French version of the statement is given to us at five o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the impression that it would have been simpler if these discussions had occurred earlier. I shall once more try to determine whether hon. members wish the order of the House to be subject to the condition that the minister give copies of his statement at five o'clock this afternoon.

My understanding is that the order to which I have referred will include therein the instruction that the minister will make available, in confidence, to the leaders of other parties a copy of the proposed statement in French and English. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that it is my intention to meet with the Secretary General of the United Nations in New York tomorrow morning to discuss further with him his request to Canada to provide a contribution to the United Nations Emergency Force in the Middle East.
The Secretary General is encountering difficulties in determining the over-all composition of the force. These difficulties relate both to the scale of Canadian participation and to such matters as whether a Warsaw Pact country ought to be included to balance the inclusion of a NATO country, and whether countries other than Canada are acceptable to all the parties concerned. The Secretary General confirmed in writing on October 28 that Canada is acceptable to the parties concerned. I feel the problems can only be satisfactorily explored by personal contact with the Secretary General.
For the moment, no Canadian personnel will be sent to the area and I do not propose, therefore, to bring forward for debate tomorrow the resolution seeking approval of parliament for Canadian participation in UNEF.


Mr. Claude Wagner (St. Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, we understand the predicament in which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) finds himself. On the other hand, I must say that many questions have been raised over the past few days with regard to this subject. We understand that some of our troops are already in the Middle East and that some of them, as is evident from a television program last evening, are engaged as observers and therefore are caught in the line of fire. We would like answers to those questions, and we would like also to
Abortion
know if it is a fact that Russia is objecting to the participation of Canada in this Middle East compromise.
Therefore, I think it is essential that we have this debate tomorrow. It is fairly easy for the minister to be in touch with the United Nations Secretary General this afternoon and report back to the House tomorrow. We on this side insist that this debate take place. We would not like to find ourselves in a situation similar to that in which parliament found itself on the Viet Nam issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Mr. Andrew Brew in (Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, we hope that the minister's visit to the United Nations in New York will have positive and fruitful results. We do not think that Canada should seek to take up the burden of participation in the peacekeeping force, but we do think that Canada should accept if sought. In our view any member of the United Nations is qualified, other than the great powers, but we confidently leave it to the Secretary General of the United Nations to arrange a balanced and competent force for these important tasks.
Until these matters are resolved and the minister has gone to the United Nations and returned, we see no point in going on with the debate tomorrow.
[ Translation]


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, undoubtedly the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) is continually in touch with the Canadian representatives to the United Nations, and he is in a position to know the progress of this organization's activity.
In certain circumstances, of course, the minister has to make important commitments and he has to do so on behalf of the government; if he has to get in touch with opposition or government members, I feel that the opposition should have something to say in the process of decision making, or at least should have the possibility of making its position recognized on the part Canada is going to play in respect of the enforcement of the cease-fire in the Middle East. I feel that the opposition has something important to say in this decision taking, because the opposition also represents our country. I feel it is important that we have a debate on this matter.

[ English]



ABORTION


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely the over
30,000	murders per year that take place in terms of babies aborted in this country. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Madill):
That this House expresses its concern over the seeming abuse of the right to approve abortions exercised by some therapeutic abortion committees who, in considering the health of the mother are including for consideration social and economic factors and declares that the government should proceed with amendments to the Criminal Code limiting abortions to those cases where actual physical or mental danger to the life of the mother exists.

November 1, 1973
The Canadian Economy


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has heard the result for himself.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. This matter is the certainty that the Unemployment Insurance Commission, on past and present performance, cannot cope with the seasonal increase of unemployment in the winter months of January and February, 1974. Unless immediate steps are taken immediately to overhaul the commission, thousands of Canadian unemployed and their families will suffer hardship and heartbreak.
With consent, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
That this House urges the Governor in Council to appoint a commission under the Inquiries Act to inquire into, report upon and make recommendations with respect to the administration, operation and practices of the Unemployment Insurance Commission.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion also requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the motion cannot be put.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, with which I think most members of the House will agree, arising from the proposed takeover by the Bowater Corporation of London, England, of Perkins Papers, Ltd., a Canadian firm. In view of the potentially adverse effects of that takeover on the Canadian paper industry, I move,

seconded by the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney):
That this House instruct the government to take immediate action to prohibit the sale of Perkins Papers Ltd. to the Bowater Corporation pending the enactment and proclamation of the Foreign Investment Review Act, Bill C-132.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent and the motion cannot be put.



INCREASED PRICE OF FUEL OIL-SUGGESTED DEBATE- REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION

Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the constant and accelerated increase in the price of gasoline and heating oil, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That the House do now adjourn to discuss the possibility of having the federal and provincial Ministers of Finance confer and determine whether direct and indirect taxes on gasoline and fuels should be lowered so that Canadians may not suffer too much from it.


Mr. Speaker:: I venture to remind the hon. member for Richmond that such an adjournment motion should be moved pursuant to Standing Order 26 and not Standing Order 43. Therefore, I cannot put his motion to the House.



POLLUTION


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House under Standing Order 43 to present a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the increased number of oil spills along the west coast of British Columbia, and the apparent lack of adequate contingency plans and equipment to deal with them quickly and effectively, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett):
That this House of Commons instruct the appropriate standing committee to examine this situation and to make recommendations to the government so that immediate and effective measures may be taken by the appropriate agencies to deal with any oil-spill emergency that may arise along the West Coast.
November 1, 1973


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member for Kootenay West requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimous consent and the motion cannot be put.



FOOD PRICES


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in the light of a statement reported to have been made yesterday by a member of the cabinet who is in the House, even though he is not in his seat, I would move under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight):
That the Minister of Agriculture be asked to feed himself on $3 a week for a period of six months, and that at the end of that period he report to the House on the results thereof, if he is still here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will agree that the question in the motion is clearly too hypothetical to put to the House at this time.


Mr. Whelan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Last night, when I was interviewed by the reporter for the CBC, I said that a person had written to me and told me that he could live on that much money. I clearly stated to the reporter that I did not recommend this to anybody.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: I suggest that the hon. member who brought forward this motion possibly looks as if he could live on that much money.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my leader says that I am standing proof that the minister is correct. I shall report on this six months from now, and six years from now as well.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a
Oral Questions
matter of pressing and urgent necessity. In view of the method used by the Canadian National Railways to compute back time owed to its employees as a result of the recent contract settlement imposed by this House, and in view of the fact that such computations lump the back time and regular pay in one cheque, thus causing an over assessment of income tax, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That the Minister of Transport immediately instruct the CNR to follow the method being used by the CPR in paying its employees.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion submitted to the House under the terms of Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent and the motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. As the Unemployment Insurance Commission has not stayed within its administration budget since 1969, and as in 1973 the budget will very likely double the original prediction tabled in this House, will the minister undertake a public inquiry into the situation?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: No, Mr. Speaker. The administrative budget of the Unemployment Insurance Commission for 1973 will be met.


John Raymond Ellis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the administration budget for the Unemployment Insurance Commission headquarters alone will triple this year, will the minister at least inquire into this aspect and make such inquiry public?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, these aspects of the Unemployment Insurance Commission's operation as, indeed, are all its operations, are fully detailed and fully available to members of the House through the inquiries of standing committees. That procedure will continue in future.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON INTENTION TO INTRODUCE LEGISLATION
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister. As Bill C-125 is now dead, and as the minister in the statement of January 17 referred to matters which

November 1, 1973
Oral Questions
were to be dealt with under the bill to which there was objection such as termination of claims, calculating of benefits and severance and holiday pay, I should like to know whether the minister now intends to bring in legislation which will clear up this matter. What is his intention in this respect?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated the other day, I will be making a comprehensive statement on this matter in the near future.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. We have pressed the minister now for about a week on the necessity of making a statement, and for one week he has told us that he will be making a statement in the near future. As this matter is of extreme importance, may I ask the minister what is causing the delay in the making of the statement, and can he give us some definite time within which the statement will be made? Certainly, this is a very important matter. Can the minister give us some assurances in this regard?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the future is nearer now than it was when I made this statement one week ago.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rises on a point of order. I ought at this point to remind hon. members that, according to the order made earlier, it is my understanding that the question period is to be limited to 20 minutes. However, I will recognize the hon. member, as I must, on the point of order, and then the hon. member for York South.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister a question and we are not very appreciative of his smart-alecky remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: With all due respect, my question was fair. Surely, if the minister is a gentleman he could give me a decent answer instead of trying to be so smart. I will ask my question again. Can he be more definite with respect to the time by which he will give the statement, and can he tell us why it has taken him a couple of weeks to prepare this statement?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add to what I said the other day. I will make such a statement very soon. It will be comprehensive. The requirement for me to be comprehensive means that I will need to take more time than would be necessary to prepare the kind of simplistic statement for which the hon. member may be looking.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I am looking for a statement, not for smart-alecky remarks.

[ Translation]


ALLEGED DENIAL TO QUEBEC TEACHERS-GOVERNMENT ACTION
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Can he tell the House whether he intends to have specific discussions with the Quebec government to solve the problem of teachers who, when victimized by unemployment, are not entitled to any benefits and, if so, what specific measures does he intend to take regarding this?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, I have had no such previous representation. I will be glad to get details from the hon. member or any other source and look into the necessity of such consultation. If it is necessary, I will be happy to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair recognizes the hon. member for York South.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I reserve my question for this evening and ask if you will be good enough to recognize the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Ed Nelson (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the assurance of the minister in reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that he was prepared to meet with the nurses, can he report to the House whether he has seen them and whether he is prepared to seek a revision of the arbitral award handed to them recently?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I met with representatives of the nurses of the Canadian Public Services for an hour or so last night. We had an interesting, and I think frank, discussion. I promised them an answer at the beginning of next week.


BROADCASTING
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Communications.
November 1, 1973

Could he say whether he anticipates any new developments in the Quebec-Ottawa case concerning government priority in the field of cable television?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat to the hon. member that we do anticipate developments in the matter of communications with all provinces and that we shall meet as a federal-provincial conference on November 27 and 28.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Communications.
Could he advise the House whether he has considered the possibility of granting Quebec a sort of special status in this area?


Gérard Pelletier: No, Mr. Speaker. Such a possibility will not be examined during the forthcoming conference. Instead, we shall try to agree on national and provincial objectives in the area of communications and see how these could be conciliated.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. When will he be announcing the new rates for employer and employee contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Commission and, if the minister does intend to implement the new rates, will he consider referring them to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration first?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will be making that part of my comprehensive statement to which I referred earlier.


Otto John Jelinek: Obviously, the minister is not prepared to give any answers today. I will ask an easier supplementary question. In view of the high initial cost of UIC computer installations, will the minister confirm whether UIC is planning any additional expenses on these computer installations?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the main investment in computer installation is now complete.We are constantly refining and trying to improve our operations, as I think hon. members wish us to do. As far as any further major investment, I have no information to give to the hon. member at this time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for
Oral Questions
External Affairs. In view of the latest economic reports to the effect that the rich nations are getting richer and the poor poorer, and that poverty has become a way of life in the past few years to a degree not anticipated, what is the present position of the government of Canada with reference to a world food bank? What contributions, if any, has Canada tentatively agreed to make to such a world organization?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman may have noticed, or perhaps he has not, but when I was speaking to the United Nations General Assembly, I supported the latest initiative of the food and agriculture organization for a study of the idea of having food reserves, a world food bank or something of that nature. I also supported the initiative of Dr. Kissinger, the Secretary of State of the United States, who had proposed a world food conference. Therefore, I think I am on the same side as the right hon. member in believing this will be one of the most important problems facing the world in the future.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister, of course realizes, does he not, that under my administration I brought that subject before the NATO organization in 1957, and before the United Nations in 1960, and at that time the Liberal Party opposed it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether that is a question.

[ Translation]


LOCATION OF FOURTH HEAVY WATER PLANT-CONSIDERATION OF QUEBEC SITE
Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Has the government made a final decision concerning the forthcoming construction of a fourth heavy water plant in Canada and, if so, is the province of Quebec still being considered as the possible site for building this plant?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the decision in this respect is not yet final. We are still considering a number of possible sites in various provinces. I can say, however, that the site proposed in the province of Quebec is also being considered.


LOCATION OF FOURTH HEAVY WATER PLANT- CONSIDERATION OF SITE IN WESTERN CANADA
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: May I ask the Prime Minister if western Canada is being considered as a possible site for this heavy water plant?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There are at least two sites in western Canada which are being considered.
7426

November 1, 1973
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I remind hon. members we have only 20 minutes today for the question period, and I see at least 40 members standing. Obviously, many will be disappointed.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Can the
Prime Minister advise whether it has been made a condition of the announcement with regard to this heavy water plant in Quebec that there will be an announcement of plans for Manitoba and that one of the conditions to be included shall be the resignation of the Minister of National Defence?


Mr. Speaker:: A question asked in those terms is obviously not in order.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. In view of evidence that corporate profits in 1973 are going up at a faster rate than the cost of living, the consumer price index for food, wages and what have you, is the minister in his next budget planning to eliminate the fast write-off provisions and bring the corporate tax rate back to the level at which it stood a year ago?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, that, of course, is a budgetary matter. I ought to indicate to the hon. member that as a result of the corporate tax reductions and the healthy profit picture, the capital intentions for business equipment and plant were raised by 19 per cent this year over last.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NEED FOR ACTION TO PREVENT EXCESSIVE PROFITS
Terrence Wyly Grier: I have a supplementary question arising from the Minister's answer and assurances which the Prime Minister gave to the House on more than one occasion to the effect the government would contemplate whatever steps were required to protect the consumer from being gouged in the market place. In view of that statement and assurance, and in view of the evidence of rising corporate prices, can the minister indicate what concrete steps are being planned to prevent excessive profits being made?


Mr. Speaker:: I say, with respect to the hon. member, that the information he is seeking ought normally be given to the House by way of a statement on motions.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Considering that all farmers and stock breeders of eastern Canada, and specially those of the province of Quebec, have been waiting since the end of September for a statement from the minister in respect of the average price of feed grains, is he now in a position to inform this House when he will make such a statement?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I believe the prices have been announced. The minister in charge of the wheat board can perhaps elaborate on that.


FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In light of the announced policy to reduce government expenditures and the fact that the Food Prices Review Board has exceeded its budget by about $470,000, presumably because of inflation, is the chairman of that board one of those persons at deputy minister level whose salary the government intends to increase?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that it is correct that the board has exceeded its budget. It submitted a preliminary budget for the fiscal year. Then, it submitted a further budget and that is under study. With regard to the question of salary, that is a matter for cabinet in the same way other similar points are for cabinet.


Charles Joseph Clark: Will the minister consider putting the board members on a nutritional food budget that will not exceed $3 a week?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the Soviet Union has raised objection to the participation or inclusion of Canadians in the United Nations Middle East Emergency Force.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the ambassador of the Soviet Union
November 1, 1973

called on me yesterday morning to ask me to postpone for one week my visit to the Soviet Union, and at that time he told me that the Soviet Union had no objection to Canada's participation. They were concerned-and I think this is quite well known-about the balance of the force. They are very anxious to have a member of the Warsaw Pact contributing to UNEF.

[ Translation]


MANPOWER
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Considering that the unemployment rate in Canada was 6 per cent during September, does he intend to announce very shortly the launching of a comprehensive winter works program to fight unemployment?
[ English]


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we already have in play a winter works program which will involve about $275 million worth of capital works this year. In addition, my colleague the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has advanced a program of local initiatives projects, and there are other labour intensive matters in play.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence and deals with non-productive spending by his department. I ask the minister whether he intends to continue paying taxpayers' dollars for the repair of armouries which are in the process of being negotiated with municipalities. My question arises from the fact that the Guelph armoury is in the process of being bought by the municipality and will likely be demolished, yet contracts for repair work are proceeding.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister might reply briefly, but this does seem to me a question that should be put on the order paper.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to look into the work being done in the specific armoury that has been mentioned.
Oral Questions PENITENTIARIES


BRITISH COLUMBIA-POSSIBLE TAKEOVER OF ADMINISTRATION BY OTTAWA-UNDERMINING OF STAFF
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In view of his statement two days ago that the director of the British Columbia penitentiary was retiring and certain other improvements would take place, and in view of his statement yesterday that directives had gone out from Ottawa to the penitentiary, would the minister advise the House whether his office in Ottawa is taking over the administration of the British Columbia penitentiary?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not, but we are trying to follow up on certain matters at the British Columbia penitentiary, and hope that we can, with the director of the penitentiary and the regional director, return that institution to normalcy as soon as possible.


John Douglas Reynolds: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister believe that by making directives in Ottawa he is undermining the staff of the penitentiaries?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is an argument, not a question.


NEW WESTMINSTER AND MATSQUI-ALLEGED HOSTILITY OF STAFF TOWARDS INMATES AND VISITORS
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Solicitor General. I should like to ask the hon. gentleman whether he would mind inquiring into the increasing level of hostility exhibited during the last two or three weeks on the part of wardens and staff at both Matsqui penitentiary and the B.C. penitentiary toward both inmates and visitors.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we have certainly had some difficulty at the New Westminster penitentiary, but I had no knowledge of trouble at Matsqui. I will look into it immediately and report to the hon. member.


ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Is the minister aware that one of the designers of the Economic Council of Canada's Candide computer model, and subsequently a consultant to the council having access to private information made available by several government departments was, for a time at least, a member of the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States? If not, will he make an inquiry?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly want to look into that.
26635-39 J

November 1, 1973
Oral Questions


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the large quantity of sensitive information from the Bank of Canada and from the Departments of Finance and Industry, Trade and Commerce in particular, and in view of the potential value of this information to foreign governments, does the minister intend to initiate the steps necessary to ensure that membership on the council, its staff and persons undertaking contracts for it be limited to Canadian nationals who have been subjected to security screening?


John Napier Turner: That question, Mr. Speaker, will become more relevant, of course, after I have made the inquiry into the first question asked by the hon. member.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: May I ask a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may ask a last supplementary. I will then permit two further questions before calling orders of the day.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, my brief supplementary is addressed to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister fulfil at an early date his promise of a few years ago that a day be set aside for a debate on security matters?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would have to discuss with the various House leaders what aspect of this matter they want to discuss and when. I would certainly be prepared to discuss it if the opposition used one of its many days to raise the matter.


SUGGESTED PRIORITY FOR MOVEMENT OF TOUGH AND DAMP GRAIN FROM NORTHERN ALBERTA
Mr. Dan Hollands (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact that the harvest conditions in northern Alberta have been terrible, would the minister instruct the Wheat Board to give top priority for boxcars to move the tough and damp grain out of that area?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to discuss this matter with the Canadian Wheat Board. Ordinarily, they are very much aware of such circumstances and do attempt to move grain that needs special treatment, consistent with their other needs to get grain to market.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North-Nipissing East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Would the minister inform the House what progress has been made or is being made by the renewal of discussions by the Allied Council representing 11 unions, and the management of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited with regard to a settlement of the eight week old strike of hourly rated employees of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited at Chalk River, Ontario, and Whiteshell, Manitoba?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The employees are voting on a new company offer this afternoon and we expect to have the result by tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member might ask a supplementary question, and I will then recognize the hon. member for Lincoln before calling orders of the day.


An hon. Member:: Another planted question?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, no questions of mine are planted; I am interested in labour conditions in my constituency. In view of the antagonism or personality clash that has been evident in this strike, would the Minister of Labour make appropriate representations that job security after the strike is settled will be one of the conditions of an amicable settlement in order that employees will not be penalized as a result of this strike?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Lincoln and then call orders of the day. The question period will be resumed this evening.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Kenneth J. Higson (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Transport state whether construction of an airport is being considered by his department for the Niagara peninsula, specifically in the township of West Lincoln, as an alternative site to the proposed Pickering airport or to replace the present Mount Hope airport?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the chamber is rather noisy. I should like the hon. member to repeat his question.


Kenneth James Higson: 
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member might be allowed to ask his question and the minister respond to it, after which I will attempt to call orders of the day.


Kenneth James Higson: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Transport state whether construction of an airport is being considered by his department for the Niagara peninsula, specifically in the township of West Lincoln, as an alternative site to the proposed Pickering airport or to replace the present Mount Hope airport outside of Hamilton?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it can be as a substitute to the Pickering or Mount Hope airport.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the House leader will outline the business for the next few days in the usual Thursday manner?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I propose to call second reading of the Customs Act followed by the Aircraft Registry Act, the National Parks Act, the Cooperative Credit Associations Act and on Monday, regardless of how many of those items we have cleared up on Friday, we will definitely begin the report stage of the Foreign Investment Review Act.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the House leader when we might debate the resolution in respect of our contingent to the UN peacekeeping force in the mid-east?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, following the visit of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to New York.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: When is that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Tomorrow. We will decide early in the week when to call the resolution, but on Monday we will definitely begin with the Foreign Investment Review Act, and at that time we will discuss when to call the resolution on the Middle East.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As has been done before on allotted days, may I suggest that the first four speeches by one member from each party be limited to 20 minutes and that the remaining speeches be limited to 15 minutes with no extra time. This could perhaps be made an order, as I understand there is some agreement. I would also hope that later this evening we may, in the normal way, reduce the time of speeches in view of the ministerial statement which will interrupt the proceedings.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We agree, Mr. Speaker.
[ Translation]


André-Gilles Fortin: We agree, Mr. Speaker.
Agriculture


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion made by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell). Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot) moved:: That this House deplores the government's inability to give leadership in developing and implementing comprehensive and co-ordinated agricultural policies and programs and regrets that by ill-advised and ad hoc remedies the government has weakened the over-all agricultural economy.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in putting forward this motion I feel that you and the House should be made aware of some of the chaotic conditions that exist in agriculture today. Many people in Canada feel that the agricultural economy has had a good year and is basically very sound. However good a year it has been is in spite of the government's policies, certainly not because of them.
We have had a package of short-term and harsh adjustments to the agricultural economy over the past year. They were short term because the government was running a few scant steps ahead of the demands of the consumer. These harsh actions taken by the government brought about a short-term solution but in the long run will severely hurt the consumer as they will tend to bring about greater scarcity and higher prices in the following year.
What actually have we seen? We have seen established in Canada a host of what might be termed arbitrary prices. Prices have been arrived at in the grain industry in an arbitrary manner as well as prices in the livestock industry. This is certainly true, as has been pointed out quite vividly in an editorial that appeared in the October issue of Country Guide. Let me quote briefly from that magazine:
Governments can impose arbitrary pricing methods but, when mistakes are made by those doing the pricing, the farmer must pay for them. Worse still, arbitrary pricing can keep producers in the dark about market demand and prices, isolate them from the market and leave them with little choice but to devote more of their time to fighting political battles rather than managing their farms.
That certainly has been the case this past year. In any farm publication you pick up, be it the Western Producer, the Winnipeg Free Press or the Manitoba Co-operator, you will find the question asked, what is the price of this commodity and what is the effect of government policy going to be? An editorial in the Manitoba Co-operator of October 25 deals with six possible prices for barley in that province and suggests that the farmer is wondering what price he can expect to receive on the market for his grain.

November 1, 1973
Agriculture
Recently representatives of world grain growers and consumers of grain met in Winnipeg at the urging of the Canada Grains Council in an attempt, as Mr. Dever suggested, to bring about a greater degree of confidence in the industry on the part of producers. I quote briefly from an article which appeared in the Financial Post of October 20:
The industry is distrustful, especially producers. We could have used more barley and rapeseed this year . ..
But growers are reluctant to accept advice. We now have to foster more confidence that the advice is the best available at the time it is given ...
What has destroyed that confidence is the system of abrupt and arbitrary pricing in the grain and livestock industries, which will eventually bring about higher food prices next year. Certainly we now have high world prices for our grain, with wheat at $5 a bushel. There was an adjustment last fall when a ceiling was put on the price that Canadian millers have to pay, with a resulting subsidy, some suggest about 70 per cent, to the Canadian consumer.
What effect will these subsidies eventually have on the Canadian market? I suggest they will bring about a lowering in the production of grain and livestock. We have seen grain priced on the world market at over $5 a bushel; yet at the same time we have experienced a tremendous shortage in our terminals. The terminals at Vancouver and the Lakehead are nearly empty and the St. Lawrence Seaway is just about to freeze up for the winter. I suggest that we will lose certain sales because of our inability to move grain.
Not long ago during an election campaign the government accepted some advice from members on this side and purchased 2,000 additional boxcars. I suggest the government should buy more boxcars now.
An article that appeared in the Financial Post of October 27 points out quite vividly that right now there is a shortfall of some 2,000 boxcars a week for the movement of grain to either Vancouver or the Lakehead. The article goes on to state:
A Wheat Board official concedes: "We're going to be squeezed like a banana to fill our exports."
In other words, our sales commitments are there but we are not able to meet them because we have not paid enough attention to the movement of grain. No one wants to store wheat that is worth $5 a bushel. They want to sell and take advantage of the high price on the market while they can. There is no reason to believe that in the years ahead the price will continue as high as it is.
Recently Russia announced a 215 million ton crop, 16 per cent above what they expected and above the crop a year ago. The United States has had a bumper harvest this year in feed grain and other grains. So we must make every effort to meet the market conditions today in respect of the sale of wheat. The government has failed to pay sufficient attention to these facts. Both ministers in charge of agriculture have been too busy prancing about the country trying to claim credit for the high world prices instead of marketing Canadian grain in an efficient manner. We are told that marketing is very complicated in Canada today. The livestock industry for a number of years has been proud to be able to say: let the government

leave us alone and our industry will take care of itself. The government has not left it alone this year.
Last March we saw a one-sided reduction of the tariff on cattle moving into Canada from the United States in an attempt to appease consumers on a short-term basis, but that did not seem to increase the popularity of the Liberal Party across the country with the consumers. So the government then announced an embargo on the movement of cattle out of Canada. Canada traditionally has been noted as a large exporter of beef, but our price has always hinged on the availability of beef for export. The government placed an embargo on export, which caused chaos. It caused the shutdown of the marketing system throughout Canada and a drop in prices of approximately ten cents a pound. Perhaps it could be argued that the price would have come down in any event. It might have, but it would have come down gradually and farmers would not have lost huge amounts of money because of the inexperienced minister in charge of the consumers, I suppose. It was the consumer affairs department or the Minister of Trade and Commerce that announced this action.
Some time in September the government became a little concerned about the livestock industry and reimposed the tariff of one and a half per cent to equalize the movement of cattle between Canada and the United States. Today we see huge numbers of cattle coming to Canada from the United States. Thirty per cent of our kill is United States beef. We kill a little over 50,000 head a week and that means that about 17,000 head at least of United States cattle are coming on to our market.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) said in the House the other day that he had placed three different proposals before the cabinet but that he has had really little effect on the cabinet. Many good newspaper articles written about the present Minister of Agriculture say that he sounds like a farmer, talks like a farmer and must be a good Minister of Agriculture. One must do more than sound, look and talk like a farmer. One has to be able to get results and be able to sell the farmer's case to his cabinet colleagues.
There was a recent headline in The Grower, an Ontario paper-"Farm Policy a Tragic Farce". It points out that we have had three ministers tinkering with agricultural policy, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie), the Minister of Agriculture, and the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang). There is also the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). Four ministers have been tinkering with the agricultural economy. The article in the October issue of The Grower goes on to say:
In Ontario, Agriculture Minister Stewart and nationally, CDA Minister Whelan, have continually and vociferously put forward strong cases for farmers. Unfortunately, there is scant evidence that even their cabinet colleagues are listening.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We are told about a reduction in freight rates on beef coming from western Canada to Ontario. We anxiously await that and hope it will provide
November 1, 1973

some kind of buoyancy for the cattle market in the west. We hear of the possibility of an embargo being placed on United States cattle. But we do not see action.
A few short months ago many people were asking why meat is so high priced in Canada. We were told it was because the United States economy has really been devaluated something like 30 per cent or 40 per cent in the past year and our economy has been devaluated about the same in relationship to the Japanese yen, the German mark and so on and that now our beef could move into those markets. Why does the government not make an attempt to move some of the surplus beef into those markets? We are told that steak is very expensive in Europe, that it is even higher in Great Britain and that it is higher still in Japan. Why does the government not make an attempt, even if it means the subsidization of shipments? It could even pay the freight and move the beef out so that our markets could be sustained.
Why is this so important to our markets? Today feeder cattle are moving into the United States at an alarming rate. If they move there they are fed United States grain rather than Canadian grain causing less employment in Canada. Apart from that, there are fewer placements of Canadian cattle in cattle feed lots and this will bring about a sharp increase in the price of meat next year if we are not careful. If we do not encourage our feed lots to fill up this fall we are bound to have a high price for beef next year and a scant supply. A one per cent reduction in the supply of beef causes a two per cent rise in the price of beef. This is just about how it has worked in the past year and the way it will work in the future if the government does not immediately take some action to remove the chaotic situation in the grain pricing business and the cattle industry.
There are some definite steps the government could take which would immediately alleviate part of the hardship in the agricultural industry today. The feed grains policy of the minister is increasing the price of grain to western feeders by about nine cents a bushel because he arbitrarily tacks on a Wheat Board marketing cost even though much of the grain does not move through the Canadian Wheat Board. He attempts to subsidize to some extent eastern Canada. Who pays for the subsidy? The western grain producer. That subsidy should be paid out of the treasury. If it is a political decision to bring about a price for barley in eastern Canada which is less than the United States corn price, certainly the treasury should accept the cost of that political decision and not the Canadian grain farmer.
The Canada Grains Council seems to be concerned about the farmer and how he fails to listen to advice from the government and its experts. The farmer is in a strange position. He is the only man producing a commodity who does not know what the price of it is on the world market. The Wheat Board is supposed to be working for the farmer; yet it sells his product and does not tell him what he is getting for it. If the farmer could find out exactly what the world price was he would know what his commodity was worth and how much more or less of it he should grow. The old argument is that the Wheat Board cannot reveal these prices because then our competitors would know. If one has a friend who has a friend he can phone a Japanese importing company and find out what
Agriculture
Canadian barley is worth. Is it worth $3.25 today at the Lakehead? I would think it is according to my sources. But as a producer I should be told by my selling agency what my product is worth on the market. A man manufacturing automobiles or anything else knows what his commodity is worth on the world market. The farmer is supposed to remain in the dark and take the advice of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Traditionally he has learned over the years to do the opposite and by doing so he probably comes out better.
Two steps could be taken. The treasury should pay the subsidy rather than the grain farmer and the grain farmer should be told what his grain is worth on the world market. The minister has attempted to do this in his announcement that half of the final payment on barley will amount to 58 cents a bushel, but even that estimate will fluctuate from month to month. It may go down, particularly after the announcement regarding the size of the Russian crop. The minister should buy and build more boxcars and he should appoint a rail co-ordinator who would have the power and authority to direct boxcars for the movement of grain to the markets. It is a colossal shame when we read in the Financial Post that we may not be able to meet our market commitments because grain is not at the ports and we are running short of at least 2,000 boxcars a week. We need boxcars. If another election takes place soon, the minister may want to create good feeling throughout the country. If so, he should be issuing those orders right now, and a railway co-ordinator should be appointed to direct those boxcars for the use of the grain industry.
With regard to the beef industry, most people who are connected with the beef industry just hope that the government will get out and stay out. They know how to cope with the weather and with the markets, but politicians befuddle most of the men in the beef industry and make them wonder.
The government could do a number of things to deal with the chaos that exists in the beef industry. It could bring in an embargo on imports for a limited period of time. Thirty per cent of the kill is a huge kill and depresses the market badly. As I said before, it could make some effort to ship large amounts of beef to Japan or Europe. It could increase the tariff. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) spoke about some kind of freight reduction on western beef moving to central Canada. He has not come out with it yet. We are listening. People in the industry are wondering when it is coming.
There are four steps which could be taken with regard to the livestock industry which could bring back immediately some degree of confidence to the industry and at the same time would enhance the image of the minister. We are getting tired of seeing this lovable farm boy prance about the country.


Mr. Whicher:: Farmers are not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, the farmers are tired of it. Farmers are saying: let us have action. They like lovable

November 1, 1973
Agriculture
farm boys but they say: Let us see how well he will sell our case to the cabinet. That is how the last Minister of Agriculture lost his seat. He failed to sell the farmers' case to the cabinet. I would not want this to happen to the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) because he is a likeable lad. This is why I urge him today to make an effort to sell his case to the cabinet. I do not want to continue to read in farm papers that unfortunately there is scant evidence that even the minister's cabinet colleagues are listening. It is very depressing to think that our lovable Minister of Agriculture has no sales ability in the cabinet. He can talk like a farmer to the farmers and they like that. He has the odd story he can tell which goes over well, but the beautiful thing about him is that his speeches are brief. Rarely does he make a long one. It is not because he does not know quite a bit about the industry, but farmers do not like longwinded politicians and they appreciate his short speeches. But he will have to start producing.


An hon. Member:: We don't appreciate long speeches either.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There is no fear of that. I am limited to 20 minutes, whether or not I might need more. The minister will have to start producing. His cabinet colleagues must be told that inflation cannot be fought by hurting the farmer. The farmer is the last person who should be hurt. I should like to read the following statement from an editorial in the Country Guide for October:
Federal government has been under tremendous pressure to do something to dampen the fires of inflation. In its frantic scramble to respond, it turned its guns on, of all groups, farmers.
This is the last thing the minister should allow his cabinet colleagues to do in the fight against inflation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, following the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) is not an easy task. He spoke about the beef industry and what we were doing. We will be meeting with the people representing the beef industry tomorrow morning in Ottawa. They have been asked to come here to discuss some suggestions or proposals that we want to discuss with them-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I hope you will talk to the whole cabinet about it.


Eugene Whelan: -before any action is taken. Let us be fair, however. If you remember, the beef industry people told me and the government to keep hands off. They thought they could cope with the situation on their own.


Some hon. Members:: You did not.


Eugene Whelan: This is what they wanted until about a week ago last Monday. We have been following the circumstances and checking with our counterparts in the United States as well as checking with the industry in Canada, the producers of beef, packing firms, etc. to find out what they thought should be done. We are ready to make proposals to the beef industry tomorrow and will do so.

Too many people have been saying that we put an embargo on beef. We did not do that. Normal marketing of beef was allowed to continue, and those who made applications for export of beef from Canada found that hardly a permit or application was refused. They were issued readily even before the United States took off their price freeze. I do not know what those who are advocating a price freeze-the party across the way has advocated quite openly a 90-day freeze-thought would happen if a freeze were imposed, but I hope they forecast something different from what has happened in the United States following the removal of the freeze.
The Secretary of Agriculture of the United States, when a price freeze was discussed, said that anybody who would impose a price freeze on food would be an idiot. Two weeks later the President of the United States put on a price freeze. The Secretary of Agriculture then stated that he and the President had agreed and that when the President made a decision he always agreed with him. However, the price freeze caused utter chaos in the North American beef market. It disrupted the normal patterns of trading.
We took off our tariff on beef in the spring. We discussed this with our U.S. counterparts at that time, and I think they fully intended to remove their tariff. But they did not. This was a disappointment to us because we would have liked to see the free-flowing market continue. It was disrupted by their action much more than by ours. Recently I heard that one U.S. official who spoke in Canada said that when Canadians make a proposal about removing a tariff the Americans will listen. If that is so, they did not hear very well because we did take off the tariff but they did not remove theirs.
Many people are not aware that we have a low tariff or no tariff on many of the commodities that come into Canada while the United States has tariffs on products going into their country. Let us take corn as an example. We have an 8 per cent tariff on corn coming into our country while they have a 25 per cent tariff on corn going into the United States. Soybeans enter Canada free of tariff, while soybeans going into the United States have a 60 cents a bushel tariff. So they are not the freetraders some people think they are.
The fact that some hon. members do not know what the government agricultural policy is does not mean there is no policy. Some hon. members do not understand agriculture and farming well enough to recognize a good policy when they see one. Agriculture is the most important single industry in the entire nation and it is one of the most successful. It became successful as a result of the fact that the policies of the federal government did not stand in the way of development but made it possible for farmers today to reap the largest cash income in our history, to sell to more markets than ever before and to provide this nation with the best quality food in the entire world, and plenty of it.
Those who say there is no national policy in agriculture do not know what they are talking about. There is a national policy, and a very good one. If anyone wants to attempt to put the government's agricultural policy into a
November 1, 1973

few words I would say it is to provide the framework within which Canadian consumers can be assured of a steady supply of wholesome food at reasonable prices, and to provide farmers and the whole agricultural industry with a reasonable income comparable with that of the rest of Canadian society.
Earlier today in the House it was pointed out that I said something about what vegetarians could live on. But let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that at that same meeting a representative of a senior citizens group got up and said something very significant. Of course I was not writing it down, but it is on my tape machine.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Let's have the tape.


Eugene Whelan: The tape machine was sitting on top of the desk so everyone could see it. I do this so that I know what I said when I go home.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Do you have doubts sometimes?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: I want to tell you what this representative of a senior citizens group said. She could have said it to you, Mr. Speaker, because I know you also would have listened. She said they had a meeting among their group that day and discussed many things, and they came to the conclusion that for their money food was the best bargain they get today in the city of Toronto. She went on to explain why and she did a very good job of it. I asked if she was a Liberal and people told me they did not know, but I thought that such a well informed person would be welcome in our party. She said that when she and her husband were married in 1920 butter was 86 cents a pound and her husband's wages were less than $2 an hour. Butter today is less than 86 cents a pound and the average wage in Canada is $3.50 an hour.


An hon. Member:: And we still have a Liberal government.


Eugene Whelan: Total cash income for farmers is higher today than it has ever been in our entire history. Net farm income is higher today than it has ever been. And both continue to improve. This has been a goal of every government, of every political stripe, since the time of Confederation. But under this government's national policy we are making solid, concrete progress.
I might add that Canada has been doing a better job than any other nation in the world, and doing it without putting farmers on welfare and without turning agriculture into a public utility.
The number of profitable family farms has been increasing, not decreasing as many people think. In 1966 there were about 95,000 family farms in Canada selling more than $10,000 worth of food. By 1971 the number increased to more than 113,000 family farms selling more than $10,000 worth of food. I am positive that the figures for 1972 and 1973, when they are gathered, will show an even sharper increase in the number of profitable family farms. I think it would be safe to guess, in fact it would be a very
Agriculture
conservative guess, that the figure would reach 175,000 family farms.
Canada's food production has kept on increasing even though the acreage that farmers work has held about steady, at around 170 million to 174 million acres for more than 30 years. The acreage has changed hardly at all but production has increased steadily.
When this government took over, farm exports were falling and we were losing markets all over the world. The government's national farm policies have turned that situation right around and our farm exports are increasing. Canada's record is one of the best in the world, much better than the United States even with its highly publicized grain sales of last year.
In 1960 Canada's agricultural exports were about $900 million. In 1970 they were up to $1,993 million. In 1972 they kept on going up to over $2 billion, and there is no doubt that they will be higher again in 1973. That is performance under a policy that brings concrete results where it matters, in the farmer's pocketbook and in the active, healthy expansion of the related supply and processing industries.
In 1971 exports alone amounted to $5,443 for every single farm in all of Canada-big farms, small farms, hobby farms, all kinds of farms. If you count only commercial farms the ones with sales of more than $10,000 a year, exports amounted to more than $17,600 per farm.
I picked the figures leading up to 1971 on purpose because they show what was happening before the world got into the present international monetary mess, before the price of food started to increase on world markets, and before there was a worldwide tightening of food supplies. They show that Canada's farmers, under the national policies of the government, were taking every advantage of their position as the world's most efficient, the world's most productive, the world's best farmers. Canada's farmers did not get to be the most efficient, the most productive, and the best in the world simply by chance. They did it with the help of our national farm policies.
The role of the federal government, as this government sees it, is to provide the services and the laws that Canadian agriculture and Canadian farmers need to do their job. The role of the federal government is not to do that which farmers and the agricultural industry can do for themselves and do very well. That should be left, as I have said, to the farmers themselves. The role of the federal government is to do those things that the agricultural industry and farmers cannot do for themselves.
This government has used its role to provide our farmers, and our agricultural industry, with the opportunity to earn a level of income that is at least equal to that of everybody else in our society and our economy. But now that we are making reasonable, decent gains in this direction, there are some hon. members who want to take that away again by unwarranted intervention to force food prices down again, to drive our agricultural industry into poverty and our farmers into the backwash of society once more.
Let me warn this House, Mr. Speaker, that today's farmer-businessman will not stand for it, that he will get out of farming and put his money elsewhere. Only those who cannot afford to move out will be left to carry the burden
7434

November 1, 1973
Agriculture
of food production for the nation. That is no way to guarantee ample supplies of good food to consumers.
Agriculture is the most important industry in all of Canada. It is also one of the most complex. There are many different types of products. There are many different types of markets for the same product. And there are many different regions, each with different production problems. When one considers our climatic conditions from coast to coast it does not take much imagination to understand what I am saying. It is obvious that no one-track policy will do a proper job for our agricultural industry and for our farmers. You cannot do the job with one single stroke of the pen when you have ten provincial departments of agriculture with ten different agricultural policies for farmers.
I am going to spell out our policy as simply as I can so that all hon. members will understand our national policy and see that there is a co-ordinated national farm policy.
First, Mr. Speaker, we have policies and programs to assist in the adjustment and development of effective family farms. The Farm Credit Corporation provides the money so farmers can invest to develop profitable family farms. The Farm Credit Corporation has been so successful that it has become the No. 1 source of long-term credit for farmers in Canada. We have kept the interest rate on Farm Credit Corporation loans at 7 per cent. The Farm Credit Corporation has been so successful that people do not look anywhere else for credit but go to their FCC credit adviser first. Only then, if they cannot get the money there, do they go somewhere else.
The small farm development program was planned by the federal government, and today is operating in every province except Newfoundland. This program has been tailormade to fit the different circumstances in each province, and we have federal-provincial agreements and federal-provincial co-operation. We have had that this year, or since November 27, 1972, when I became minister. I have recognized what I know is real, true co-operation, and so far as I am concerned we have had it from most of the provinces.
The amount of loans made by the Farm Credit Corporation in the last four months-and this is the trend in agriculture and I hope it continues-shows that young people now have more confidence in agriculture than they have had for a long time because 40 per cent of the loans have been made to farmers under 26 years of age. The small farm development program helps family farms to develop to the reasonable profit point and it helps other farmers now trapped on their small farms to retire with dignity or to get a better paying job. Nobody is forced out of business. Only those farmers who want to quit or want to retire get help. That is what the program is for, so that they can retire in dignity or get a change of occupation.
Through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion the government has also provided help through programs such as community pastures, reforestation, and substantial help to set up processing and marketing companies in rural areas. The results are plain to see in areas where this has taken place. Production increases locally to supply the new industries.

The second grouping of policies and programs helps agriculture and farmers to meet unusual market situations and heads off pressures that would disrupt the industry by forcing farmers and entire regions into bankruptcy. The main policies and programs that fall under this heading are those connected with the Agricultural Stabilization Board, the Agricultural Products Board and our national marketing legislation. The Agricultural Stabilization Board offers farmers price stability. The Agricultural Products Board offers market stability by handling temporary surpluses. Furthermore, we have taken the leadership and' have invited the provinces to develop jointly even better price and income stabilization programs. We did this in September and it had never been done before. The provincial ministers of agriculture were impressed. The minister from Ontario, who has been longest in office, said that he had never attended a meeting that had given him the impression the federal government was really concerned about doing something about agriculture. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that they all agreed with our philosophy on what should be done to stabilize agriculture in Canada.
Marketing legislation provides help for co-operatives so that they can, for example, pay farmers an initial price. This is the first time in the history of my department that there has been a special group to work with farm co-operatives. Marketing legislation has been provided so farmers can set up national marketing agencies. Crucial market information is provided by the department through regular reports such as the weekly livestock report, the daily potato report, the weekly fruit and vegetable report and so on. This government has provided leadership and money to help agriculture and farmers to find and sell to new and larger markets both inside Canada and abroad by providing a $10 million fund.
The third broad grouping of programs and policies covers our efforts to help agriculture and farmers expand markets and improve marketing. I have already mentioned the national marketing legislation and some of our market development work. But one of the most important things this government does to promote markets is to set up and run some of the world's best grading, inspection, health and sanitary programs and policies. Because of this government's policies and programs and the dedicated work of the staff of the Canada Department of Agriculture, we have the healthiest livestock in the world, we have the highest quality products in the world, and we have access to more markets than any other nation in the world. And we do not stand pat on our record but are continually improving our standards and our performance. This government provides agriculture and farmers with market information on a daily, weekly, monthly and annual basis.
The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) mentioned the monitoring of feed grain prices and I am sure someone else will refer to it later. I was in western Canada for four days last week and I talked to many farmers there. No matter what the hon. member for Crowfoot or anybody else says, I think it is my duty to talk to farmers and to listen to them. After every meeting I have with them there is a question period and I listen to what they think the Canada Department of Agriculture should do and what they think the government of Canada should do. I just cannot take what members of the opposition tell me, Mr. November 1, 1973

Speaker; I want to hear for myself and I will continue to do that. I only accept about one-tenth of the invitations I receive from farm organizations and I attend these meetings on Wednesday or Friday night or the weekend. Rarely do I ever miss a day in the House or in my office. The time is not sacrificed from my job or in the House of Commons; it is sacrificed by my family which is probably not proper. I challenge anyone to put their record in the House or their duty as a member of parliament against mine.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: I might say, too, that I use the government plane and that every time I do I will take guests with me. I will take other Canadians with me to see what other parts of Canada are like so they can understand the position of agriculture in relation to the whole nation.
Every three months the Canada Department of Agriculture prepares factual information and outlook material and provides this information to the industry and to farmers. It is impossible to provide completely accurate forecasts in agriculture. For instance, no one forecast what was going to happen to agriculture this year. No one, not the greatest adviser in the United States or in Canada, not one of them told us what was going to happen.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I hope something constructive comes out of this discussion today. As Minister of Agriculture I will be the first one to recognize it and put it into force. All I can say is that from past performance in this place and in the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and I will just use the instance of the little crop insurance bill


An hon. Member:: That is the only bill.


Eugene Whelan: That may be the only bill, Mr. Speaker, but any bill that took longer than that would take two years to get through.


An hon. Member:: Try it!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has just said that no one could have foreseen what was going to happen to agriculture in the last year or in the last six months. What he is actually saying is that in agriculture we are in a similar situation to that in which we find ourselves with regard to energy, that there has not been a long-term program. As is charged in the motion, agriculture has been dealt with only by short-term programs. The farmer, like the government, was caught flatfooted when trying to deal with a situation without real confidence in the future. Mr. Speaker, we need confidence if we are going to discharge our responsibilities to the people of Canada.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) can go about the country saying that we have cheap food if he wishes but he has not convinced the consumer of that. He has not even convinced his own colleagues because the government has set up a Food Prices Review Board to find out what is wrong with the cost of food in this country. The minister says that he is to meet tomorrow with the beef producers. I hope he also meets with other people involved
Agriculture
in the industry. I hope he is going to do a thorough job so he can come back to the House with a policy for the red meat industry that will bring some confidence to it. In my province, the provincial government had to pay a price support for hogs to ensure the maintenance of a decent level of hog production. That is a role that the Federal government should be fulfilling. The government ever since the second world war has had the responsibility for an agricultural prices support program.
Let me return to beef. What is the government's record? I say that its record is shabby and unco-ordinated. Unilaterally it took off the tariff on beef coming into Canada. It did not obtain any assurances in exchange for removing the tariff. It just took it off unilaterally. People in the cattle producing business said the government was wrong. We said it was wrong, but that made no difference. Next we witnessed an embargo which the Minister of Agriculture said was not an embargo. Everybody else understood that it was an embargo but he said it was not. If it was not am embargo, why did he impose it? Whom was he kidding? Whom was he fooling? His actions only contributed to the confusion of the industry. Later he reinstated the three cent tariff. Apparently he also got rid of the embargo.
Let me tell the minister that the western producers want to know what the government's real policy is. They have seen beef prices fall from $60 a hundred to $44. That is quite a spread. There is no significant support price. The minister says that he cannot get appropriate legislation through the House. I say that if he were to bring legislation before the House that would provide up to date support prices, it would receive passage. The price support legislation on the statute books is hopelessly out of date. The support price based on 80 per cent of the average price in the previous ten years is useless considering the present rate of inflation of 4 to 5 per cent per year. You do not need to be a mathematician with a slide rule to figure out that a support price based on that kind of theory will not be anywhere near the actual prices in effect. In view of this lack of policy and lack of realistic support prices, agricultural producers are wondering where they are to go from here.
The Minister of Agriculture is also responsible for making sure that Canadian consumers have available adequate supplies of food at reasonable prices which will return to the farmer at least his cost of production. Notwithstanding this responsibility, one year ago we imported 27 million pounds of butter. I wonder how many million pounds we will import this year. I wonder how many pounds of New Zealand lamb we will import, assuming New Zealanders have the lamb and want to send it to this country. I wonder if the government will reinstate a support price for wool that will encourage wool production in Canada, assure a stable market for wool and make sure that we do not pay through the nose for the wool that is necessary for the suits and other clothes we wear every day. When will the government do that?
The minister can stand up and tell us what a wonderful job the government is doing through the Farm Credit Corporation. Any developed country, such as Canada, that does not have a properly working agricultural credit pro-
26635-40)

November 1, 1973
Agriculture
gram is hopelessly out of date. That program is not a major achievement; it is a necessity in this day and age. Let the minister deal with the problems facing Canadians. Despite inflation that is admittedly world wide, it is the duty of the government to introduce production policies that will meet properly the needs of Canadians. That is the fact with which the government must contend. It is against this background that we must consider support programs for hogs so that farmers producing hogs will stay in business.
At the same time, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board has been disrupting and tearing apart one of the few stabilizing factors governing prairie agriculture and the western regions. While he has been in the process of tearing this apart he has been saying, "Wait until next year, when we will have a better program." Perhaps the minister should read the publication put out by some outfit in Regina which is entitled "Next Year Country".
While the minister was telling western farmers what a good deal he has in store for them, the Minister of Agriculture on October 17 was in South Mountain telling eastern farmers that they could look forward to cheap western feed grains because of the new policy the minister in charge of the Wheat Board was putting in place. The National Farmers Union Newsletter of October 22, 1973, says in part:
In the light of that blatant pitch to greed it was refreshing to hear an eastern farmer stand up and say that he wasn't interested in cheap grains at the expense of prairie farmers.
So there are the two sides to the coin. What are the facts? According to the Canadian Wheat Board announcement, as of October 22 the price of No. 3 Canada Western Red Spring Wheat for domestic feeders in Quebec, Eastern Canada and British Columbia was to be $3.41%, f.o.b. Thunder Bay. According to the Western Producer of Thursday, October 18, the selling price of No. 3 CWRS, or Red Spring Wheat, as of October 12 by the Canadian Wheat Board, at Thunder Bay, and the IWA price as supplied by Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Country Elevator Division, was $5.49Vi.


Otto Emil Lang: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, when I am through. I have only 20 minutes and I wish to continue my remarks.


Otto Emil Lang: Does the hon. member have the price for domestic wheat that day?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I was quoting.


Otto Emil Lang: The domestic price was lower.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to figures that I assume must be known to the minister's own department. These prices for No. 3 CWRS are quoted in the Star-Phoenix of October 23. I was also quoting figures carried in the Western Producer. Those indicate the prices that are quoted by the Wheat Board when selling No. 3 CWRS wheat out of Thunder Bay.


Otto Emil Lang: Give us the Wheat Board's domestic price for that day.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: The minister can stand up later and say what he wishes. I am not trying to mislead the House, as he is suggesting. I am presenting facts to the House. I am saying that the Canadian Wheat Board, under this new policy, is being required to supply 3 CWRS wheat at the lower price I have quoted at domestic points in Canada. The price available of course, is the price less the cost of moving the wheat to Thunder Bay. If you are in the prairie region the price available must take into account the cost of moving wheat to Thunder Bay. At any rate, the export price quoted is the price which the Canadian Wheat Board will receive for that grade of wheat delivered to our customers who buy it for export at Thunder Bay.
I really do not intend to labour the point, because the over-all approach of the policy is more important than the particular price. In place of a clumsy and unworkable price system which is difficult to administer and under which it has taken many weeks before a final price was arrived at, we need a marketing system that is workable and efficient and a price system under which prices can be quoted from day to day, without any question or doubt. We had such a system before the minister attacked it. The Wheat Board could deliver grain without question to those who needed it. It was in a position to guarantee supplies to those who wanted them. There is a real danger it will not be able to do this in the foreseeable future if substantial supplies are bought by the Agricultural Products Board or other purchasers outside the Wheat Board. If those other purchasers choose to buy substantial quantities, the Wheat Board will run the risk of not having supplies readily available. These possibilities concern me even more than the present inequity of pricing.
I could quote more figures. The minister will undoubtedly quote more. The minister's price systems multiply like rabbits. He has all kinds and all colours. You can take your pick. There used to be only one pricing system but the minister has many.
In answer to a question yesterday about quota system problems, the minister said he knew there were problems but once he got the grain rolling he would straighten them out. Unfortunately the block system which was developed over a period of years and was very efficient is now not working well. The minister said this in his statement yesterday.
On the north side of my constituency, the grain elevators are congested. They have been congested throughout this crop year. One quarter of the crop year is now over, and some farmers have not been able to deliver their grain. This is the kind of grain policy we have with this government.
There is one grain policy for western Canada and one for eastern Canada, the area east of the Ottawa river. No wonder the Minister of Agriculture is happy to talk to the Ontario farmers. They are one of the groups which will get the gravy. The minister says his feed policy will bring equity to all farmers in Canada. However, it will have very little to do with one of the two largest producing areas in this country, namely central, south-western and southern Ontario which produces corn, one of the major feed grains. Nothing is being done to equalize the price of

corn. There is still a tariff on corn coming into Canada from the United States. If the Minister of Agriculture wants cheap corn for eastern farmers, as he said on October 17, why does he not remove the tariff? It would be less trouble to remove the tariff than to change the policies of the Canadian Wheat Board. It would be easier and quicker. Also, it would not cost the western farmer nearly as much.
I do not know where the government thinks it is going with policies of this kind. The Minister of Agriculture says that everything is cozy in the dairy industry. However, it was reported in the paper that another cheese factory east of Ottawa is closing. A group of farmers who were delivering to that cheese factory are now going out of production. I am sure the minister reads the papers, but he still says everything is cosy in the dairy industry.
We have imported butter. When the minister was on his feet, he should have told us what single or collective action this government and the Canadian Dairy Commission took in the past 12 months to ensure sufficient production of butterfat and milk proteins to meet the needs of the Canadian people and any demands for export. He did not tell us that because he and his government have not done a thing. They sit there shivering, worrying about the threat of inflation and fearing that if they give some real incentive to the farmer his production will rise again. Therefore they do not do anything in some of these important areas.
I think the five cents a quart subsidy to the consumer is good. Maybe some day the minister will tell us what the new dairy policy is to ensure the supply of sufficient dairy products for the Canadian people. After the minister meets with the beef people, maybe he can meet with the dairy commission and the dairy people with regard to boosting dairy production.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has now expired.
[ Translation]


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak on the opposition motion moved by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) and which reads as follows:
This House deplores the government's inability to give leadership in developing and implementing comprehensive and coordinated agricultural policies and programs and regrets that by ill-advised and ad hoc remedies the government has weakened the overall agricultural economy.
Since I do not have much time, hardly twenty minutes, I shall merely develop two points I wish to raise in the House. I heard the minister say that the department was trying to be fair to all parts of Canada and was working for the future of agriculture, but I shall give him examples of the type of justice that our legislation often bring about, not because of its provisions but because of the way they are implemented.
I shall first consider our farm improvement loans legislation. The 28th annual report for the year 1972 has just been published. Here is what it says:
The Farm Improvement Loans Act came into force in March, 1945 for an initial period of three years and was subsequently
Agriculture
amended from time to time to provide additional lending periods and widen its scope of operation.
The purpose of the legislation is to facilitate the availability of intermediate term and short term credit to farmers for the improvement or development of farms and for the improvement of living conditions thereon.
All of this is very nice. The report continues:
The main purposes for which Farm Improvement Loans could be made during the year under review were:
-purchase of agricultural implements, new and used;
-the construction, repair or alteration of farm buildings;
[DOT]-the purchase of livestock;
-the purchase of additional farm land;
-general works for the improvement...
When one reads this report, one becomes aware of discrimination against Quebec farmers. Although the government has been fighting for many years to remove regional disparities, I think that, in the area of agriculture, this bill does not sufficiently take regional disparities into account.
Let us consider loans for instance. On page 10, the heading of Table 3 is the following: "Loans Classified by Provinces and Purposes". For the information of hon. members, British Columbia has granted 1,584 loans; Alberta, 16,992; Saskatchewan, 18,340; Manitoba, 6,146; Ontario 8,703 and Quebec 282.


Mr. Corriveau:: The figures for the province of Quebec are not right.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says the figures for the province of Quebec are not right. Never mind that.


An hon. Member:: This is true.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: We all know the Farm Credit Corporation of Quebec, and I for one know something about it. Then, neither the federal government nor the Quebec government grant loans to farmers-


An hon. Member:: Our farmers are too rich.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Are our farmers too rich? Far from it. Let us examine the situation more closely. Saskatchewan was granted 18,340 loans but only 282 were granted to Quebec. Quebec farmers cannot be indefinitely laughed at. We wonder why they are rebelling. The situation has been going on for 10 years-


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: How many applications for loans were made?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: The member for Laval is asking how many applications were made. I will answer him, because I have done much work in that field; applications were filed, but they were never accepted. Applications are not accepted. That is why I say that the law is good, but that its implementation is bad; I do not know whether that depends on the men in power or the present staff but we still cannot... I have been trying for two years now to get a loan for a farmer who has 150 slaughter

November 1, 1973
Agriculture
cows, but he cannot get even a small loan. Inquiries after inquiries are made and all kinds of reasons are given; he has been a farmer for 42 years, he has three farm lands but he cannot get $5,000. There should be a limit, Mr. Speaker, to people being laughed at, to Quebec farmers' being the laughing-stock.
Let us look at another table, concerning improvement works. Shed and farm building repairs. In Alberta, 450 loans were granted; in Saskatchewan, 500; in Quebec, 24. As regards repairs and improvement works, it is the same thing, the same ratio: 218 against 19; in works concerning fences and drainage, in Alberta, 149 loans were granted; in Saskatchewan, 78, in Quebec, none. I know they still get small loans in Quebec but I simply want to emphasize the discrimination shown there.


Marcel-Claude Roy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


Marcel-Claude Roy: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have only 20 minutes at my disposal and I intend to use all the time allotted to me. Then if I have some time left, I will reply to the hon. member.
I will permit him to ask me questions.
I have only 20 minutes, and moreover-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. If I do not misunderstand the remarks of the hon. member for Roberval, I do not think he is prepared to accept a question, and this is his right and his privilege. The hon. member for Roberval.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: The minister of course is not aware of that, because if he were he would no longer let such things happen again. He would look more closely at that. I have myself worked with farmers to help them get loans, and I have been staggered. I was wondering why those loans were refused. Some will say: the farmers should borrow from the provincial government. But provincial government loans are not big enough and when farmers want bigger loans, they have to apply to the federal government. All things considered, they do not succeed at all in getting loans. And that is precisely why I wanted to draw the department's attention on this famous Farm Improvement Loans Act. Let no one tell me that fairy tale that we can get loans in Quebec. That does not help our big farmers who want to get organized and make progress, because I no longer believe in Quebec or in those loans.
The people in their-


Léopold Corriveau: Oh, oh! So you no longer believe in Quebec!


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: They can say oh, oh! all they want. We must not forget that my region has lost 42 per cent of its farmers in the last ten years and we should now

make both governments aware of the fact. In all fairness, something must be done to save the farmer.
Another point I want to raise is that of feed grains. Everyone knows that the East, particularly Quebec, is in absolute need of feed grains to compete with other farming areas and ensure its animal production of beef, hog and poultry. One does not need to have much imagination to see that. Earlier I heard the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) say: If we can get good prices this year, that is all we want, and the hell with the rest! That same hon. member wants to line his pockets during the good years without any consideration for other areas in Canada. Canada is not only the province of Quebec but it is not only the western provinces neither. Canada is all of the provinces. There is no room for that kind of reasoning. It is not reasonable to say: We will line our pockets as much as we can.
Judging from what some people say, the East and the West are two different countries. There is a price war going on between the two. Yet, we know that the central government is supposed to be there to ensure justice and balance. Westerners are taking advantage of the good years to get the highest prices possible at the expense of the East as a whole, including the province of Quebec, but come the bad yars they will be very glad to see the eastern provinces help them out with their taxes.
When they have a surpluses let them think about the eastern provinces which are faithful and regular customers.
I would like to quote from a column published in La Presse following a meeting of the Quebec Agricultural Producers' Union. It says: The West is destroying the competitive position of Quebec farmers in collusion with the federal government, in collusion with federal ministers. For the last 30, 50 years federal ministers have always been Westerners. Let us have from time to time a minister from Quebec, so that he may talk on behalf of the Quebec government. I do not blame the present minister, because I know him very well and he is one of the most honest. But in our province, people ask us: When are you going to appoint a federal minister from Quebec so he may talk on behalf of the eastern provinces? I think time has come to wake up, to think, to bring back equity.
The president of the Farm Producers' Union wrote the following: for the past 30 years, Quebec agriculture has been dependent on the mood of the heads of the Canadian Wheat Board which is in Winnipeg. And I would add that it is more powerful than this government. Quebec has always feared that the monopolistic powers of that board jeopardize the growth of agriculture in la Belle Province. But what happened during the 1969-71 period shows that the concern of Quebec farmers was grounded since production of goods such as eggs, hog, poultry has moved west over that period. In hog production alone during that period, production went up by more than 80 per cent in the west, while it increased by only 10 per cent in Quebec. These figures show that feed grains are an important factor in this area, for they are essential to egg, hog and poultry production.
We want to make two points here: the first, brought forward by the west, is that the increase results from the comparative advantages of the west; the second, made by
November 1, 1973

Quebec, is that the monopoly given by the Federal Wheat Board distorts healthy interregional competition and destroys the competitive position of the whole Quebec food chain.
The west suggests that it has clear advantages over Quebec as regards soil, space, production techniques and better-adapted structures.
In other words, the comparative advantages are the basis for the specialization of an area or a country in a given type of production. Furthermore, the areas exchange their products and this business is beneficial to all partners. In this context, the province of Quebec could move towards the production of industrial goods and the western provinces, towards agricultural production.
If we are going to quibble and be discriminatory, let us agree once and for all and tell the west: feed Canada and we will direct our efforts toward the industrial area. Basically, the president of the FPU was not wrong.
If we accept this theory as a whole, we neglect all the human and historical aspects and even some economic aspects of a society. Having analysed the arguments of Quebec, we will see why this theory of comparative advantages is unacceptable as far as feed grains are concerned.
Quebec maintains that the increase of 80 per cent recorded over two years in the west is not the result of comparative advantages but rather of the fact that the west has the power, thanks to federal support, and this is important, to move soilless productions westward.
To understand the problem quite well, let us say that the main point in this debate should be the cost of transportation of grains compared with that of meat products. There are two possibilities for Canadian agriculture: either we transport to the east the grain produced in the west and cattle is produced around big consumption centres, or cattle production is done in the west and meat products and eggs are transported to big consumption centres represented by Toronto and Montreal.
The selection of the production site for meat in this case would be based solely on the cost of transportation.
For example, let us take hog production as an illustration. In the east as in the west, the production of a hog requires about 650 pounds of barley or 13.5 bushels. In 1971, the cost of barley to produce a hog was $10.07. To understand how those two regions are more or less acutely competing, one must know how the two products are competing on the Montreal market, while supposing that only the feeding and slaughtering costs are considered. For the product in Montreal, it is supposed that the transportation cost is minimal and we reach a price of $18.22.
In the western provinces at $10.07 a hog, $4.13 transportation expenses should be added for a total of $14.20. Under such circumstances, westerners suggest they enjoy a comparative advantage of $4 per hog. What is actually happening?
What Westerners call "comparative advantage" is only pure and simple exploitation of Quebecers to the benefit of Westerners allowed by the supposedly national government of Ottawa. Here is why.
Agriculture
Let us ask the following question: If Quebec had been fairly treated, who would enjoy comparative advantages? Under perfect competition the products may be moved freely and prices of raw materials are determined only by supply and demand.
We should have been paying barley at the same price as western farmers, namely 75$ a bushel or $10.07 for the total amount required to feed a hog. To those $10.07 you might add the regular transportation and handling expenses, less the transportation grant, namely 30$ a bushel or $4.05 per hog, and this means for hog that under perfectly balanced competitive conditions Quebec would enjoy a comparative advantage of 8$. That is exactly what was stated at the beginning of the article: the comparative advantages can be studied, provided all things remain equal. Therefore, the Canadian Wheat Board is distorting the entire competition system which should exist in Canada.
Since the beginning, we have been referring only to past events, but how was the grain problem in May 1973? The difference was exactly 29 cents a bushel, which means that western provinces will enjoy a comparative advantage of 29 cents for a bushel of barley, in their own language, but in legal terms, Quebecers were swindled. Bank robbers are convicted, but those who rob farmers are encouraged.
Mr. Speaker, I see that you are going to call me to order. I would still have a lot to say, but I will come back on the matter later.


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate on agriculture in general. It was interesting to note when listening to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), and I have said this before in the House, that he makes a reasonably good speech when he addresses farm meetings-I have heard him once or twice-but makes a lousy speech in the House of Commons. He demonstrated that once again today. We have the unfortunate situation of the Minister of Agriculture really speaking as a Liberal politician and not as the Minister of Agriculture for Canada, and I think this takes away a good deal of his credibility.
The minister has also demonstrated the fact that he has no new ideas. Ever since this government came into power we have listened to the same kind of agricultural speeches suggesting how good everything is and how the present government is responsible for the high prices we receive for our products at this time. Of course, that is not true, and with the Minister of Agriculture it is virtually nonsense.
In his speech the minister took credit for existing agricultural conditions but failed to mention the tremendous increase in the demand for agricultural products all over the world. The minister of course, has had nothing whatsoever to do with this. In fact, some of the short-term policies of this government has hampered this situation. The minister also failed to mention the fact that the devaluation of the dollar has spurred to quite an extent the demand for food products not only in Canada but also in the United States.

November 1, 1973
Agriculture
I believe I have only 15 minutes, Mr. Speaker. If that is the case I should like to touch rather briefly on two points that I feel are important. The Minister of Agriculture alluded to the fact that the Farm Credit Corporation at the present time is going great guns. He mentioned that it was making more loans and satisfying more farmers. He suggested that there really is nothing wrong with it at this time. This kind of statement really places a question mark in most people's minds, because we all know nothing is so good as not to need change. I believe it is a fallacy for someone to suggest that no changes are ever needed. When one does so he is not only deceiving himself but also the people of the country. The Farm Credit Corporation is in need of changes. In certain segments it does not respond at times to the wants and needs of the farmers.
I should like to depart slightly from the speech of the Minister of Agriculture and try to outline briefly some of the things we believe might be helpful in respect of revising and improving the Farm Credit Corporation. We feel that part-time farmers should be allowed to qualify for farm credit and farm improvement loans where it can be demonstrated that the borrower has both the intention and the ability to become a full-time farmer. At the present time this is not the case. We should also like to see the Farm Credit Corporation used, at the discretion of the minister, in cases of partial non-payment of a farm mortgage where disaster strikes a crop in a specific area. We have seen such situations in the past year and a half. There have been specific instances where through no fault of their own agricultural producers have been almost forced off the land. I should also like to see a provision to make deferred interest payments on loans possible during the initial period, especially in respect of young farmers. This is a very important point. I certainly hope the minister will consider that thought, although I realize he has indicated that everything in respect of the Farm Credit Corporation is rosy.


Eugene Whelan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not indicate that. We are drafting new legislation and if the hon. member has anything to contribute I would be glad to hear it.


Jack Burnett Murta: That is not a point of order. This interruption is an indication of another thing we notice about this minister. He is very touchy. The fact is that when anyone tries to criticize the minister-


Eugene Whelan: He responds.


Jack Burnett Murta: -he responds and strikes out. The minister says he is drafting farm credit legislation. We will see, if and when it is drafted, whether or not the Minister of Agriculture has taken any heed of the points put forward by the opposition in the debate today.
We would also like to see a system of open-ended mortgages for farmers to make possible additional borrowing without refinancing and new security. From all our observations and discussions across the country we feel this is another area in which the Farm Credit Corporation could play a far greater role in agriculture.

The second point on which I should like to touch concerns feed grains and the marketing of feed grains. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) touched on it very briefly. At the present time we have a feed grains policy brought in by the government that is almost an impossibility because the majority of the people, except the few the minister responsible for the Wheat Board spoke to at his meeting, do not really understand the policy. It is a system under which at last count there were, I think, four or five barley prices including those of the provincial governments.
The situation is very mixed up and confused so far as feed grain marketing is concerned. I think this brings out the point that any government that tries to tinker with the basic premise of supply and demand will find itself in a very difficult position and one which is hard to explain to the farmers of western Canada. The situation is most confused and the road ahead is less clear than it was before the minister set out in the early part of August to solve, as he said, the feed grains problem. More than anything else, I believe the events so far illustrate that no pricing system can be workable, let alone fair, unless prices are allowed to find their own level in actual commercial transactions. I believe it is impossible for any arbitrary plan or paper formula to anticipate every possible effect and side effect, incidental or deliberate.
The new policy was worked out very laboriously and in some detail. It will succeed or fail because of influences which were not even imagined back in August before the blueprint for this policy was drawn up. I think this should be a lesson to all government planners, certainly those in the minister's department, who fill in the fine detail of any governmental program of this kind. It should be plain to them that any price not arrived at in a completely free market will be an artificial price and that artificial prices will not satisfy all parties to any transaction and certainly will not satisfy provincial politicians. I think it should also be a lesson to the minister, if he thinks he really can have his cake and eat it too by having a semi-regulated system which preserves the Wheat Board role to pacify pro-board forces and seeks to eliminate at the same time the anomalies inevitably associated with Wheat Board control. Finally, I think it should be a lesson to those who will vote in the upcoming rapeseed plebescite because this is a very important topic, certainly in western Canada.
I believe the whole situation in respect of feed grain prices and the mix-up in which the Minister of Agriculture fines himself, resulting in his having to go and try to explain his policy personally to the farmers in western Canada, illustrates that imposing a brand new system designed in some office on an existing market causes far more trouble than it eliminates. Hopefully, we will see a far more realistic result from the vote on the rapeseed plebescite in December.
I see my time is running out, Mr. Speaker, I shall not belabour the point any longer. It certainly has been demonstrated that agriculture has come a long way. It is about time it did. However, this has been because of external forces which have played a great role in respect of the increase in farm incomes. I believe it is dishonest for the Minister of Agriculture to take the credit in this area as he does time and time again in his speeches. I
November 1, 1973

think the rural population of Canada will judge him accordingly when there is another election.
[ Translation]


Léopold Corriveau: Mr. Speaker, I think it is my duty at this stage to try and explain a few things to the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier). He referred to statistics a moment ago, and I feel that these figures go back to 1914 or that he is absolutely not aware of farm credits of the federal government. I would like to quote figures and I will be pleased to give him afterwards the documents where they come from.
On January 12, 1973, long-term mortgage loans granted by the Farm Credit Corporation were distributed in the following way: British Columbia got 175 loans for an amount of $8,300,000; Alberta received 788 loans for an amount of $27,436,000; Saskatchewan got 1,590 loans for an amount of $51,139,000; Manitoba received 425 loans for an amount of $13,398,000; and Ontario got 1,128 loans for an amount of $41,613,000.
May I draw the hon. member's attention on the fact that the province of Quebec received 666 loans for an amount of $21,232,000, an increase of 44.2 per cent for the first nine months of the year. I would , like to quote more recent figures, that is to say those of April 9. I would like to repeat the same things about other provinces, for people will be able to see the difference.
Quebec received 862 loans for $21,968,000, an increase of 48 per cent over last year.
Mr. Speaker, I thought it was my duty to quote these statistics and if the hon. member for Roberval wants to check them I will be pleased to give them to him. These are official statistics.
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has drawn up a number of programs to subsidize agriculture which have greatly contributed to make foodstuffs as cheap as they are today in Canada. I do not intend to name them all but allow me to simply give a few examples.
The government of Canada was the first to set up an agricultural food research institute, a fact that is too often taken for granted in this country. Research enabled our farmers to stay at the top not only in terms of production but also in terms of quality. The research stations represent only part of the overall research effort. The Farm Credit Corporation has become the main long term source of financing for the improvement and development of agriculture. The federal-provincial agreements under ARDA were the most important individual programs designed to update and improve the structure of rural communities and agriculture in many areas.
The federal-provincial crop insurance programs have helped to offset crop risks. The government brought in amendments to this act in order to increase its contribution to the premiums from 25 to 50 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture introduced Bill C-129, an Act to amend the Crop Insurance Act, which received royal assent in September. It provides for a new method of sharing the costs of crop insurance between the
Agriculture
federal and provincial governments, so that the farmers of every province will now only pay 50 per cent of the required premiums.
Several reasons prompted the government to introduce that bill. First, it wanted to make premium costs uniform for all Canadian farmers. Now, thanks to our proposal, farmers will all pay the same premiums and the federal government contribution to the program will be more equitable. It wanted also to urge the provinces to increase their efforts to make the program readily available to all farmers. Thanks to our proposal, as the provinces share of crop insurance costs increases, the cost to the federal government will increase faster than that of the provinces.
For its part, the federal government has taken the necessary steps to help the farm industry build itself a better and more secure future.
We have raised taxes on capital gains on the transfer of farms from one generation to the next. This is a great advantage for family farms which are the best type of operations we have in Canada.
We have proposed amendments to the Crop Insurance Act in order to help farmers offset losses of income because of ruined crops.
Through the Small Farm Development Program, we have helped Canadian farmers make their family farm operations more profitable.
We have raised the ceiling of farm loans granted by the Farm Credit Corporation and the Senate has approved the increase of the ceiling on loans granted under the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
We have also passed a measure to enable the farmers to set up national marketing boards. A well managed agency will benefit the producers as well as the consumers by ensuring more stability and more efficiency in marketing.
The farmers have set up for themselves one of the most efficient production systems in the world.
The Canadian government has also helped the farmers to establish their own marketing systems.
The farmers own a large part of the wheat handling and storing facilities in western Canada, and they also own one of the most important milk processing plants, the most modern and most efficient in all Canada.
They have set up about 120 provincial marketing agencies and this year, the first national marketing board for eggs, and they are discussing the establishment on a national basis of the marketing of poultry.
Farmers have taken the initiative in Canada and, without any substantial grant or excessive import control, they have set up modern, effective and competitive marketing procedures.
The Department of Agriculture is granting loans to farmers for the improvement and development of their operations.
In the small farms consolidation legislation, we offer special assistance to farmers who decide to leave the farm, either to retire or to take another type of employment. There are also federal-provincial special assistance programs for farmers in certain areas.

November 1, 1973
Agriculture
Mr. Speaker, the government intends to keep on helping farmers to compete on international markets in an objective and competent way. Farmers are naturally anxious to make as much as possible of the rather privileged situation they are in with regard to several agricultural products.
I add that the Canadian Dairy Commission is always on the lookout for export markets. When the United States asked for 25 million pounds of skim milk powder, the Canadian Dairy Commission was the first one to act and immediately call for tenders. We made every effort to get that market.
Indeed, half of the American demand was met by Canada from the Commission's supplies and those currently available for trade, at an internationally competitive price.	t
That is the kind of quick action that a national marketing board can take, and it is another good reason for those who are against such board to reflect on their ability to co-ordinate the efforts for increased exports.
We want the Canadian Dairy Commission to be the best of its kind in the world. This is a considerable objective, but we accept the challenge and will do our best to meet it.
The Department of Agriculture of Canada is co-operating with provincial representatives in order to develop a better and more complete facilities inspection program.
The federal government has accomplished a lot of work on the sidelines to develop today's new markets. As regards the livestock industry, we have established a new classification system; we have developed an importation program under which we can use the best producing subjects in the world to improve our stock; we have programs to test qualifications; we have opened new markets for livestock and sperms by means of commercial agreements like the one which was recently signed with Australia.
We also offer cash subsidies to farmers who increase their fodder production. But the federal government has not solved all the problems, and it cannot do so.
We have taken a dynamic position as regards the marketing of grain, including fodder. We have rejuvenated our quota system to improve our marketing. We have introduced new and better plant varieties. We have improved our transportation system to such a point that our exports are at an all-time high.
Those are all worthy achievements that helped to improve the farmers' lot, and it is only a beginning. To rest on our laurels is absolutely out of the question. On the contrary, we are determined to keep on working even harder since we foresee other great possibilities.
But I am convinced that Canadian farmers deserve 100 per cent of our efforts. I know we shall have to be pers-everant if we want to secure and enlarge our domestic and foreign markets for the benefit of Canadian farmers.
In another field, Mr. Speaker, we established an interdepartmental committee that will study proteins.
I believe we have reached a point where we cannot afford any more to live under a system that frustrates forward-looking individuals and organizations with the

drive and the technical knowledge required to develop new products and open new markets for our farm products.
We reduced the income tax rate, and the biggest cuts benefited lower income groups.
We have reduced the customs tariffs on many items bought by farmers, including hardware and draining material.
We have reduced the customs tariffs on several food products, but we also warned farmers that we would be ready to restore them if the production of a particular product were threatened in the future.
We increased the direct subsidy for feed transportation to eastern Canada and British Columbia so as to maintain a healthy livestock industry in those areas.
We also changed the regulations concerning the export of foreign cattle with the establishment of quarantine stations, and that has created new outlets for our cattlemen.
Those are decisions already made and announced. We did even better, on the 1st of August, we introduced a new feed grain policy. The grain sector goes hand in hand with breeding, and those two branches of agriculture have bright prospects for development. The feed grain policy will be essential to the future of agriculture throughout Canada.
We have already provided the provinces with the Small Farm Development Program, which aims at helping directly the small farmers improve their future. Some provinces have already adhered to this formula of federal assistance.
We have not dared intrude in farm product marketing. We have been satisfied with passing an act which permits provinces to co-operate in the marketing process, in order to prevent a state of chaos from developing in the sale of farm products at the national level. During the past two years, the opposition used a smoke screen to prevent the establishment of national marketing agencies for farm products. Hon. members of the opposition may find it advantageous to consult and agree on a policy. We, the members of this Liberal government, know what we want and have made it known.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I must regretfully interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows;
November 1, 1973

[ English]
The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Veterans Affairs; the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett)-Immigration; the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker)-Public Service.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that there have been discussions, and I believe I can say there is agreement to postpone tonight's late show until some other night and use that extra half hour for this debate in order to get in a few more speakers. We may do other things as well, but at least there is agreement not to have the late show tonight.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would like to double-check as I understand that to the moment there is not that agreement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Three out of four parties have agreed.


Mr. McKinley:: Mr. Speaker, it would be our wish that this debate continue until 10.30 and that the late show be cancelled. It would also be our wish that later in the day we reduce the time for speeches to ten minutes because of the number of members who want to take part in the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The Chair does not see that there is unanimous consent. While hon. members carry on their discussions, and possibly reach agreement, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Middlesex.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise as a member of the House who is very concerned about what this resolution implies, namely, the inability of the government to give consistent leadership in comprehensive and co-ordinated agricultural policies and programs.
Some hon. members, and possibly even some of the public on first thought, will question the practicability of this debate when, on the surface at least, most farmers, as the saying goes, never had it so good. But, Mr. Speaker, you will notice that I said "on the surface". I mean by this that unless the farming community can be assured that they will not once again be used as political footballs, then the profit-laden path so obvious now may once again deteriorate into a quagmire of below cost of production returns. As opposition members we have a responsibility forcibly to make the government more aware of this possibility than apparently it seems to be now.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, for some time now in the House I have pursued a line of questioning expressing
Agriculture
concern about what is happening in the beef industry, which could quite easily have long-range effects on the industry and also on the consumers who, of course, are everybody. As one example, just this week I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) why a special cabinet meeting had not been called before last weekend in order to deal with the havoc to which our beef industry is being subjected at the present time. His answer was:
-cabinet meetings are called at my behest. The matter of time is one of internal administration. I call them as often as I find it necessary.
Time alone will tell if there should have been a temporary tariff placed on United States beef, both alive and dressed, entering the Canadian market. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) would also like to know the answer. Then he would not have to be guessing again about which way to move. Personally, I think such a tariff should have been imposed two weeks ago when it was quite obvious what was taking place. However, what the Prime Minister emphatically made clear in his answer to me and, more important, to the Canadian farmer, is that agriculture did not rate as high in his books as another political game that was being played last week, and won by his party, in the adjoining province of Quebec.
We all know that the Minister of Agriculture is continually crisscrossing the country, trying to put the message across that not only does our agricultural industry need to be strong but emphasizing that the government does really care. I have to admit that his so-called "Whelanese" has been well accepted by most of the farming community. It reminds me a bit of the advertisement for dog food which says, "all you need to add is love". I can assure the government that the farmers are expecting a bit more than just love at the present time. However, after the answer the Prime Minister gave me it will be very difficult for the minister to convince the farmers this government sincerely does care about their long-term welfare.
Let me review quickly what has happened leading up to the present state of confusion within the beef industry. First of all, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) lifted the one and a half per cent tariff on United States beef entering Canada. Later the U.S. beef producers restricted their supply to market because there was a temporary freeze at the processor level. This freeze meant the processor had a ceiling on the price at which he could sell the dressed product, which automatically set the price to the producer.
To beat this problem, U.S. beef was finding its way over here to be processed and then returned, which in turn had the effect of making our beef more attractive to the U.S. market and resulted in higher prices. Our government then imposed an embargo on the export of livestock and meat products. This caused considerable concern and a drop in prices to our own producers in Canada. The minister mentioned this afternoon in the House that it was not called an embargo but, whatever it was, the price went down in a hurry.
Next, the U.S. freeze at the processor level was lifted and opened up their home market. This encouraged-heavy shipments which in turn depressed the U.S. home market.

November 1, 1973
Agriculture
Naturally, with our market buoyant we then witnessed, and still are witnessing, literally hundreds of loads of U.S. fat cattle being shipped to Canadian packers, particularly in Ontario. In the last six weeks Ontario packers have been able to buy these American cattle at up to 15 cents a pound cheaper. As an example, an 1,100 pound steer could be bought for $165 less. I am told by responsible buyers for Ontario packers that the United States influx has been so strong that they have had either limited or no orders for Ontario cattle in the last six weeks. I am afraid many of the Ontario beef producers, by virtue of not selling their fat cattle now, will be restricted both by lack of money and accommodation and will not be able to buy their normal requirements of feeder calves from the west, which in turn will reflect in yet further disrupted markets in Ontario next year.
The sad part of this exercise is that it not only puts our producers in a very tenuous position but also our consumers in general are not getting the full benefit of these lower prices. I am given to understand that the Ontario packers are in a position where they can offer beef to the trade at 25 per cent less than they could have six weeks ago. The consumers in many instances are not receiving nearly that much of a price advantage. This is the background that prompted me to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) on October 19 if he had contacted the Food Prices Review Board as to why they have not shown more concern regarding the fact that beef prices have not come down in accordance with live purchase prices. I was utterly amazed when the minister answered by saying, "I think this question relates more to the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture". With all due respect, I think the general public, and they are all consumers, deserves a more responsible answer to a very serious problem facing all Canadians.
Mrs. Plumptre, under questioning this week by the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher), tried to defend her obvious inaction in regard to the situation I have just outlined by saying that the board was looking into the fact that meat prices should be lower on account of lower live beef prices, but it would take a while for the lower prices to be evident since there is a time lag between killing and the retail shelf. What happened to the time lag when meat prices were going up so fast, bacon in particular on which as many as three escalating price stickers were put in one week?
I would like to give just one example of why I know beef prices have not come back down to a reasonable differential with live prices. Choice ground beef for restaurant consumption at the peak price cost $1.29 per pound. It now costs $1.13 and before the drastic escalation cost 93 cents. Beef hip cuts peaked at $2.25 per pound and are still $1.79, but there again they were $1.15 not that long ago. These are London prices, Mr. Speaker. If the Food Prices Review Board is really serious about protecting the public, producers as well as consumers, then it will have to think of something more credible than that as an excuse.
As I have stated before in the House, my riding is in the heartland of Ontario's general agricultural production. Milk, eggs, beef, turkey, pork, corn and beans are produced in great quantities with some taking first place in production in Ontario. I have in past years actively participated

manually in the production of many of those products. This gives me a considerable advantage over many of my colleagues, regardless of their party affiliation, in analysing on behalf of both urban and rural dwellers when a particular product is being priced at the retail level out of proportion to the cost of production.
I am reminded of a planted question during the last campaign in one of the urban all-candidates meetings. It was: "What can you do for us here in the city?" My answer was then and still is now: One important contribution will be that because of my agricultural production background I will be able to recognize, and hopefully expose, if consumers are being charged unfairly for food products, or, as our socialist colleagues to the left would describe it, recognize "rip-offs".
One difference between my analysis and theirs is that I would expose unnecessary profits. They wish to eliminate all profits of business. They need to cut a new record, or at least change the needle, because I know the rank and file wage earner working for private enterprise business today recognizes his company has to show a profit or eventually he will not have a job. The members to my left will find this out in the next election.
Many people realize increases in food prices meet with much more resentment and bitterness than price increases in other commodities. The public becomes much more aware of a two cent increase for a dozen eggs than a $250 increase in the price of a popular automobile. Although these reactions may be classified as irrational consumer complaints in regard to spiralling food prices, they are indeed quite legitimate. Price movement in the food sector can be logically approached, analysed and explained but cannot be prevented or eliminated without, in essence, imposing upon our political and economic systems.
If, over the long haul, consumers in general are going to have food product prices kept in line, the federal government has to be able to make decisions intelligently in consultation with its provincial counterparts which will have the long-range effect of maximum production at a profitable level to the producer. They must listen to the farmer for a change. Granted, as in every segment of the society you cannot believe everybody, but there are ways to overcome that problem.
As a good example of not heeding the farmers' advice on beef production, because of the total banning of diethyl-stilbestrol, better known as DES, the cost of fattening cattle has increased by at least 10 per cent. It is clear to most people who are knowledgeable in the production of beef that the decision to ban DES was based largely on emotion. DES was suspended first in the United States and then in Canada when it was found that heavy feeding of DES to rodents used in research produced lasiums in their liver similar to cancer. DES residues of not more than two parts per billion were found in less than 2 per cent of the beef livers examined, and on the strength of this skimpy evidence food critics were successful in having DES removed from the market on the grounds that it represented a threat to human health.
There are two important measurements I would like to use by way of illustration. Two parts per billion are the equivalent of two inches in 16,000 miles and the average yearly per capita consumption of beef liver in the United
November 1, 1973

States and Canada is one and a half pounds. In the August-September issue of the Farmers' Digest, Dr. T. J. Cunah, head of the animal science department of the University of Florida, provided the following pertinent information:
It is also interesting that the medical profession has been using DES against certain forms of cancer in men and women for many years, yet in spite of this evidence the use of DES in cattle feed was eliminated because half to 2 per cent of the liver showed a slight trace of DES, about two parts per billion. The reason given for it was that DES might cause cancer in humans, yet shortly after DES was disapproved for cattle, the use of DES as a morning-after birth control pill for women was still allowed. The level of DES used in 50 milligrams, is equivalent to a girl consuming 50,000 pounds of liver with two parts per billion of DES or 2'/i million pounds of liver in which only 2 per cent of it has DES. A girl would need to live 33,333 years to get that much DES from consuming liver, but she gets that much in a five-day period via the pill.
Was this action against the beef producer common sense, Mr. Speaker, or one more example of emotional reaction or lack of ministerial leadership?
Another area that is equally important-I am afraid time permits me to mention it only briefly-is the need for more co-operation by ministers of departments allied to the agricultural industry. I mean that the agricultural industry, including farm dealers, must have some better means for attracting competent labour. This means that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) must try to co-operate with the Minister of Agriculture rather than play one against the other as it appears they must be doing now. Last summer we had an episode in western Ontario of criticism of farm labour conditions. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration kept saying, "give me definite cases". Mr. Speaker, I think we can give him a definite case that was pretty minor.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) must also try to help instead of hinder, as was indicated earlier this session when the Canadian Consumers Association was granted another $100,000 to investigate marketing boards. Their president emphatically denies this allegation but at the same time publicly talks down the national marketing board concept by saying marketing boards should only be provincial. Whom does she think she is kidding?
Canadian agriculture, as is recognized, has the possibility of finally coming into its own. To emphasize this further let me say that for several years previous to 1970 only 4 per cent of the degree student graduates from the University of Guelph want back to farms. In 1970 the figure rose to 10 per cent and in May, 1973, 18 per cent of such degree graduates went back to some form of active farming. I do not mean they were just allied to farming; they were in fact engaged in active farming.
What I have tried to emphasize is that the government must begin to take a long-term approach to our agricultural problems. The Canadian agricultural community has the expertise and enthusiasm to produce much more than we have already witnessed provided they have the opportunity of managing their own production at a profitable level. If this is accomplished, the Canadian consumer as
Agriculture
well as world demand will ultimately be supplied with sufficient quantities of good food at reasonable prices.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, from time to time the opposition finds that it can no longer avoid discussing the subject of agriculture on an opposition day. Today the opposition motion concerns agriculture. Their difficulty, as evidenced by the last several opposition motions, has been finding a topic which makes any kind of sense as they try to criticize the government.
Today's motion asks for long-term programs and policies and criticizes ad hoc measures. At least two or three spokesmen on behalf of the Official Opposition have asked for at least one additional ad hoc measure immediately to solve a particular problem of the moment. I am talking, of course, about the serious situation regarding the production of beef. We must ensure that beef continues to be produced in this country and that more meat continues to be produced, as the Minister of Agriculture has emphasized many times. We must see to it that over any long period of time this country produces more meat rather than less. It is therefore our clear desire to maintain the agricultural industry in a viable state.
The motion before the House suggests that one of the spokesmen of the Official Opposition may have reversed his direction. May I remind Your Honour that the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), who also moved the motion concerning agriculture that was debated on the opposition day on June 21, encountered the same difficulty that hon. members participating in the present debate have encountered inasmuch as he, on the one hand, asked for less interference and at the same time asked for more government interference with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board.
It might be worth the while of hon. members to look back at that debate if they think they are capable of predicting and analyzing and saying where they think we should be going. May I suggest such an examination also to those hon. members who believe it is worth while to misstate facts and who go on making political allegations with regard to the marketing of grain. They make predictions that work to the great disadvantage of the producers of this country because they mislead them into thinking that the situation is different from that actually existing.
In the debate previously alluded to the motion moved by the hon. member for Crowfoot criticized the government for allegedly failing to take advantage of what he termed top world prices. The hon. member referred to wheat prices as being a little better than $3 per bushel. Another colleague of his referred to prices in the order of $3.45. The motion suggested that the Wheat Board should be at that moment selling wheat at top world prices, that it should be out there selling to the limit, and what a good thing that would be.
Today the hon. member for Crowfoot noted that the price is over $5. Yet only a few months ago he was referring to a top world price of a little better than $3 per bushel and he criticized us for not selling wheat. What he was suggesting, of course, was an uncalled for interference with the Canadian Wheat Board, which was doing its usual superb job of knowing exactly what should be sold

November 1, 1973
Agriculture
and when it ought to be sold. In doing its job it was making sure of the state of the crop which was coming up before making new commitments to completely new buyers. Throughout that period it was looking after the needs of Canadians and our regular customers, needs with respect to which it has a special obligation.
The hon. member for Crowfoot made one of his wild statements in suggesting that the Wheat Board had refused to sell 70 million bushels of wheat to India. I said that this was not so, but that did not deter him. He built his story on that suggestion. He said that we could have sold those 70 million bushels at the then world price, which was a little better than $3 per bushel. Hon. members who wish to look at what he said may consult Hansard for June 21, page 4981. He made the mistake of trying to look ahead too far, and he looks very foolish now for having done that. That is the kind of attitude that has been displayed by members of the opposition.
May I refer also to the remarks of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) who, with other hon. members, for about six months insisted on suggesting to farmers that a great deal of grain had been sold forward at very low prices and apparently convinced many farmers for a long time that there might be no final payment this year and that even next year's final payment may be low. Let me refer to the predictions of the Canadian Wheat Board with respect to the current year, which indicate a figure of about $4.50 for wheat. The final payment for the next crop year will, according to current conditions, very likely be over $1 for feed barley. This figure will come on top of the biggest initial prices that have ever been paid in our history for wheat, oats and barley. There will be some extremely high figures relating to final payments.
Nevertheless, hon. members opposite are trying to mislead the farmers of this country because they are seeking narrow political advantage and closing their eyes to the facts, which show that much has been done to make the agricultural industry viable, to make it an industry in which more farmers can survive because income levels are now approaching more closely reasonable figures than at any time in our history. It is the wish of this government to maintain those incomes.
Hon. members opposite, bewildered because so much has been done for the agricultural community, which includes the prairie region, even though the government party does not have a great political presence on the Prairies-


An hon. Member:: It will have less in the future.


Otto Emil Lang: -suggested that somehow the Minister of Agriculture and the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board have not managed to convince their cabinet colleagues of the need for acting in the area of agriculture. The situation is exactly to the contrary. Cabinet colleagues from other parts of the country have listened to my recommendations and those of the Minister of Agriculture when we have put before cabinet proposals for the improvement of the agricultural industry of this country. This is to their great credit, a credit that history will record.
The hon. member for Crowfoot said he was worried about transportation. It is true that we had a rail strike and a consequent delay in the movement of grain. How-

ever, I am happy to tell hon. members that stocks at Vancouver and Thunder Bay are moving out notwithstanding the very heavy pressure put upon the railways for boxcars by other industries. This pressure is evidenced by the interest of hon. members from British Columbia with respect to rail cars for moving lumber, potash, fertilizer, and so on. Notwithstanding that pressure, the volumes moved are creeping up.
In his motion the hon. member suggests that we should not do things ad hoc, but then he had the temerity to suggest that there is some problem connected with transportation. He was not enthusiastic when we purchased the 2,000 hopper cars. That purchase was an important move and was a step in the right direction for our transportation system. Now he says, I think, that it was a good move. He ignores the fact that the block system has been developed and that our cars are placed in locations on a co-ordinated basis. The fact that co-ordinators are working at various terminals means that there is now a most co-ordinated movement of grain.
He says that he is against ad hoc measures, yet he ignores the fact that for two years we have developed studies on the whole transportation and handling system which are now available and in the hands of the industry as a whole, including the Canada Grains Council. They are being subjected to further examination with a view to our taking steps to improve the system and make this industry the great industry that it ought to be.
Of course our transportation system has been tested to the limit by our tremendous sales effort. This has resulted from a body of co-ordinated policies respecting market development and credit facilities, the like of which we have never seen nor even imagined before. It was through these credit facilities, through the guaranteed additional and new credit programs available to new and to old customers we had lost, that we got back to the position where for three years in a row we have exported and consumed more wheat than we have produced. Naturally we cut into the reserve that we had on hand before that time.
With over 800 million bushels exported in the past two years we set records that were never even dreamed of a couple of years ago. We tested our handling and transportation system and got it into a position where it could do more than believed previously. However, we will not rest until it has more capacity so that we can go on challenging our producers to produce to the limit of their capacity and not hold back and fail to fertilize as we had to do in years when we were not selling an average crop in an average year. That is what this is all about.
In this year I foresee the real probability that, even though we have produced the second largest number of bushels of grain ever produced in the prairie region, perhaps not quite at the 1,506 million bushel level of a few years ago, we will again export such a quantity of grain that at the end of this year we will have exported and consumed in Canada more than we have produced. We will continue to challenge our producers to use the best possible techniques and thereby bring their farming operations into the most economical possible state.
November 1, 1973

Members opposite commented on the feed grains policy. We spent a great deal of time studying and developing our feed grains policy. Rather than ad hocking the program, we put the proposal before the farmers for further discussion for a period ending August 1 next year.
I am glad the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) recognized the merit of the long-term proposals we have put forward in letting the market determine the prices. However, I was somewhat amazed that the spokesmen for the Conservative party today were not quite clear about the fact that supply and demand are an important factor in our economy and that controls are dangerous and difficult because they interfere with ordinary production development. Therefore they think we should not interfere with pricing. I wish they would talk to their own economic critics who do not understand that if you put on controls you have trouble with production in one way or another.
The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) talked about feed grains. He referred to the matter of whether feed grains would be a low price or high price policy. The point that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and I have been making from one end of the country to another is that the purpose is to have a similar base for prices across the country. None of my colleagues from Quebec has ever argued we should pay low prices to grain farmers in the Prairies. They have said that people who produce animals in all parts of this country should have access to that grain on a similar cost plus basis. The fact is we do not have low prices.
The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar did not refer to the price at which feed wheat was selling before the new policy was announced. I wonder why he did not do that. He quoted the new policy feed wheat price of $3.41 5/8. The price the Wheat Board was charging is at Thunder Bay for domestic purposes before the new policy was in the area of $3.16 3/8, a good deal less than under the new policy.
There is a similarity in the case of barley. It was $2.23 before the price was announced and $2.20 Vi thereafter. Those prices are on the average, even at the current competitive level. This faces us with a real challenge in this country, one which the Minister of Agriculture will be dealing with in his usual effective fashion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: At the moment, feed grain prices in Canada are very high. With the consumer resistance, which is promoted by most of the spokesmen for the Official Opposition, the man who produces meat is being squeezed between the Tory food critics on the one hand and the price of feed grain on the other.
I do not apologize for the fact that the price of feed grain is high. This at least means that the feed grain producers are making up for the very poor return per hour of work they received under long-term past policies in this country. Step by step this government has been doing something about the income position of our farmers with programs on the selling side, programs on the transportation side and programs of information to help the farmer make
Agriculture
the decision that is right for Canada and right for him as well. That is the state of affairs in agriculture in this country.
We will not rest. We have a list of programs, from stabilization in the area of meat to grain marketing insurance in the area of grains to ensure that the farmer's life in this country will continue to improve. It will improve as long as this government can in fact put into place policies which do things and are good for agriculture in this country.


Mr. Mazankowski:: I wonder whether I might be permitted to ask the minister a question. He dwelt to some extent on the problem of the final payment for the last crop year and the current crop year. Is the minister in a position at this time to indicate when the final payment will be made and whether the amount the farmers will be receiving has been calculated?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, The Wheat Board has now submitted to us the final figures with regard to the payments on wheat, barley and oats. The order in council to authorize those payments is in the process of being prepared and submitted. I could note that the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) predicted three or four months ago they would be between 20 and 25 cents. In the case of wheat, I can tell hon. members it will be approximately double that amount. In the case of wheat it will be well over 40 cents. There will be similar high figures for other grains. Rather than give the precise figures, simply let me state the global figure. The final payments on wheat, oats and barley combined in the prairie provinces will come to a total of $374.6 million. I expect that the cheques will be mailed in early November.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The time allotted to the minister has expired. The answer to the question went a little over the time allotted. I do not think I should permit further questions without agreement by the House.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In answering the question of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), the minister suggested I had said the final figure would be in the neighbourhood of 25 to 30 cents. I said the initial payment should be increased by 25 to 30 cents because anyone who delivered wheat in the month of July lost far more than that. Last June I said it should be increased by 25 to 30 cents. The farmers would not have lost as much money. However, the minister has no heart for the poor farmers.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I did refer to the pages in Hansard which contained the hon. member's speech. I hope hon. members will look at it. It seems he did in fact indicate 20 to 25 cents. It is even more important that he is now somehow trying to give the wrong impression, that the initial price is the relevant figure. Clearly, he should know it is the final price that is important. The crucial thing is the initial payment plus the final payment from

November 1, 1973
Agriculture
last year or this year. It is not the exact nature of the initial price.


Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, as far as the cost of living is concerned, for the consumer the year 1973 has been a disaster. For the farmer, up to this point, it has been one of the best years on record. For the cattleman, it has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. If hon. members go back five years or even ten years, the positions that I have just outlined will be found to have been exactly the opposite. It is a case of either the farmer and cattleman having a hard time, or the consumer. I would suggest that with a little help and common sense from the federal government-something that is currently sadly lacking-we could have a situation where the farmer and the consumer are working hand in hand for a better life.
I believe that with sensible and imaginative policies, and with an eye on the long term rather than on the short term, we could have a situation where the farmer and cattleman have a secure market, a secure price for their product, and consumers are not stampeded by scare tactics into paying high prices for what goes on to their supper tables. For example, according to news reports of recent months, Canadians from coast to coast were buying deep freezers costing $200 to $400 and then stocking up the freezers with beef bought when its price was sky-high. These people have been cheated; they have been cheated by the federal Liberal government's misinformation.
There have been news reports about the beef shortage scare and nightmare prices for beef, reports for which in one instance I do not blame the news media. As a result, worried consumers spent hundreds of dollars buying freezers which they really did not need. Panic buying of beef drove up the price unnecessarily. This is why I am sorry for the consumer. But for the Liberal government's pressing the panic button, the consumer would never have stockpiled expensive beef in expensive freezers. However, Ottawa lost its nerve. It did not trust the Canadian producer to do his job and forgot about the basic law of supply and demand. In the result, money that the consumer could have spent on food was spent on buying a freezer and high-cost beef. The money spent on a freezer would have bought a lot of food at a time when panic buying had not inflated the price-but it is too late now.
The Liberal government which we currently have in Ottawa panicked; it reacted to a temporary situation with hit-and-miss tactics. But that is not unusual. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that in 1970 the Minister of Justice in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) promoted LIFT, in the Lower Inventory for Tomorrow program. This was his brainchild. Under this program the federal government actually paid the Canadian wheat farmers not to grow grain. Look at the situation today. Ottawa is begging western Canadian farmers to grow as much grain as possible; in fact, it is even scolding our farmers for growing too little. A strange situation, but one that is easy to understand. In looking at the short term, one forgets that situations can change. The Liberals look at the short term, but the Progressive Conservatives look at the long term. I ask hon. members opposite to keep that in mind.

I suggest that it would be sound business to have 500 million bushels of grain in storage at all times, with the farmer being paid his storage charges. We could use an extra 500 million bushels of grain right now for export and for the feeding industry, as the minister himself knows. We do not have those extra bushels, and the Minister of Justice also knows why.
Under the Liberal government we live from day to day, from crisis to crisis, and react to situations rather than prepare for them. No wonder the consumer, the farmer and the cattleman are confused. And, I add, no wonder the minister is the only Liberal member of parliament from Saskatchewan. As my good friend the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), once remarked, the minister won his seat at the expense of every other Liberal candidate in Saskatchewan-hardly a commendable performance. However, it is one that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), with his strange sense of humour, might enjoy. After all, as hon. members may remember, it was the Prime Minister who less than a handful of years ago went to Saskatoon to meet the prairie farmers, and when they asked him for help in selling their wheat at a fair price he replied, "You grew it; you sell it. Why should I sell your wheat?" Perhaps after his disastrous election showing in the west just one year ago, which resulted in the Liberals obtaining seven out of 68 seats, the Prime Minister now feels differently.
However, I suggest that as far as the consumers, grain farmers and cattlemen are concerned, the change of heart, if indeed it has come about, has come too late. As far as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is concerned, I guess he does have some good points. He knows, at least to some extent, what farming is all about. But he seems to have taken the advice of the non-oriented agricultural advisers and self-styled experts who inhabit Parliament Hill and the Department of Agriculture's vast complexes; he talks about controlled production, supply management and marketing boards. He talks of controlled production when half of the world is crying out for more food, when the world's population is growing by leaps and bounds and hungry mouths are increasing by thousands every day. Surely, rather than talking of controlled production and supply management we should be talking about incentives to the farmer and cattleman to produce more food. That seems logical to me. If there is a need, then let us fill that need. At the same time, let the Canadian producers make a decent living.
In recent weeks a stream of news releases from the Canadian International Development Agency have come across my desk. They tell of millions of millions of dollars-Canadian taxpayers' dollars, by the way-being given to country after country. Some of this money is given in outright grants, some in the form of interest-free loans repayable over 30 or 40 years. It is a pity that young Canadians trying to borrow money to buy a house could not get such generous help from their own government. Surely, instead of giving this money away we could, in some cases at least, give food instead. Let us buy the produce of Canadian farmers at a fair price and ship it to these countries in Canadian carriers.
We would achieve a number of objectives in this way. We would feed the hungry of the world. We would encour-
November 1, 1973

age our producers to produce as much as possible, giving them a ready market and a fair price. On top of this, Mr. Speaker, we would create employment and creating incentives seem very sensible to me because this would help Canadians to take home good wages, at the same time contributing to the needy of the world. But I suppose hon. members across the way who hold on to power by the tips of their fingers just cannot see it. They never could see this kind of sense. This is why the latest polls show the Conservatives, with their rational and well thought-out policies, especially in the field of agriculture, gaining all the time and the Liberals slipping behind.
I should like to make the following suggestion to the Prime Minister and his colleagues. Instead of the academics and theorists making policies and advising the government, why not let agricultural organizations, which are made up of farmers on the land, do this job? I think it might help. For example, it might help the consumer, the farmer and the cattleman. In fact, I am sure it would, Mr. Speaker. Certainly the government bypasses the advice of hon. members, even their own members.
I suggest that the government well the farm organizations, "Look, agriculture minister Eugene Whelan is 'Whelan' but the consumers and producers are wailin' too. Give us your advice". I suggest that the government ask the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Alberta Cattlefeed-ers Association, and Palliser Wheat Growers Association, the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, the Saskatchewan Stockmen's Association and the Ontario Beef Improvement Association, for advice. I further suggest that they listen to that advice. Let the government admit something is wrong. It must start now to rectify the situation, or face feast and famine, bust and boom, high and low cycles and other erratic situations year after year.
I am sure even the Minister of Agriculture would agree that Canadian farmers have proven their ability to produce at competitive prices. Canadians and indeed world consumers need our produce. Why, then, do we sit around living on a day to day basis and depending on hit-and-miss policies? I do not know why; neither does the consumer, the farmer not the cattleman.
I remember when Canada had a vast sheep farming population. Then the government allowed New Zealand lamb exports to come to this country and undercut Canadian prices. The sheep farmers begged Ottawa for a floor price for lamb and a subsidy for wool, but their pleas were ignored. As a result, the Canadian sheep farmer went under. How different that is from the situation in the United States, Mr. Speaker. When our farmers started to go under their sheepmen came to Canada and bought up our sheep breeding stock. Today wool prices have climbed, as have lamb prices, but the Canadian sheepman is no more. Is the Canadian cattleman destined for the same fate? I hope not.
Mr. Speaker this seems amazing, but look at the evidence. In the first part of this year the federal government could not even make up its mind over a feed additive called DES. It seems as though they will do anything to kill incentive. This is like the time barley was selling for 50 cents a bushel. A trucker in Lethbridge constituency
Agriculture
suddenly found he could sell barley in Montana for 78 cents a bushel, considerably higher than the 50-cent price. Using a bit of Alberta initiative, the same type that most farmers have, he transported the barley down to our southern neighbour. This did not last long, because the Canadian Wheat Board found out and stopped him. This is a strange situation. The federal government does not like people to have incentive or initiative, hence the many giveaway programs which it institutes to stop people thinking for themselves.
I suggest this is bureaucracy on top of bureaucracy, figures on top of figures and statistics on top of statistics. It is no wonder the cattleman is worried, and no wonder the grain farmer will say this is a good year but will immediately ask what is in store for the next year. Should we not plan and promote a little more, rather than regulate and restrict? I think we should; and my constituents, both consumers and farmers, think so too. In fact, I think even the Liberals think so but the trouble is they have lost the will, if they ever had it, to do so. I am afraid they are running scared.
That is why the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, when announcing his new feed grains policy, would not come to Lethbridge. There are too many cattlemen there and he knew their reaction in advance. He really did not spend too long in announcing this policy in Brandon or explaining it in Edmonton. He knew beforehand this was a hit-and-miss policy: good today in this area, perhaps, and bad tomorrow in another area. What a way to run the country, what a way to run agriculture, and what a way to treat the consumer! The politics of confrontation come into play. For a government devoid of ideas, the only way out is to create false crises, pitting one segment of Canadians against another and one region of Canada against another. Why can we not work together? Perhaps we will be able to, after the next election.
I have already mentioned the problems facing the cattlemen and I have mentioned the feed additive, DES. Let me now mention the recent rail strike. During that strike I suggested to the federal Department of Transport that emergency measures be adopted in order to truck cattle to eastern markets. What was I told? They suggested that basically we raised the beef, and we should sell it, or we should ask the provincial government to create emergency transportation. It seems that Ottawa did not want to help the Canadian farmer and, what is more, it seems that it still does not want to help.
Let us consider tariffs for a moment. The federal government, with only a handful of members from the western provinces and only a handful from the Maritimes, for almost five months, took off the tariff on beef coming into Canada from the United States. The tariff on beef going to the United States remains. At the same time, the United States was buying up our feeder cattle, which later were imported back into Canada free of tariff. This is shortsighted and ironic: it is a hit-and-miss program. But this is what the Canadian cattleman, the Canadian farmer and the Canadian consumer have come to expect from Ottawa. We have a beef shortage in this country. The consumer wants beef. There is not enough beef because bureaucrats have meddled with the laws of supply and demand. At the same time, cattle feeders in Canada are experiencing

November 1, 1973
Agriculture
heavier losses than they did during the time of foot and mouth disease.
Let us look at the Maritimes. There are lush pasture-lands in the Maritimes just waiting for the development of vast herds of cattle. But does Ottawa give Canadian would-be cattlemen any incentive to develop the cattle industry in the Maritimes? I suggest it does not. No wonder the Liberals find it difficult to elect members in the Maritimes. Maritimers like to use their initiative and they like to be given incentives. I am convinced that the Liberals are against free enterprise and against "get up and go" initiative. Our party is in favour of this; and we are all for the farmer, for the cattleman and for the consumer. When it comes to marketing, farmers are willing to take the lows if they also have the advantage of the highs. They want realistic floor prices, not unrealistic ceilings. They want to be given the chance to produce as much good quality produce as possible, and to avoid shortages. They believe the consumer also wants this.
When I look at the frustrations borne by the consumer, the farmer and the cattleman today, I begin to wonder about this government. I have come to many conclusions, but being a man of some forgiveness, a man with some kindness in his heart, may I leave hon. members, as I look across the House at those who have put agriculture and the Canadian consumer in the position they occupy today, with one sobering thought. To the House and to the Canadian public, I say of the Liberal members: Forgive them, for they know not what they do.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there have been further discussions to those which occurred earlier, and I believe there is agreement now that we not have the "late show" this evening but that the debate on this subject matter should continue until 10.30.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Translation]


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to bring my humble contribution to this debate on the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), in the opposition, which reads as follows:
This House deplores the government's inability to give leadership in developing and implementing comprehensive and coordinated agricultural policies and programs and regrets that by ill-advised and ad hoc remedies the government has weakened the overall agricultural economy.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard the mover and other hon. members in the official opposition put forward their cases. I have really wondered whether we had looked up the same statistics because we know very well, as do indeed hon. members in the opposition, the situation which prevails in the agricultural area.
One only needs to refer to the statistics of 1972 and 1971 to see that there is an increase of 17 per cent, an additional revenue of 17 per cent, Mr. Speaker. But what is even more encouraging is that if we consider the figures published by Statistics Canada, we see that the revenue from farming between January and August 1973 are estimated at $4,020,000,000 as compared with $3,146,000,000 for the correspond-

ing period in 1972. Therefore, I wonder whether opposition members have access to the same statistics or whether they are trying to juggle figures in an another attempt to play politics on the back of farmers. We wonder whether we are still in the same country when we see the official figures that are published and that some people have the guts to introduce such motions when one is aware of the economic situation that prevails in the area of agriculture. In view of this situation, Mr. Speaker, I feel that I could not remain seated in my chair, because I have heard the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) say the same things since 1968. It is always the same record, always the same tape: he is trying to give a gloomy view of the agricultural situation. One could even call the record of the hon. member for Crowfoot as follows: How to discourage Canadian farmers in order to reduce their number to better serve one's own interests. I feel that this is the situation but, happily, farmers do not listen too much to the hon. member for Crowfoot in view of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that between 1966 and 1971, the number of farms that have chalked up a profit of $10,000 or more has considerably increased.
Therefore, one can see that the agricultural situation is not quite as outlined by the hon. member for Crowfoot.
Since 1968, Mr. Speaker, I have heard the same criticism. I am led to ask myself questions about the following matters: So far as the hon. member for Crowfoot, the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) and the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) are concerned, what interests do they want to serve in this House? Are they conscious of their role as legislators at the service of agriculture in Canada or do they want to play the role of a grain or beef producer who wants to sell his own production to the Canadian Wheat Board? I might wonder about the aims of those hon. members when they try to make us believe or suppose that agriculture is still in a discouraging situation. I wonder about the aims of such interventions and the aim the hon. member for Crowfoot pursues in introducing today a motion on the agricultural situation.
I would like it to be possible to further discuss that one day. I remember quite well when I was sitting on the agricultural committee that we passed a legislation dealing with amendments to the standards and classification of grains and there again during a year and a half the hon. member for Crowfoot objected systematically to the improvement of that very agricultural policy. We had another proof of that when we tried to do something being aware of the fact that the producer's income was not proportionate to the cost of production. When national legislation setting up marketing agencies was introduced again we had to listen to the wailing of the hon. member for Crowfoot and the opposition who once again systematically opposed that legislation.
And they say they will be the spokesmen for agriculture.
The mass of legislation passed by this government is so impressive that farmers know exactly who their real protector is. The figures I have quoted at the beginning of my remarks confirm how this situation is true.
In addition to all the acts already mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture
November 1, 1973

(Mr. Corriveau), I would like to mention how the government is concerned with farmers. During the Liberal convention 19 resolutions were adopted with a view to further improving farmers' conditions. We keep on encouraging young farmers to produce through training, labour retraining, transportation policy and feed grain marketing policy because situations accepted since 1935 will no longer be tolerated. As mentioned by the minister, we no longer want policies aimed at depriving western producers from whatever they are entitled to have; we will demand a fair policy for western producers and eastern grain consumers. We insist oh it and we do not want to deprive western grain producers of anything.
In 1969, I visited the western provinces with the members of the committee on agriculture; I think we met 18,000 grain producers. We sympathized with the grain producers who were selling their grain 50$ a bushel. We saw it on the spot. We sympathized with them and we all agreed that such a situation should be corrected.
And today, we see those very same people criticizing all we have done in the field of the new feed grain policy. And yet western producers were not deprived of anything. It has been said for instance that the grain producer will get a price consistent with the production cost, a price which is competitive in relation to that obtained by eastern producers.
When some hon. members make a speech, I wonder what type of hat they are wearing. Is it a grain producer's hat, a cattle feeder's hat or a protective hat like those of western grain elevator owners? I would like to know once and for all on whose side they are: on the side of the grain elevator owners, of the grain producers, or of the cattlemen or the feeders?
I believe that when we talk about legislation concerning agriculture, we should aim at developing a national agricultural policy instead of a policy which seems better suited to personal interests.
I have no intention of continuing any longer, Mr. Speak er, but 1 should like to add a comment about the fodder policy, which is very important for eastern producers. As to the differences in prices between eastern and western Canada, we want equal treatment. That is all we want-


Mr. Baker:: Speak to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board about it-[DOT]


Mr.   Hoy@Laval: That is exactly what we are asking for.
Mr. Speaker, if we compare food prices of different countries of the world, Canada appears to be well protected; Canadian consumers can buy higher quality products, healthy and very well classified products at highly competitive prices. Take Japan, for example, where sirloin steak is $12 a pound.
In view of the current price situation, the consumer became somewhat more sensitive to the problem because agriculture has a role to play and the Department of Agriculture therefore needs more funds which it could use not only to help farmers but also to contribute in keeping consumer prices at a reasonable level.
Agriculture
In conclusion, I will deal with the question of the marketing board, by appealing to all provinces. If each of them keeps on implementing a provincial marketing policy, they will find that the province of Quebec can produce twice as many broilers and eggs than it does at the present time.
If the provinces have a national marketing board, they must work together, for producers do not wish to experience another situation like that of 1971, when eggs were selling for 23 cents a dozen, and broilers for 16 and 17 cents a pound. In order to prevent such a disaster, I call upon all provinces, all producers to work in close cooperation with the marketing boards, not only at the provincial level but also at the national level. For, if every province keeps on working in isolation, we might experience once again next year the dark days of the chicken and egg "war".
We have today an excellent tool, the National Marketing Board, and if all producers stay alert, production could be doubled. And who would be the first losers? The producers, and in the long term, they would have to pay prohibitive prices for consumer goods, simply because farmers are not interested to produce, since profitability in the field of agriculture can not be compared with investment yields in other areas.
Mr. Speaker, I have concluded my remarks, for it is six o'clock.
[ English]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think there would be agreement that the hon. member be permitted to finish his speech. He would have another two minutes. If he wishes to use that time now, I believe the House would be agreeable because of the long interval we will have this evening. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Translation]


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, here is my conclusion: I think that it is difficult to compare agriculture with industry because agricultural productivity can in fact be doubled. It is as simple as that. But I think we should adjust agriculture to the consumer market. Consumption does not increase at the same rate as production.
Thus I think we should not minimize the problems of agriculture but consider them objectively, and together we can adjust agriculture both to the domestic consumer market and to exports.
[ English]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 6 p.m., I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m. I would remind the House that at that time we shall take up motions again.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. In accordance with the order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to motions, under routine proceedings.

November 1, 1973
Oil and Gas



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on September 4 the government asked the oil industry to refrain, on a voluntary basis, from further price increases to Canadian consumers before January 30 of next year. This price restraint would apply except where, to the satisfaction of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the increase in the cost of imported crude oil warranted a Canadian price increase. The government was concerned then, as now, with the inflationary push and its impact on the Canadian consumer.
During September and October, crude oil import costs have risen substantially. One price rise alone by the Arab producing states, followed by Venezuela, was in the vicinity of a 35 per cent increase. My department and the National Energy Board have been carefully monitoring these changes. We have received requests from major refiners using foreign crude oil in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces to increase product prices. These requests reflect only actual increases in crude costs which have already been borne by importers. Each company has experienced different cost increases depending upon the source of the crude and varying ocean transportation costs.
I am today notifying refiners in eastern Canada that the government will have no objection to any decision on their part to raise product prices to levels consistent with each company's crude cost experience in September and the first half of October. The average increase in gasoline and heating oil prices east of the Ottawa Valley line will be about 2 cents per gallon.
Apart from the product price increases which I have just described and which will become effective immediately, our best indications suggest that the average price of international crude delivered at Montreal, from the eastern and western hemispheres, will rise by upward of $1 per barrel during November. Refiners in eastern Canada supplied by international crude will, at a future time, be permitted to reflect crude cost increases for the second half of October and for November in product prices.
A significant part of the market for home heating oil in the central Ontario area is supplied by imports of home heating oil from overseas. The rapid increase in demand for international supplies of home heating oils, with the consequent price increase, has made it difficult for Ontario suppliers to secure adequate supplies before the close of navigation in December.
In these circumstances, it is the government's intention to entertain requests by marketers for immediate price increases in home heating oils west of the Ottawa Valley line and particularly in Ontario and British Columbia. This action will both assist in the securing of supplies west of the Ottawa Valley line and will offset any tendency for these supplies to move out of those markets. With the exception of this product, it is the government's inten-
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel.)]
tion to request continuing voluntary restraint at current price levels west of the Ottawa Valley line on the part of the Canadian oil industry until February 1, 1974.
The government is, and intends to continue, watching this situation closely and will relax its restraint program further if, in its view, such action would materially assist in what must be its predominant concern-the provision of adequate supplies for Canadian consumers.
The National Energy Board has advised me that if western crude prices continue at their present restraint levels through December, the just and reasonable price for exports to the United States would, for December, generally be at the level of about $1.90 a barrel higher. I am able to announce, therefore, that I shall be seeking authority from parliament to raise the level of export tax from 40 cents per barrel in November to $1.90 per barrel for December exports.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: This tax rate of $1.90 per barrel is a direct measure of the savings to Canadian consumers west of the Ottawa Valley line brought about by the government's policy of continuing restraint.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would like now to say a few words about the Canadian crude oil and products supply situation. The outbreak of hostilities in the Middle East and the moves by Arab countries to embargo oil deliveries to the United States and the Netherlands and to impose cumulative reductions in their production rates have cast significant uncertainty on the crude oil supply situation for eastern Canada. It might be that Canada will be affected by the reduction of oil production in Arab countries. Any significant curtailment in our imported crude oil supply is bound to have an unfavourable impact upon the product supply situation in eastern Canada.
Our ability to deal with shortfalls in crude oil supply to eastern Canada is under extensive study, both within the government and in concert with industry. The government has established a technical advisory committee on petroleum supply and demand under the chairmanship of the National Energy Board. The committee, which includes representatives of companies importing and refining foreign crude oil, is set up to advise as to the outlook for petroleum products supply and measures to bring supply and demand into better balance.
The exact magnitude of the possible oil import curtailment which we face is uncertain and will remain so for some time. Prior to the Middle East fighting, stock levels for oil products were generally in a fair position. The supply of heating oil in Ontario and eastern Canada for the coming winter appeared to be in delicate balance against demand, assuming normal cold weather. If imports of crude oil cannot be maintained at programmed levels, this balance will obviously be disturbed.
The pre-hostilities situation in regard to motor gasoline supply in eastern Canada was generally satisfactory with a seasonal inventory build-up foreseen. Curtailment of crude oil imports would affect this build-up, with a conse-
November 1, 1973

quent impact on next season's gasoline, even if it were possible to meet winter requirements in full.
On the Prairies the situation is satisfactory in regard to supply of all product categories. Pre-existing concerns, that is to say, concerns which were prevalent prior to the problems arising from the Arab oil interruption, about the supply of heavy fuel oils in British Columbia have been heightened because this region normally imports significant amounts from the United States which now, of course, faces its own supply difficulties.
In light of this over-all supply situation, it seems prudent to consider carefully appropriate means to reduce energy demand throughout Canada but particularly for those products and regions which I have specifically mentioned. A number of provincial governments have already been contacted, and others will be, to outline the nature of the crude oil and product supply situation as it is emerging and to inform them of the price developments which I have just mentioned.
The government is considering further steps, and has an allocation program for application at the wholesale level which will be introduced if a more serious supply situation becomes apparent. Although it is recognized that security of supply for priority users must be protected, the government is reluctant to interfere at this stage with the normal marketing arrangements of the industry. At this stage I am calling upon Canadian consumers, municipalities, heavy industry and provincial governments to study means of reducing consumption on a voluntary basis. We will be in touch with them to exchange ideas, develop and provide details of our conservation program.
Before resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this occasion to express my appreciation to the oil industry, with one notable exception, for the co-operation that has been evident from them in the past two months in keeping Canadian prices down. The notable exception is Gulf Canada. I feel it necessary at this time to call attention to a report which appeared in the Toronto Star on Wednesday, October 31, in which Mr. McAfee, the president of this corporation, said with respect to the fact that Gulf Canada broke the freeze restraint and I quote from the Star report:
When we hadn't heard from the minister from October 12 to October 29, we figured the increase was okayed or the government was stalling.
I would just like to quote from a telegram sent to the same Mr. McAfee by my deputy minister, in my absence from the country, on October 12, in which was repeated what had been stated to Mr. McAfee earlier, that the government wished the company to continue its price restraint. I am prepared to lay a copy of the telegram on the table if the House wishes. I quote one paragraph as follows:
As I told you during our telephone conversation today in response to your letter to the minister of October 9, 1973, requests for price increases have been received from a number of companies and the department has the question of all cost increases under active review. The minister will take to cabinet shortly a proposal for price increases due to higher crude oil import costs. We request that you continue to refrain from price increases until the cabinet takes a decision in this area.
Oil and Gas
Therefore, contrary to what Mr. McAfee has been quoted as saying, he was specifically requested to refrain from further action until cabinet had taken a decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I and other members of parliament have been to symposia and meetings over the years to talk about good corporate citizenship, but this American president of that American corporation has set this House a good example of bad corporate citizenship.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I think most Canadians are aware that there has been, and is, a world energy problem. They knew that Canada had sufficient energy reserves for its own needs and probably a little bit to spare. After September 4 they thought they were free, price-wise, of any increases until the end of January, 1974. Now, after tonight, they know that the September 4 statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was merely a pose to let people think members of the government were the friends of the consumers until the government got a vote of confidence from the NDP.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Gulf Oil speaks.
Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain: Tonight's statement by the minister ends the price freeze so far as consumers are concerned. It adds immeasurably to the tensions of this federal nation, and I suggest it means a whopping big increase for all types of consumers after February 1. Under this statement, every consumer east of the Ottawa Valley line will have a price increase, effective tomorrow, of 2 cents a gallon. But the minister's statement indicates that with the price rise during November there will be a further 3 cents at the end of November, and every month more increases. The Ontario consumer, under this statement, if he is the driver of an automobile is safe until the end of January. But the home owner in Ontario, and particularly in eastern Ontario, will carry the full burden of increasing costs during this winter.
Prairie consumers are held safe until the end of January and then they, too, should experience a walloping great increase when pent-up, built-up costs and losses are piled on to them in increased prices.
The next point I want to emphasize-and this is the main point-is that this statement tonight, more than many statements made in this parliament over the last number of years, adds additional tension to confederation. Can't you imagine tomorrow, as the people of the Atlantic provinces, hard hit as they have been since confederation, have to take another wallop? Can't you imagine, in Quebec, how all those people who voted Liberal will wonder? Can't you see, in Ontario, the richest province in Canada, people being proud of the fact that the automobile drivers are being subsidized by the producing provinces, and the home owners get the full treatment?

November 1, 1973
Oil and Gas
On the Prairies we are free from any increases until the end of January has passed, but I predict that these pent-up losses, the sense of dissatisfaction and the tension will see an increase of prices that you cannot hold back. This will be much worse than if the government had done it the proper way. I am referring to the $1.90 import tax.


Mr. Douglas:: Export tax.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Export tax. Any person who was in the west during the period of the 40-cent export tax announcement and who was a serious lover of his country would have recognized the strain that was put on confederation by that announcement. What will it be tomorrow, as they realize that what they heard in the speculative stories over radio, television and in the press these past two days about the good spirit between Alberta and the federal minister, is now kicked down the drain and for the month of December the export tax is being raised to $1.90?
And what of British Columbia? Look at the short shrift they get there-higher prices on every front, with no effort made to assure them of supplies. So I predict that the fundamental significance of this statement is simply a question of delaying today, and that we are going to have higher prices for tomorrow.
I want, now, to go back to the $1.90 export tax. I could not help noting, as the minister read the statement tonight, the joint applause of the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party. I ask everybody in Canada: Where will the $1.90 go? On our part, we have made it clear that every bit of this $1.90 tax, or any type of export tax which is a tax on the resources of a single province like Saskatchewan or Alberta, should be returned to the producing province.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This statement does not make clear who will get it. Will the Maritimes get it? Will Quebec get it? Will British Columbia get it? Many years ago there was an advertising slogan that we heard over the radio-"I wonder where the yellow went?" Now it will be, "I wonder where the $1.90 went?". I want to speak to the minister in a personal way by saying how the situation should have been handled. The first and obvious thing is that the only way our fuel system will work is when the nine provincial provinces, the two territories, and the federal government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: There are ten provinces.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -the ten
provinces, the two territories and the federal government share responsibility for management of resources. The only way to make it work in our federal system is by consultation beforehand and jointly arrived at plans to meet this problem.
This government does not give us confidence. Just a few weeks ago it announced that it was phasing out the

National Council of Resource Ministers. This was a sophisticated technique set up so that the 11 equal governments and the territories could jointly work out problems for the joint management of their resources. Rene Levesque, who has been in the news these last two months and who was a Liberal minister of the Crown in Quebec where this council was set up, is on public record as saying, as a sincere man like him would say, that the only way we will make the federal system work is through this form of consultation, with people meeting as equals and acting in the best interests of all the people. If they had used the process of consultation, we could have sat down and made concrete plans with the provinces to lessen the impact of the world energy revolution on the consumers of Canada.
I am going to say what I mean by consultation. To us, consultation means concrete plans with the provinces for the maximum and best use of resources. In the present situation, it means co-ordinating policies with producing provinces of oil and gas to lessen the impact of a world energy revolution on consumers. It means heavy emphasis on positive policies to enlarge our present industries and to add new industries based on the comparative advantage that our oil, gas, uranium, coal and hydro power potential gives us. Provinces with energy potential have waited a long time for this industrialization to come to their areas. This was their great opportunity.
The second thing we would have done would have been to sit down with the provinces and seriously consider all the conservation areas we could have used to save fuel in view of today's wasteful consumption.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am not
just referring to turning out the lights in the Pearson building. We could have sat down and worked out transportation techniques to move fuel from surplus areas to deficit areas. We could have talked over the question of storage. We could have considered the humanitarian concerns of the people so dependent on fuel in the winter time. But, above all, if it is a question of working out with the provinces the quid pro quo, we could have resolved the wants and desires of the producing provinces and their ambitions for the future, with the needs of the consumers to meet this shock in a staged manner so that the impact would be lessened or equalized all over the country.
For instance, one of the things that could have been put before provinces which have potential gas and oil is our insistence that if any gas or oil goes across the border in future, the Americans must take off the petrochemical tariff and give us a chance to build industry in Canada. This is the type of thing on which we would like to place emphasis.
Mr. Speaker, I shall not take any longer than the minister took. I want to say, as I did the other night, that consultation is not a dirty word, nor is it demeaning to sit down with our equals in the research field of the provinces to work out programs on how to get a Montreal pipeline in place quickly, and how to make deals with Venezuela and Nigeria on getting oil. Plans could be worked out so that the people least able to bear the problem will not suffer. All these suggestions have been made to the minister, as we all know, since January of this
November 1, 1973

year, but no positive reaction came until this sudden blasting in all directions on September 4, September 13 and, I suspect, again tonight.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, nothing in this great energy policy statement deals with the fact that no effort whatsoever is being made in Canada to find and to put on the market in the next three or four years alternative forms of energy to oil, gas and coal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: When I see our neighbour country to the south, which is in worse shape than we are, spending $2 billion a year on this type of research-as much as they spent on getting to the moon-and we are spending literally as close as you can get to absolutely nothing, I wonder. The latest report of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources stated flatly that it is the agency of the federal government for non-renewable resources. I suggest to the minister and to the whole country, Mr. Speaker, that it is time his department looked at alternative forms of energy, because in the short run and in the long run they are the only ways we will be able to check prices. There is no point in going along with the government being defender of the consumer when we have arbitrary acts such as we have witnessed in the statement tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the present oil crisis in which Canada finds itself is due to the deplorable lack of planning by the federal government over the past ten years, and particularly over the past five years. It has been glaringly apparent for some time that the United States was becoming increasingly dependent upon imported oil. It was also apparent that the Middle East, which has over 80 per cent of the world's oil reserves, would be using the growing world demand to raise the price of its oil. For years the New Democratic Party has been urging the government that Canada, as a net exporter of oil, should do two things. The first is to assure its consumers security of supply. Second, the government must protect those consumers from being gouged by the oil industry, which is seeking to take full advantage of escalating world oil prices.
To this end we have urged a succession of ministers of energy, mines and resources to extend a reversible oil pipeline to eastern Canada and to reduce proportionately our exports of oil to the United States. This has not been done. We now find ourselves threatened with a shortage of imported oil and a dramatic increase in price of such imported supplies as we are able to procure. The consequences of the government's procrastination are now upon us. The chickens of the indecision are coming home to roost. It is the consumers of eastern Canada who will pay the price for the government's lack of foresight.


An hon. Member:: Who is going to believe that?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: While facing this situation in which we have witnessed a deplorable lack of planning, we have been waiting for the government's long awaited and much
Oil and Gas
vaunted statement as delivered by the minister. It was so important that it was postponed twice today. I must say that when one reads it one will find, surely, that this is a most inadequate response to a desperate situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a matter of fact the leader of my party, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), and I were given only one copy of the statement in each language. I read the English version and he read the French version. When we had finished, we were sure some pages were missing. We just could not believe that we had read the minister's statement, in view of all the fuss and furore and the waiting until the stockmarkets had closed.
What are the proposals contained in the minister's statement? First, the minister proposes to retain the price restrictions with respect to western crude oil until the end of January. Of course, we commend him for that. We hope that these will be continued beyond the end of January. Certainly, by imposing these controls the government has saved the consumers of Canada millions of dollars.
Some have cried very loudly-particularly members of the government of Alberta-about the great harm this has done to the oil industry. The fact is that the oil industry in this country in the ten months prior to the government's imposing the freeze had raised the price of crude oil by 37 per cent, or 95 cents per barrel. That increased their annual revenues by $700 million per year. The government, when it imposed the freeze, was too late. Nevertheless, thank heaven somebody put it on. When I listen to the objections of some hon. gentlemen to my right, I wonder how long they want the public to be exploited by the oil industry which wishes to take advantage of the rising and ever higher prices in the United States.
As well, the minister proposes raising the export tax on oil going to the United States from 40 cents per barrel to $1.90 per barrel. This is in keeping with the commitment he made to this House. When the legislation for the export tax is brought down, that tax will represent the differential in price between the Canadian price and the Chicago price, and this will be done in order to insulate Canadian consumers from the rising prices in the United States. There is an oil shortage in that country but there is no need for us to experience an oil shortage. The minister is proposing to raise this tax for December. I assume the legislation will give him authority to raise the tax at any other time when the differential increases and to reduce it when the differential declines.
As I listened to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) complaining about this export tax, I wondered how many people realize that if the export tax had not been levied, the oil companies in this country would have made $185 million a year extra by getting 40 cents a barrel more in Chicago for oil than they were buying it for in Canada, and that the government of Alberta, which has been protesting loudly about the export tax, would not have got a five-cent piece of that $185 million.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is where the hon. member is wrong. The government would have received royalties.

November 1, 1973
Oil and Gas


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Although the Premier of Alberta says that this has cost Alberta $300 million a year, may I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the government of Alberta is actually losing only $60 million. I support the idea of the federal government's fully reimbursing that province and turning back to the producing provinces the export tax. What the premier does not point out is that $240 million would have gone to the oil companies. If the oil companies had been allowed to raise by 40 cents per barrel the price of domestically consumed oil, Canadian consumers would have paid another $72 million a year.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is crazy. The hon. member is all wrong.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we support maintaining the export tax in order to protect Canadian consumers from rising prices. The minister also said that the government is prepared to consider applications for increasing the price of heating fuels. This would apply west of the Ottawa Valley. The government would consider that, the minister said, in order to offset the tendency for such supplies to move out of the area. I hope the minister will explain that in the question period.
For instance, I do not know how supplies of heating oil could move out of British Columbia unless the government is going to allow that province to export such fuels to the United States. I do not know how such fuels would move out of the Prairies. There might be some such movement out of Ontario, but I would point out that west of the Ottawa Valley, and certainly in most of Ontario, it is possible to get all the western crude you need, and the people in that region can process all the heating fuel they need. Therefore, I think this permission for oil companies to raise the price of heating oil west of the Ottawa Valley is totally uncalled for.
Let me deal with another matter. The two problems which face eastern Canada have to do with providing some protection against price increases and, secondly, continuity of supply. I point out that the minister has not offered any solution. He merely says that he is prepared to let the oil companies raise the price to the consumer, and that price increase is to be proportionate to the proven increase which the companies must pay for crude oil. Certainly, as Venezuelan oil is going up in price there is no doubt that the consumers of eastern Canada will pay much higher prices for oil this coming winter.
On the matter of continuity of supply the minister had nothing to offer. He merely said that the government will continue to watch the situation carefully. That certainly will inspire confidence in those who are worried about oil shortages this coming winter. He is also going to set up a technical advisory committee which will look at petroleum supply and demand. One of its tasks will be, as the minister says, advising as to the outlook in this field. I submit that the best advice they will be able to give Canadians is: Dig out your red flannel underwear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Your Stanfields.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Surely we ought to be dealing with the problems of protection of price and continuity of supply

on a Canadian basis. We in this party have been pressing the minister for the setting up of a national petroleum corporation, one of whose purposes would be that it would function as the sole purchaser and marketer of oil in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It would enter into bilateral agreements with oil producing countries. It would also purchase the domestic oil. It would distribute and allocate that oil. Such a corporation would be able to pool the oil resources and standardize prices so that the people of Canada who use oil, no matter whether it came from the Middle East, Venezuela or western Canada, would have not the same price but a standardized basic price plus the cost of transportation. That is the kind of policy we ought to have. It is rather significant that in a brief which the minister took to cabinet around April 10 or 12, the minister's own department suggested setting up such a national petroleum corporation. When the National Energy Board report came out, it was hashed over and watered down. It listed the advantages, and three times as many disadvantages.
I am convinced there are people in the minister's department and in the National Energy Board-and to a large extent the minister himself-who recognize the inevitability of establishing a national petroleum corporation to pool the oil resources that are available to the Canadian people, whether domestic or imported, to provide for some price standardization and guaranteed continuity of supply. I strongly suspect the reason we had to wait all day instead of getting a report at two o'clock or five o'clock this afternoon is that the minister was pushing for such a national petroleum corporation. I have the feeling he was clobbered by the neanderthals in his department.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They are like the great men of Saskatchewan. You lost the oil industry.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The oil sheik from Edmonton is talking from his seat. If he wants to make a speech, he will have lots of opportunity to make it. He was for years the apologist in this House for the oil industry. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain accused the New Democratic Party of supporting the government on its oil policy. One of the reasons I did that is that I would have nightmares if I thought the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) was in charge of it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: People left you in the
tens and twenties of thousands.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I shall not keep replying to the hon. member for Edmonton West. A former prime minister made him a cabinet minister. It lasted only two months. That was the wisest decision ever made in history.
November 1, 1973

I conclude by saying that this matter of a national petroleum corporation is too important to be smothered by a few reactionaries in this House or in the government. It is the people of Canada, particularly those east of the Ottawa Valley, who will be the sufferers unless we set up some type of national marketing mechanism. As far as the New Democratic Party is concerned, we shall continue to push the minister and the government to bring in legislation between now and Christmas for such a national petroleum corporation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Transla tion]


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, following the statement by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Ressources (Mr. Macdonald) who this time sent us a copy of his statement in advance and in French it gives me great pleasure to join with my colleagues in making comments in this House on the important problem raised by him.
Our shortage of energy and oil in Canada, Mr. Speaker, is due primarily to a lack of energy and foresight of this and previous ministers who failed to take preventive measures when they should have in respect of the energy problem in Canada.
The statement made today called for the acceptance of price increases requested by oil companies in Canada, one of 2 cents a gallon for September and October, and another of $1 a barrel for November.
The minister stated that price increases have to be granted to those companies if Canada is to be assured of an adequate supply of petroleum products. That, Mr. Speaker, is another proof of our economic dependence on petroleum products because price increases must be accepted if we are to heat our homes and run our cars.
There again, Mr. Speaker, is proof that we are colonized when 83 per cent of the oil industry in Canada is under foreign control. We export Canadian gas at ridiculous prices and we import gas at higher prices. We are the eternal milk cows of multinational oil companies. It is proven today, Mr. Speaker, that there is no real oil surplus in Canada and yet we have been exporting our products for years and at ridiculous prices. Even if we had surpluses we should save them to meet the demand in coming years while at the same time ensuring a low domestic price. But no, the opposite was done. We have exported at low prices-


Marcel-Claude Roy: I think that prices-


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Prices change every week; you just have to follow the rates at the Montreal Stock Exchange to know the export prices.
I notice that the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy) is not familiar with oil problems and that he will be short of oil. If he has not yet been short of fuel oil, he has been without light for a long time.
We import at higher and higher prices, as the minister has just said, when he announced an increase in prices on imports. The policy of the minister does not make any sense. The Canadian consumer is always footing the bill and multinational oil companies pocket millions of dollars
Oil and Gas
while an embarrassed and powerless minister looks on, a member of a party "liberally" financed by the same multinational companies.
Those companies rule the roost, they determine the prices and the future of Canadian petroleum products at the face of the minister, they use tax exemptions allowed for research to swallow up the profits and in this manner they finance their oil explorations throughout the world instead of promoting the industrialization and the marketing of Canadian products.
This evening, according to the minister's statement, the export tax is increased by $1.90 a barrel for the month of December, and the companies increase their import prices. A tax of $1.90 a barrel is applied on export prices and it is agreed to pay more for our imports. Where is the difference? Here it is: the Canadian consumer will pay more for imports than the additional amount the government will collect in export taxes. Mr. Speaker, it takes economists to do that. Government economists are seeking a solution to the oil problem. They must certainly not find one as they would then lose their job. They are paid to look and they must look without finding anything. They have nevertheless found a solution, but it solves nothing. And the minister tells us that there is an energy problem in Canada. On February 14, 1973, the minister was reported as having said:
. . . the oil wells of the western provinces are not being over-produced; and that no shortages of crude are on the horizon for Canadian refineries.
These assurances have come from energy minister Macdonald, from members of Alberta's cabinet, and from all oil industry spokesmen, as well as from such U.S. authorities as Senator Henry Jackson and Senator Frank Ross.
[ Transla tion]
Mr. Speaker, why is it that in February we were told that there was no problem, that the oil production in Canada was adequate, and that today we hear about a shortage of oil products? And the Winnipeg Free Press of July 10, 1973, tells why we are supposed to have a shortage of oil products in Canada. Here is what this newspaper said;

"Phoney Shortage".
Since the start of the present energy crisis in the United States, which has seen hundreds of service stations close down and hundreds more restrict their hours of service, there have been claims that the crisis is a phoney-a crisis brought on deliberately by the major oil companies.
This view, much as it may have been discounted in the beginning, has now been given overwhelming support by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission in a staff report. According to the report, 18 major oil companies in the U.S. have, for all intents and purposes, worked as a cartel or monopoly with a view to squeezing out their independent competitors and keeping their prices-and profits-high.
[Transla tion]
Mr. Speaker, the minister would have us believe that he is forced to limit the consumption of oil products in
7458

November 1, 1973
Oil and Gas
Canada because of a shortage. However, in its issue of July 10, 1973, the Chronicle-Herald said this:

Possible oil reserves off the Canadian east coast, as estimated ...
[ Translation]
estimated not by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but by the Canadian Petroleum Association.

... is 32 trillion barrels of oil and 110-115 trillion cubic feet of gas.
By comparison, the proven oil reserves in the North Sea are 12 billion barrels and 64 trillion cubic feet of gas, he said.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of rot in those comments of the minister who tries to make us believe that there is a shortage of oil products in Canada, that we may perhaps soon have to face it due to his improvidence, his lack of information and drive, because he did not have enough foresight to help the companies to develop the Canadian oil fields and since also the companies are interested in keeping their profits at a high level by inducing a shortage of petroleum products. Moreover, we could read on page 6 of La Presse dated May 31, 1971, that is two years ago: "A sea of oil under the turbulent waters of the Hudson Bay?-
I do not have enough time to give particulars on the result of inquiries carried out in Canada but which are kept secret by multinational companies controlling prices, as established by the conclusions of a senatorial inquiry conducted in the United States. Those companies also control the market as well as our Canadian production. Indeed, there is no doubt that Canada, especially Quebec, have extremely rich oil resources. Here is a good one. An election took place recently in the province of Quebec and the party in power used the following motto: Bourassa builds up. As a matter of fact, they promised to build an oil refinery in eastern Quebec and a deep-waters harbour for supertankers in Gros-Cacouna. But there is certainly a lack of communication between the federal and the provincial government for I cannot believe that they promised to build a harbour for supertankers if there is no more oil. They could just as well have promised to build bridges over nonexistent rivers.
Mr. Speaker, this is just about what happened in the province of Quebec. The solutions that we had to propose were very plain. First, we must take stock of our energy needs for the next 25 years in Canada; second, we must maintain an inventory of oil products to meet the demand for the next 25 years as well; we must also grant a special retail discount on oil products in order to encourage consumers to use Canadian oil products. We must oblige multinational corporations to re-invest their profits at home. We must supervise research expenditures of multinational corporations that are now secured through taxes and are only designed to divert money from tax authorities. We must ensure through research activities that the whole energy potential in Canada is known by the government. We must also provide research grants to private individuals who want to develop new forms of energy

which eventually will be beneficial substitutes for the products that we know today.
Mr. Speaker, the minister will have to smarten up, to be a little more energetic and stop sheepishly following a policy prescribed by multinational oil companies.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. While my colleague from Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) was making very pertinent remarks on behalf of my party, he has been harassed-and I am a witness as are some of my colleagues-by the Quebec members of another political party.
Mr. Speaker, we are very far from the Chair. These members' attitude is ill-advised; perhaps they are interested in protecting the power, but since we are the only Quebec members of the opposition both in Ottawa and in Quebec, we have the right to express our views and we are entitled to the respect of this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr.   La Salle@: Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege, I would like the House to realize that when the hon. member is saying sensible things, I am all ears.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) has risen on a point of order. I listened with interest. I must admit that perhaps there have been some interruptions while the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) was bringing his most interesting contribution to the debate, but I must suggest that the hon. member was adressing the Chair, and that I have listened to him with attention and interest.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Joliette, because I know that he always listens to the Creditistes, since we always say something sensible.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My understanding is that we will now return to the question period for 20 minutes.

I think that we now ought to get back to oral questions for a period of approximately 20 minutes, after which we will resume the debate which was interrupted at six p.m.
November 1, 1973



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who said in the course of his statement that east of the Ottawa Valley line the price of gasoline and home heating oil would immediately be increased by an average of 2 cents a gallon although the price would vary from company to company depending upon cost. I ask how he proposes to have the government involved in monitoring those price increases.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, judging from the experience we have had in the last several months, there will be a very quick reading as to how prices will be involved. There will, of course, be some adjustment in margins at the retail level, but in effect I would anticipate that the price leaders whose prices will be somewhere just under 2 cents will probably, at least for those higher than 2 cents a gallon, dictate the price level. We would expect to have the kind of feedback we had earlier when restraints were put on but which fell off afterwards. Normally we would get an early reading as to particular prices of particular companies.


OIL AND GAS-TIMING OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF PRICE INCREASES IN QUEBEC AND ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, would the minister tell us when he proposes to make a further announcement as to the next round of price increases in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces based upon the anticipated increase in crude prices mentioned by the minister tonight, which might well be higher than the price increase he has just announced? When does the minister propose to let the next shoe drop?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that will depend very much upon the kind of proof the companies can bring forth, if indeed they have had additional costs. In the normal course it will take some time before the price increases of last week find their way through to inventory.


HOME HEATING FUELS-APPLICATIONS FOR PRICE INCREASES WEST OF OTTAWA VALLEY LINE- GOVERNMENT CRITERIA IN CONSIDERATION THEREOF
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have one further supplementary question, and perhaps I might really get an answer to this one. The minister has stated his willingness to accept applications for price increases in respect of home heating fuels west of the Ottawa Valley line but he did not indicate the basis upon which applications for increases would be accepted or rejected. Would the minister now indicate to the House the basis, or the criteria the minister would use in deter -
Oral Questions
mining whether an increase in the price of home heating fuels west of the Ottawa Valley would be granted by the government?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might read to the hon. gentleman that portion of my statement which related to this. I pointed out as follows:
A significant part of the market for home heating oil in the central Ontario area is supplied by imports of home heating oil from overseas.
This has been the case for a number of years. To continue:
The rapid increase in demand for international supplies of home heating oils with the consequent price increase has made it difficult for Ontario suppliers . . .


An hon. Member:: Don't read so fast.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I agree that I would have to read it very slowly and with great precision to make an impact on the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Be serious.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: To continue the quotation, Mr. Speaker:
The rapid increase in demand for international supplies of home heating oils with the consequent price increase has made it difficult for Ontario suppliers to secure adequate supplies before the close of navigation in December.
In these circumstances it is the government's intention to entertain requests by marketers for immediate price increases in home heating oils west of the Ottawa Valley line and particularly in Ontario and British Columbia.
This is where the same criteria applies. Basically, if there are additional costs indicated by particular importers into Ontario, and we have had some indication from independent importers of this previously, at a price level that makes it difficult for them to import and sell at a cost which would enable them to recover their cost, of course we will entertain an application of that kind. This will depend very much on the situation of individual companies. Obviously, I think it is fair to say that anyone who has a western Canada supply and has not incurred the same cost increase as an independent would not be in the same position to get compensation for increased costs.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have one further supplementary question on this point. I would point out that the minister did not say that in his statement, although he tried to give the impression that I ought to have understood this.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I read the statement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister did not indicate in his statement the criteria on which an increase would be granted, although he has done so now. I should like to ask whether he is now saying, and intends it to be understood to mean, that an application for an increase would be accepted or granted only where there is indication or proof of increased costs.
26635-4H

November 1, 1973
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: That's what he said.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Exactly, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Then why didn't you say it?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is exactly as has happened with regard to the eastern market.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Why didn't you say it?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Well, I did say it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You did not.


OIL-INCREASE IN EXPORT TAX-GOVERNMENT DISPOSITION OF ADDITIONAL REVENUE-INTRODUCTION OF ENABLING LEGISLATION
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact it is now some time since he announced an export tax on crude oil, and the government is already collecting that tax, I should like to ask two questions. How soon does the minister intend to introduce legislation to give legislative support to the action he is taking and give the House the particulars on which that action is based? Also, is he prepared tonight to give an indication to the oil producing provinces of his intentions regarding the disposition of the revenue which is to be received from this tax? The increase announced today, of course, means a great deal more money, and it seems to me the provinces are entitled to know the minister's intentions.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on the latter point, the intention is the same as I indicated initially to the province of Alberta on September 13, that we would be prepared to make good to the province the revenue which otherwise would have accrued to it, not by way of an increase in selling price to the United States; from the increase it would have got if the market as a whole had gone up. I have said that before in the House and to provincial representatives and it remains the federal position.
As to the balance of the question, we feel it is in the general interest of Canadians that the financial assets created by this windfall, in large part from action of the federal government, which would have gone entirely into the accounts of non-Canadian owned corporations should go toward the development of additional energy resources in Canada, particularly in those provinces which are now producing this resource.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, would the minister be prepared to pay the provinces an amount related to the royalties they would have obtained had the Chicago rates been obtained at the wellhead? Does this apply equally to the price of domestic oil which, of course, is frozen and which would also have risen to the Chicago price had price ceilings and restraints not been imposed?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Sir. We would put the provinces in the revenue position which they determined

to be fair from the standpoint of royalties which would have prevailed had the higher price prevailed throughout, whoever their customers might have been.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the minister said, and I agree with him, that there is a great deal of merit in seeing that part of this revenue goes into developing oil production in Canada to meet our future needs. Is the government making any proposals to the oil producing provinces indicating its willingness to take the balance of the money over and above what it pays the provinces in return for their royalties for the development of, for instance, the oil sands or the heavy oil in the Lloydminster area?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have talked both at the western conference and since then with the provinces with regard to the very heavy investment job which has to be done, for example, in defining the nature of the resource in the Athabasca oil sands and also in defining or establishing if there are better methods for lifting the heavy oil not only at Cold Lake but in the Lloydminster area, which applies to both Alberta and Saskatchewan. We have also talked with the government of Saskatchewan in this regard which has a very active interest regarding some of the additional levels in some of the fields they have in production now. So we have had discussions in this regard. I think it would be very fruitful, not only from the standpoint of these provinces but from the standpoint of Canadians generally, that these assets be put to work for Canadians generally and for the inhabitants of those provinces.

[ Translation]


POSSIBLE INCREASE IN PRICE OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS-INQUIRY AS TO STUDY
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Since he informs us that the refineries of eastern Canada which get their crude oil supplies from international markets will probably be allowed in the near future to hike again their prices according to the oil import costs, has a study been made to determine approximately how important the rise will be in October and November and whether the figure of 6 cents a gallon quoted by newspapermen can be said to be realistic?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in my comments I talked about $1 a barrel, I think, as regards the possible increases for November. Divided by 35, the figure means for that month a possible increment of almost 3 cents a gallon.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources about a problem peculiar to the area located east of the Borden line.
November 1, 1973

The minister has already stated in the House that he had had discussions with the Quebec government and, among others, with the Minister of Natural Resources who was then on vacation. Could the minister tell us-


An hon. Member:: Before his victory!


André-Gilles Fortin: That is true, before his victory, because he was not there.
Would the minister tell us the outcome of his discussions with the Quebec government among others? Moreover, can he tell us which consultations he had before his statement of tonight and ensure the House that he will see to it that the region east of the Borden line gets the necessary supplies for the next season in the light of the announcements made by the Quebec government during the last election campaign? This is no longer a question of election but a question of life.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I am not quite certain I did understand the hon. member's question. In any event, we have discussed with the provincial government the question of the pipeline extension. As you know, a proposal for the building of a supertanker harbour has been drafted.
We know that both projects could be implemented so as to ensure that the Quebec consumer will be supplied through an oil pipeline as well as enjoying the benefits of overseas supplies. I must say that the current priority is to ensure crude oil supplies to the Montreal refineries. For this reason and in the light of the international situation, the issue is supplies and not prices.


DOMESTIC CRUDE OIL-SUGGESTED STAGED PRICE INCREASES-CONSULTATION WITH INDUSTRY
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that of the Leader of the Opposition, the only party leader who has seen fit to be here this evening to listen to this discussion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: When does the minister intend to implement his promised Montreal-based pricing policy for domestic crude, and is he consulting with industry and the provinces to seek a means of achieving a staged series of domestic crude increases up to the Montreal-based international price starting now, rather than a massive price jump on February 1?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we would expect that this would become active on February 1. Certainly the question of staged increases has been considered. On the whole, the consideration was that the protection of several months would be advantageous from the consumers' standpoint.


Harvie Andre: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In answer to a question by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, the minister indicated the government's position in respect of the disposition of the reve-
Oral Questions
nues from this export tax. Is this a firm position and has it been accepted by the producing provinces? Is the minister still in discussion with the producing provinces in respect of this tax, and why is there no revised tax figure for November and for the massive increase in December, which does not appear to make much sense?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on the latter question, the hon. gentleman will have noted that there has been a dramatic increase in the international cost in just the last 15 days. With regard to the attitude of the provinces, I can say with reference to Alberta that I think its position is that the tax is absolutely immoral but it is very keen to have the proceeds.


OIL AND GAS-INCREASES IN PRICE-EFFECT ON COST OF LIVING
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I ask the Minister of Finance what measures he intends to introduce to offset the additional burden this will place on the highly overburdened Canadian consumers, especially in the five eastern provinces where this latest move will contribute substantially to the already high cost of living.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the government has already taken measures both at the pension level and the family allowance level-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: -to protect the interests of the Canadian consumer. The primary motive behind the statement by my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, tonight was not only to protect the price to the consumer but to protect the supply to the Canadian consumer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I remind hon. members that there are exactly three minutes before the end of the question period.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, is the minister prepared to meet with the governments of the provinces to enter into ways and means of offsetting this additional increase in the cost of living?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question. I suppose one of the most substantial inputs into the cost of gasoline for consumers in most of the provinces of Canada is the very substantial sales tax taken by the provincial governments.


KEROSENE AND STOVE OIL-GOVERNMENT INTENTION IN RESPECT OF PRICE
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, on the same line may I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether the government has any plans for specially reduced rates on sales of kerosene and stove oil products which are extensively used by low-income Canadians?

November 1, 1973
Agriculture


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think I am correct in saying that these are both middle distillates which are covered by the program. But, of course, with regard to this area of middle distillates I think the most important question, as my colleague has said, is to continue to ensure its supply, which is in a pretty tight situation, as opposed to the price question.


OIL-EXPORT BOYCOTT BY ARAB STATES-EFFECT ON CANADIAN SUPPLIES
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of reports that the minister has received information about the disruption of supplies from the Middle East, and also the statement by a United Nations Arab diplomat that Canada might be denied future oil from Arab states, can the minister explain to the House what the situation is, and set the country straight as to whether we can expect secure supplies or whether we are, indeed, boycotted by the Arab states?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I can say, from the latest information I have from Saudi Arabia, that at least in so far as that state is concerned we are not on their embargo list as, for example, are the United States and The Netherlands. We are regarded by those states as being neutral. Therefore, we will be in the situation of having a potential interruption of supply but not the total interruption which those two countries are suffering. However, one of the most difficult points remains with regard to the port of Portland which in the wintertime is the principal source of oil for Montreal refineries. My understanding at present is that this is regarded as being an American destination, notwithstanding the fact that oil comes in bond through to Montreal. So we can anticipate, subject to further diplomatic action, some interruption the extent of which we cannot foresee at the moment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has to call orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):
That this House deplores the government's inability to give leadership in developing and implementing comprehensive and co-ordinated agricultural policies and programs and regrets that by ill-advised and ad hoc remedies the government has weakened the over-all agricultural economy.
Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this is not a topic that is as appealing as energy:

nevertheless, it is crucial to Canada, the Canadian farmers and the Canadian consumers. Earlier this evening, the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) indicated that the opposition parties were misleading the farmers in their statements out west. All I say to the minister is that the farmers on the Prairies are too smart to be misled by either the opposition or the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
He said also that the government bought some 2,000 hopper cars to facilitate the movement of grain from country elevators on the Prairies. I represent a huge riding in Saskatchewan, and I have not yet seen one of these hopper cars in my area. I believe this whole matter of buying hopper cars was not a deliberate government policy but, rather, a policy conceived in desperation during the election when the minister realized that the Liberal party in the west was in serious difficulty.
The two old-line parties, the Tories and the Liberals, have together undermined the situation of the farmers in the west. I am referring to the Liberals and the Conservatives because I believe they have been in collusion on a number of policies with which western farmers disagree. I should like to refer to two of the policies on which I believe the two parties have been in collusion and on which there have been under-the-door agreements between them. First of all, it should be mentioned that government policies with regard to brucellosis have been negligent, ill-advised and totally inadequate. I am referring to brucellosis or Bangs disease about which hon. members heard earlier this year. For five years brucellosis has been spreading throughout Saskatchewan, but the government did not do too much in this regard. Last spring they suddenly smartened up and I must admit that the compensation rates were increased. This is certainly appreciated by the farmers affected. However, the compensation rates are still far from adequate. There are still a number of improvements that could be made with regard to the administration of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.
First, uniform compensation rates should be allowed for calves. At present there is no consistency in this regard. Some farmers are paid for calves; others are told they will not be paid for them. The farmers who are obstreperous and engage in some negotiations do get paid for them. I think there should be some consistency. Secondly, compensation rates should be higher in the spring than they are in the fall. I say this because in the spring cows are usually very thin and scrawny and do not bring the best market price for slaughter purposes. Therefore, compensation rates should be higher to compensate for the lower slaughter prices at the packing plant at that time of year.
Third, once the farmers' herds have had a positive reaction to a number of tests and it appears that the disease cannot be eradicated by conventional methods, the whole herd should be sold. Fourth, there is another problem with regard to brucellosis, that is, the whole question of timing of compensation payments. The farmers' cattle are shipped out. However, compensation payments are held back for three, four, five or six months. A farmer cannot survive if he does not have the financial means. That is why I feel that when compensation is awarded to a farmer and cattle are taken away from him, he should receive at least part
November 1, 1973

payment for his herd. The remainder could follow after the premises have been cleaned up and inspected.
Fifth, another question plaguing farmers with regard to brucellosis is the whole matter of income tax. The income tax status of a farmer who loses an entire herd because of brucellosis could be based on a five-year average. However, this is not very satisfactory and I believe consideration should be given to farmers whose herds are sold because of a government law or edict.
Now I should like to speak on another topic, namely, the rapeseed vote about which we heard a few days ago. I believe it is a phony vote, a masterpiece of Liberal trickery with which the members of the Tory party agree completely, it seems to me. I say this because the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta), who is the Conservative Party's spokesman and replied to the minister's statement last week regarding the rapeseed vote, stated that perhaps the vote should not be taken after all. He seemed to be very pleased that the cards were stacked against the proponents of orderly marketing.
There are three things about the vote that are phony and dishonest, and I certainly cannot see how it can be compatible with the so-called Liberal philosophy, if they have any philosophy. First of all, there is the matter of the 60 per cent majority required. Would it not be something if our whole democratic system were based on a 60 per cent majority and we could not win a seat in the House unless we had 60 per cent of the vote? I feel that these guidelines should be revised and all that should be required in this case would be a simple majority. If slightly over half the farmers say they want rapeseed under the administration and jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, that is the way it should be.
Second, only those rapeseed producers can vote who have produced rapeseed two years out of the last three years. This is ridiculous also, and certainly mitigates against the farmer in the northern prairies. I say this because the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), or the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, may not be aware of this but three years ago we had a severe outbreak of the Bertha army worm in the northern prairies, right across the north. Many farmers lost their crops or spent a great deal of money spraying them from aeroplanes. The crops were severely damaged.
Following this experience, and on the advice of many farm experts, farmers were told that it would be to their benefit if they did not grow rapeseed on those fields for several years. Consequently, many rapeseed producers went out of production during the last two years. Therefore, in many cases the traditional rapeseed producer has grown only one crop in the last three years, and now he is not allowed to vote. I think the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board is aware of this and did it deliberately in collusion with his Tory colleagues. I think that all Wheat Board permit holders should have the right to vote, or failing this, anyone who produced at least one crop of rapeseed within the last five years. This would certainly be more just so far as the rapeseed producers of western Canada are concerned.
Agriculture
Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, I understand that the ballot paper is to have "yes" and "no" categories and also an "undecided" category. This is totally unfair because apparently the undecided category is to count as a "no" vote. This further stacks the cards against the farmers who are interested in an orderly system of marketing in this country. Apparently there are powerful forces at work to destroy the concept of orderly marketing in Canada, into which years of labour and toil have been put by farm organizations, wheat pools and farmers' groups on the prairie provinces, at least ever since the 1920's, the beginning of the progressive movement, the labour movement, the co-ops and what-have-you.
Every farmer who supports the principle of orderly marketing through the Canadian Wheat Board should be extremely uneasy and concerned at the announcement by the minister responsible for the Wheat Board on the new feed grains policy and the apparent support he is getting from the Conservative Party. They are being awfully quiet about that policy. All they talk about is supply and demand, as though supply and demand existed in this country today. The minister has spoken of the "equity" he is trying to create for livestock producers in British Columbia and eastern Canada in order that they need not pay more for feed grains than livestock producers in the prairie region, except for the costs of transportation and handling. Unfortunately the model of equity he intends to use is the notoriously inequitable and unjust open market feed mill and feed lot prices for feed grains paid to farmers for years in the prairie region. In order to extend this kind of equity, at the grain producers' expense, to other parts of Canada the function of the Canadian Wheat Board in setting prices on all domestic sales is done away with.
What has been the Wheat Board's crime? Apparently it had come to the attention of feed grain purchasers in eastern Canada that the Wheat Board was doing a much better job of getting a good return for grain producers on the Prairies than were the prairie feed mills and feed lots. It was doing so much better, in fact, that eastern livestock feeders felt they were at a competitive disadvantage with prairie livestock feeders, in spite of the fact that they get $5 per hundredweight more for their cattle here than they do in the west.
How, then, to create equity? "At the expense of prairie grain producers," says the minister. The Wheat Board will no longer set prices for any feed grains sold in Canada. Feed mills and feed lots, which for years have paid grain producers the lowest possible price, often below production costs, now dictate the price at which feed grains will be sold in the rest of Canada as well. In this way the minister claims he is creating equity. For whom? He is supposed to be responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, an organization which serves the interests of grain producers. But obviously he is catering to agribusiness interests. The policy is designed to put a potential candidate for leadership of the Liberal Party-I am referring to the Minister of Justice-on the right side of the Quebec farmer and of the politicians who speak for the Quebec farmer. The minister attacked my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave). My colleague stated facts and figures, and the minister did not like those facts and figures.

November 1, 1973
Agriculture
Many of these problems would not have developed in the first place if federal governments over the last 15 years had developed stable floor prices for farm products based on the costs of production. This is something that successive Liberal and Conservative governments have failed to do-and this has been the cry of the west for years. Now Canadian consumers are being pinched and squeezed because of high food prices due to the total failure of previous governments to stabilize the agricultural economy.
In the province of Saskatchewan thousands of farmers have left farms because that supposedly would make the remainder more efficient. Many farmers got by, by the skin of their teeth. Now, when things are looking better, everyone is screaming that the farmer is getting too much-


Eugene Whelan: Not everybody.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: -when in effect he is getting only what is due to him.
In the province of Saskatchewan, on October 15 a floor price was announced for hogs. This was done to encourage farmers to stay in hog production. Studies indicated that it cost approximately $48 to $50 to produce one hog. Therefore, the government of Saskatchewan said, "All right; we will give you a floor price of $52 a hog plus a $5 incentive to stay in hog production." The result is that the farmers have a floor price of $57 per hundredweight on hogs at the present time. This will exist for a three-month period and then it will be reviewed and probably renewed for two further three-month periods until July 15 next. Hopefully, by that time the federal government will waken up and negotiate some sort of a stable floor price for hogs. This is essential if farmers are to stay in hog production. Certainly the federal government should be moving into this scheme because I do not think the people of Saskatchewan should be subsidizing hog prices for all of Canada. And, Mr. Speaker, we export 80 per cent of our hogs.
The hog population in Saskatchewan has dropped slightly and people are saying it is because of the hog marketing commission that we have in the province. The Tories in Saskatchewan are trying to destroy it. I would like to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that for the period ending October 1, according to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics the number of hogs dropped by 4.4 per cent in Saskatchewan, compared with a drop of more than 10 per cent in Alberta where they do not have the type of marketing board that we have.
Another related matter, so far as the agricultural industry in the west is concerned, is the whole question of administration of agricultural policies. We have a minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, we have a Minister of Agriculture, and in Saskatchewan the federal community pastures come under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. This divergence of the various ministries causes problems so that the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret very much interrupting the hon. member, but the time allotted to him under the agreement made earlier today has expired.


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I enter this debate to support the motion on agriculture. I would like to begin by quoting an editorial in The Grower, which is published monthly by the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association. It is headed, "Farm policy a tragic farce," and among other things it says:
The currently higher farm commodity prices ... could mask the fact that Canada still does not have cohesive farm policy . . . none of the several departments concerned had studied the implications of sweeping tariff reductions.
Canadian beef and pork producers have been kept on a yo-yo since last February.
Well did the fruit and vegetable growers of Canada know what this means, because they have been kept on a yo-yo for many years because of lack of a farm policy. The soybean market was wrecked and the report from the Department of Agriculture is that farmers have been discouraged from expanding production. An important fact concerning agricultural policy is the federally-divided responsibility for agriculture: Canada has an emasculated Department of Agriculture.
This afternoon the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was complaining that some people were worried about the number of speeches that he makes. I am not worried about the number, but I get a profusion of these speeches sent to my office and it is the content that I complain about. I do not even have to read them any more; I can just scan them because they are all the same. After reading these speeches over the last few months, it appears that the minister has traded his pitchfork for a trident and is about to grow a beard so that he can keep permanently in place the halo that he thinks is over his head. In most of his speeches he takes credit for what has happened in agriculture in the past few months, which has come about more by accident than by design; there is very little there about the policies of his government.
Why does he not tell the farmers what he is doing to help them in transportation and marketing? What about feed assistance for the people in southern British Columbia where there was a very severe drought this year? With feed assistance for their cattle they could maintain their basic herds. What about the cold storage subsidy? We have heard little about that. What about the livestock inventory provision of the Income Tax Act? What about the tender fruit industry study? We hear very little about these things, Mr. Speaker. I should like to deal with some of these policy matters, but as my time is short I will not be able to cover them all.
This afternoon the minister was going to tell the House about policy, but he got hung up on farm credit. Marketing is the thing, Mr. Speaker. What is the use of setting up credit for farmers, or even giving them money to get into farming, if they cannot market their produce? Marketing is what they need; they have to earn their living in the marketplace. Why does the minister not tell us what he is doing to give the Canadian producer a market in Canada and to help him market abroad? In a speech in the House earlier this year the minister said that no one would bring products into Canada and upset the market of Canadian producers. Is this what he means? How about what hap-
November 1, 1973

pened in onion marketing in Canada this year? What about fresh peach marketing in Ontario this year? What about the marketing of cherries in Canada this year?
Let us now deal with tomatoes. I have a letter from a constituent telling me what happened when his tomatoes were ready for picking. At the peak he had 500 boxes of tomatoes for sale, so he called his marketing board. They gave him an order for 20 packages of tomatoes, or 800 pounds. I have a copy of his account sales from the marketing board. The tomatoes were sent to Vancouver and he received $50 for them, seven cents a pound. The marketing board told him this was because of the produce coming in from the United States at, they allegedly told him, 3'A cents a pound. He got seven cents a pound shipped to Vancouver. If the wholesale and retail mark-up and transportation had taken an equal amount, that would mean that tomatoes should have been selling for 14 cents a pound in the stores in Vancouver. I wonder how long it has been since we saw tomatoes at 14 cents a pound retail?
When the peach crop in Ontario reached its peak for marketing, what happened? There was an influx of peaches. I do not think the minister did very much about this, although I heard him say in committee he was going to give the growers a cold storage subsidy so they could build CA storages to put their peaches in, and then market them at Christmas after everybody else had had a good run at the market and the fruit had lost peak condition. What a way to market Canadian produce! The producer is denied the marketplace at the peak of production and the government is going to help him spend the taxpayers' money to put the crop into cold storage, and then bring it out after everybody else has had a run at the market. The minister said that his researchers told him this .could be done. I have never heard of such research. Peaches are one of the most perishable products. I would like to see the day when you could put them into CA storage until Christmas after they had been picked in August.
Why does the minister not tell the Canadian people that none of the prices for farm products are set in Canada? The beef producers are finding that out today, although we have been telling them for years that it was going to happen. We know from experience what has been going on because of lack of policy. Prices are not set in Canada, but outside. We had a really good price structure this year for apples, one that would probably have brought us in proper remuneration considering the increased cost of inputs such as labour, spray, gasoline and diesel fuel, farm machinery, and so on. What happened? There was a large apple crop in the state of Washington and they started rolling cars in. Immediately the price went down and this was the price we had to compete with. So we are back down to the price we got three years ago, but we are not paying the price for gas that we paid three years ago.
What is the minister doing to help us in the area of transportation? We cannot get cars. In the Okanagan Valley we are short 73 cars for shipping fruit. We have a railroad just south of the border which is willing to haul our fresh fruit at no extra cost to us if we agree to send it through the United States and back into Canada. It is the Burlington Northern and it has the rail cars. Yet what has happened? The Customs people have decided that they cannot go five or ten miles and put their stamps on the
Agriculture
cars and seal them. That is too far for them to go, even though the railroad has offered to pay their way down there and back. Therefore we cannot take advantage of this service. What a way to do things! We are told that our cars are in the United States, yet there are empty American cars which are available if we want to ship our produce.
Yesterday I mentioned the apples that are sold in the House of Commons restaurants and cafeterias. We cannot ship our apples to Ontario and Quebec. The Americans are getting their apples here and they fill the vacuum quickly. More than likely, that is why we cannot bring our apples in. American apples certainly come in. Mr. Speaker, what a way to handle the crops of Canadian farmers!
I have in my possession a study on tender fruit. I do not know if it has been released officially but I have a copy of it. It does not contain too much input from the industry. It says, in so many words, that there should not be any canneries in Canada. I point out that this publication was put out by the Department of Agriculture. It says that we should market everything we grow in the fresh state. You must market fresh fruit as well as canned fruit. You cannot market just fresh fruit. Yet the people who put out this publication are saying to the producers of Canada, "Send your produce to Australia, to California, to South Africa or to anywhere else in the world and take jobs away from Canadians." That is what they are saying, instead of, "Look, we want a healthy canning industry in Canada and we will see to it that we have a healthy canning industry."
Last year the people in Quebec sent 250,000 boxes of apples across the line to be processed. They should have been processed in Quebec. There was a shortage of apple juice in Canada and the apples should have been processed in this country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him under the order made earlier today has expired.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, over the years I have developed a great respect for the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), the mover of the motion we are considering. I have grown to respect him for his deep knowledge of agriculture as well as of other subjects which we discuss in the House. Frankly, however, I submit that in moving the motion standing in his name today he has made a mistake. The last sentence reads in part "-the government has weakened the over-all agricultural economy". If that motion had been presented five years ago or two years ago, or at any time in the 20 years prior to the last two years, very few people would have stood in this House, or in any provincial legislature, and denied the correctness of it, if they spoke with truth and sincerity. Why do I say that?
Since the end of the last war the farmers and others making up the agricultural industry of Canada have not been given a square deal. That they should be given a square deal has been emphasized by politicians at all levels of government and of all parties. Nevertheless, in my view the people of Canada have never appreciated that
7466

November 1, 1973
Agriculture
the people in the agricultural industry are like people in other segments of our economy in that they should have a fair share of the good things of life.
Mr. Speaker, for three or four years I was in western Canada. I think it was in 1969 when the agricultural committee of the House of Commons went to that part of the country. The farmers had on hand approximately one billion bushels of wheat and millions of bushels of other grains. Their complaint was that they did not know what to do with all the grain. If the hon. member for Crowfoot had moved then a motion such as he has moved today, and suggested that the government had failed the agricultural community, many in this chamber would have agreed with him. They would have agreed with him only two years ago when the hog farmers of Canada were starving to death, were being starved out of business-not necessarily, I hasten to add, because of the policies of any one government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I see an hon. member laughing. I am willing to be fair. Many governments on the North American continent did not do their best for hog producers. I am speaking of producers of the United States as well as those raising hogs in Canada. The point is that hog producers could not make a living.
As well, look at the egg situation. Members representing rural areas of Canada know that not long ago farmers were producing eggs which sold at approximately 20 cents a dozen, or less. We all knew then that it took a selling price of 29 cents per dozen for the farmer to break even. Without meaning to laugh at the farmer's expense, the housewife went to Loblaws, Dominion Stores and Safe-ways and chuckled to herself as she bought five dozen eggs for a very reasonable price, not realizing that what she was paying for every dozen was hurting the farmer who had to produce those eggs. Mr. Speaker, the farmers of Canada have not been given a fair deal for the past 20 years.
In the last year or so a breath of fresh air has blown over the agricultural industry of Canada. I have often heard people, when talking about the policies of the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the NDP or any other party say that the leader of the party represents policy. In the majority of cases such people would have been correct in past years. However, in the last few months a leader has emerged, who is helping the agricultural producers of Canada. I am referring to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). He has brought with him a breath of fresh air in enunciating policies affecting the agricultural industry of Canada.


Mr. Knight:: What about the minister in charge of the Wheat Board?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Over the years I have heard various ministers of agriculture, provincial as well as federal, straddle the fence, walk along the rail because they did not want to hurt anybody's feelings. The present Minister of Agriculture, and I say this most sincerely, is all for the farmers of Canada. He is for the people of Canada. My Conservative friends should be mighty glad that we have a minister who goes to western Canada and speaks to farmers in that

region. Although people in the past may have disliked the government, they like the policies of the Minister of Agriculture. These policies help hon. members in their capacity as members of parliament, I can assure you.


An hon. Member:: You could have done that.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: An hon. member across the way
says that somebody else could have done that. The fact is, and nobody can deny it, that the Minister of Agriculture has been doing this and in my opinion he deserves all the credit in the world. His policies have been criticized. As I understand it, in plain words he wants us to have good, wholesome food at reasonable prices and he wants a reasonable profit for the farmer. For many years the people of Canada have been getting good and wholesome food. However, "reasonable" does not mean much to some people when it comes to buying food. They do not want reasonable prices; they want food at prices which are cheap, to the detriment of the agricultural industry of Canada. They do not necessarily want the farmer to earn a reasonable profit. They do not give a darn about the farmer's profit so long as they can buy food as cheaply as possible.
This is one of the reasons why the people of Canada have to pay higher prices for their food today. Because so many farmers have been almost starved out of existence in some instances, we are short of food, if not in Canada in the world at large. Farmers, not just in Canada but in the whole world, have to make a reasonable profit figure so they will produce the food that is so necessary to keep this earth of ours going.
This afternoon the hon. member for Crowfoot said the government has weakened the over-all agricultural industry. It is not generally my policy to read anything, but there was an article on the financial page of this morning's Globe and Mail headlined "Very good year is reported for farmers". This is from the latest issue of the Bank of Montreal business review. There is much criticism of banks but generally it is that they do not face facts as far as the business world is concerned. I suggest these figures are true because they are found in agricultural reports across Canada. These facts were reported by the Bank of Montreal only this morning. The article states that farm cash receipts of Canadian farmers improved by 30 per cent in 1972 over 1971. Does that show, as this motion suggests, that the government has weakened the over-all agricultural economy of Canada? The article further states:
A further increase of between 25 and 30 per cent seems in store for this year.
If my Conservative friends-they are my friends, because I sit with them on the agriculture committee and respect every one of them-want to be fair, they may criticize certain areas of agriculture. However, they should admit that the agricultural economy of Canada, for the first time in 25 years, increased by 30 per cent last year and will increase by another 30 per cent this year. Some members who spoke this afternoon have been able to take advantage of that because they are farmers, and good farmers at that. Much criticism can be made. As far as agricultural workers are concerned, this is not heaven. We
November 1, 1973

all know that. It is not perfect. However, many things will have to be perfected in the future.
Within the past couple of years national marketing legislation has been passed by the House of Commons. Our unions, which are so important for the development of Canada, can get people together to work as a team. The United Automobile Workers have been able to get what they regard as reasonable pay for the work they do. The workers at International Nickel have a union. But the farmers have not been united. This is because they have not had legislation that would allow them to unite across Canada. However, the national marketing legislation which was passed last year after much controversy and criticism from people not on the government side of the House will be a good thing for the agricultural future of Canada. I would be the first to admit it has not had a substantial effect up to the moment, but these improvements do not happen in a year or so. As a result of that legislation we have the national egg marketing plan. That was set up as a result of the passage of Bill C-176. It has had a dramatic effect on the returns of egg marketing plan producers. No one can deny that.
With regard to stability, we do not only need stability as far as hogs, tomatoes and vegetables are concerned. We need stability as far as our cattle products are concerned. Incidentally, sales of our beef products produce more revenue than wheat, which might surprise some people. I hope that when the cattlemen come to Ottawa tomorrow to meet government officials, they will be able to sell this government, my government, the idea that for a certain short period of time this particular industry needs help.
The outlook for farmers in Canada, in my opinion, if agriculture is properly handled by national farm marketing agencies and sympathetic government-I include not only the federal government but all provincial governments-is bright. Let us not forget that the agricultural industry of Canada is divided into many different segments. For example, the province of Quebec is responsible for the goods produced and sold in that province and for those which come from the province and are sold in other parts of Canada. The Department of Agriculture looks after foreign sales, and I would say the prospects for foreign sales have never been better.
Much criticism is made by our friends opposite who doubtless are sincere in their criticism. They say that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has not done this, or he has done too much of that. But one thing they cannot say is that he is not friendly with many world powers. I think one of the greatest things in years to come will be that our present Prime Minister will go down in history for his friendliness with the great nation of China which has one-quarter of the world's population. Future trading opportunities with this huge nation are absolutely unlimited; and their people have to eat, too. The same can be said about domestic farm development and our trade with our American friends, and so on.
I have one other point. I mention, this, not because the gentleman concerned is a particular friend of mine but because he is a friend of many people in this House. As you know, Mr. Speaker, there has been much criticism of food prices in the last several weeks. A very substantial pamphlet known as the Pringle report, dealing with the
Agriculture
dissemination of information regarding complexities relating to cost factors from farm input to the dining table, has been published. I wish that all people in Canada had the opportunity to read this report. It shows that farmers have many things against them, that in order to provide good food to the people of Canada they have to spend a great deal of money.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest there is ample evidence of the government's lack of leadership in agricultural policy matters, both in the short term and in long term planning for the future of Canadian agriculture. For this reason I am very pleased to take part in this debate. I wish to comment quite specifically about a very short term, indeed emergency, situation in our Canadian cattle industry, and if time permits I should like to discuss a most important long term item pertaining to beef production in Canada.
Recently there has been considerable discussion, even disagreement, between beef producers over the amount of protection, if any, which our Canadian beef industry needs from the fluctuations in United States markets that occur from time to time. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is well aware of these points of view. Yesterday I was privileged to attend the mid-term directors' meeting in Regina of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, and this item, specifically as it relates to the currently excessive United States fat cattle imports, was the burning issue. Let us look at the problem. The Canadian beef industry is geared almost entirely to supplying beef for our domestic market. Because of the close economic ties between ourselves and the United States, the historic development of our industries and the very similar economic forces operating in these two industries, it has always been an accepted principle that Canadian and United States beef markets are, and should remain, closely related.
The advantages of this have been threefold, I suggest. First, the American market has in the past been far less volatile than ours and has thus formed a stabilizing factor in our market. Until recently the United States market was the largest deficit market in the world, and it was also the highest priced market in the world. Because of our close price relationship, the Canadian industry has been forced to stay, you might say, on its toes to remain competitive. These three factors have been very real.
However, over the past year there were a number of new factors which have changed things, and new forces have been introduced. These are noteworthy. First, the American market has become extremely unstable because of forces that are not operating in Canada and over which we have no control. The direction of United States industry in the short term is being determined more and more by political rather than by economic forces. The United States market is presently not the force it was in the world pricing system and it is certainly not the high priced market. However, this situation may well change if their dollar and our dollar change in value.
There is considerable evidence that the recent close ties between our pricing system and that of the United States has created an unstable situation that is not conducive to
7468

November 1, 1973
Agriculture
the long-term interests of our Canadian industry. In basic terms, we do not want to confuse the maintenance of a free and competitive market for our product with the idea that we can only do so if we retain a close relationship with the United States.
I suggest that if rigid controls are implemented in the United States, as they were this year, then any idea that our market is operating freely is surely naive. It cannot be argued that the way to maintain a viable open market system in Canada is to tie ourselves to a pricing system in the United States that is under government control. Our two industries certainly respond to similar economic stimuli and in similar fashion; there is no doubt about that. However, it must be clearly recognized that this is only true where the same rules are applied in both games.
Finally, because of its size the United States industry is capable of draining or swamping our market without any appreciable influence on their price structure. I would suggest that the time has come to reassess our policies with regard to the relationship between the United States and Canadian cattle price levels. If, as cattlemen, we do not do so, there is no doubt that the government will do it for us.
We have three basic alternative directions in which we can move in our industry today. The first is to gradually move our whole industry away from the United States price base. This would not only appear impossible but also undesirable if we accept the fact that the United States is likely to remain the most important producer and consumer of beef over the next decade at least. The second alternative is to press for complete integration of our industry with that of the United States, and I mean the reciprocal removal of all tariffs and quotas on movements of beef, fat and feeder cattle. Because of the factor mentioned, that is, government controls, I would suggest that not only would this be difficult to achieve but may also be foolish as far as Canadian producers are concerned.
The third alternative is to press the government to adopt a policy which will allow us to improve our competitiveness with the United States, which basically means a free market between ourselves and the United States. It also embodies the ability of Canada to protect our industry from market aberrations where those aberrations are due to political rather than economic forces. This may well have to be done by some form of agreement between our two countries.
Let us examine the impact of this United States government involvement in the Canadian cattle industry today. Since the Canadian export controls, or the permit system as the minister referred to it this afternoon, were imposed in mid-summer we have come full circle and are now witnessing the heaviest concentration of fat cattle and beef imports in Canadian history. In September, imports of live fat cattle totalled 40,369 head, compared to 763 head in 1972. For the week ending October 5, imports amounted to 13,378 head. For the week ending October 12, they amounted to 18,385 head. For the week ending October 19, they amounted to 20,401 head. The estimated imports for the week ending October 26 are a further 15,000 head. The estimated figure, up to tonight, for this week is 8,700 coming into Ontario and 2,000 coming into western

Canada; and there is still another day to go to round out the week.
October total imports were 77,864 head. We might compare this figure with the figure of 64,000 head which represents the total for the whole of 1972. Our total imports for the year, to date, are 142,099 head. During September and October we received 120,000 head of this total. This has shown up very vividly on the Toronto market in the last two weeks. The Toronto market yesterday and today dropped in price between $1.50 and $2 on fed steers. Ontario is receiving the major impact of these imports of cattle, all of which are grossly overfat even by United States prime standards. Loads have been imported with animals weighing from 1,600 to 1,800 pounds. These were purchased by our packers in the United States for as low as $28. Today's Toronto price for Canadian-fed steers was around $42.50 to $44.50.
There have been very limited Ontario deliveries, with equally limited buyer activity, to the Toronto fat cattle market these past few days. There are ample reports of extreme difficulty in getting packers to bid on our Canadian finished fat cattle of more desirable grades. All of this is now giving rise to a distinct possibility of a holdback of Ontario fat cattle, which can only lead to further overfat cattle in Canada.
Last October 16 the minister met with a delegation of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. That delegation told the minister that with conditions as they then appeared to be-I emphasize that-cattlemen preferred to ride it out without government controls. However, as I have just outlined, conditions have indeed changed drastically to the serious detriment of the Canadian, and especially the Ontario beef industry. A little over a week ago the Canadian Cattlemen's Association recommended an immediate temporary surcharge of three cents a pound live, and six cents a pound dressed, on United States imports. Yesterday, in Regina, the full directorate of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association from every region of Canada unanimously approved this action of their executive. As I indicated earlier, there were some cattlemen, especially from the west, who had some misgivings about this approach to the serious situation. I have to admit that I was one of them.
Now, however, after weighing all the pertinent facts which I have just outlined to hon. members, I say to the Minister of Agriculture, "You moved very quickly in applying export controls last August. Will you now give serious consideration to the cattlemen you will meet tomorrow and to their request for an immediate import surcharge?" I must remind all members of the House of the very serious, four-pronged dilemma facing Canada's cattle industry today. First, feeder calves are presently selling in western Canada for $65 to as high as $80. Second, domestic feed barley for feeders who will buy those calves or who have already bought them, ranges from $2.10 to $2.25 a bushel in western Canada. Third, the present fat cattle market is at about $45. If you put those three points of dilemma together, there is no way in which you can come out with a profit. The fat cattle price will have to jump by at least $10.
November 1, 1973

The fourth point is perhaps the most important. It is the uncertainty and unrest in our marketplace due to the U.S. imports which are coming into Canada now. The most serious consequence of this dilemma is the distinct probability of a reduced incentive to remain in the cattle business all over Canada, with the inevitable result of a reduced number of cattle and higher price for beef at the consumer level. There is another specific item that is at present working to the disadvantage of the cattle industry. I refer to the application of beef tariff drawbacks as this device presently operates with respect to different types and grades of beef being exported from and imported into Canada. Producer cattlemen will be asking appropriate government departments to examine the fairness of these tariff drawbacks.
Before I conclude, I would like to refer to one longer term aspect of the agricultural policy that presently concerns cattlemen.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him by the order made earlier today has expired.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I note that I have barely five minutes left and I had not foreseen that I would be the one to draw conclusions and/close this debate. However, I could say that we had today the opportunity to tqlk about agriculture. For several weeks, not to say several months, we had not had the opportunity, in this House, to have a lengthy debate on that industry, which I deem essential to our food security.
One will understand that it is rather difficult to cover in a few minutes a topic as huge and as complex as agriculture; one can certainly not make an analysis of it during such a short time.
I should like at most, Mr. Speaker, to point out to the House, as I have been here for the last eight years, that not a single week not even a single day went by without acrimonious debates on agriculture in this House, either during the oral question period or on the introduction of budgets or government bills.
Mr. Speaker, until a year ago or so, we had debates on agriculture, either on wet grain on account of a bad crop during the fall of a certain year, or on a lack of cars. Prices were too low or we could not export and had to accumulate big stocks. And I could go on indefinitely with the topics and complaints that were raised in this House.
However, today, Mr. Speaker, if one goes back over a year ago one realizes that in that period of one year the subject of agriculture was barely touched on in this House. Why? Because agriculture in Canada in that last year improved notably, as did the plight of farmers. That is why members of the opposition who admit that put an
Agriculture
end to the criticism they were directing at the government, often rightly so.
The motion we are discussing today and introduced by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) whom we all know well because of his many interventions in this House, is proof of the fact I just mentioned, namely that agriculture is doing well, not perfectly well-I say so immediately-but much better than it ever did. Indeed, the wording of this motion before us today is the best proof of that. It is so general that one could almost talk about the weather.
The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) did not find one specific point on which to attack the government with respect to agricultural measures. At best he talked about the new feed grain policy. I would like to touch on that point in a few moments and support the Minister of Justice in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) who said among other things that the aim of that measure was fairness.
We from the east, no more than the farmers of British Columbia, have never asked or expected a lower price for feed grain if it meant losses for the Prairies.
We are responsible as Canadians, especially as farmers. In the east we are fully conscious of the interests of western farmers, because we are all dependent on one another in a single Canadian economy. We wish once again to say in this House that our sole objective is equity, fairness and equal opportunity for all.
On that basis, we are ready to support any valid proposal to establish that equity. I see that the time allotted to me will soon be expired. All is not perfect and I am the first to admit it. Indeed, I am concerned by the lack of supplies which we now face. I am also concerned by increases in the cost of living and in agricultural production costs.
But I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that all these are not the fault of the farmers themselves. It is not their fault if we encounter these difficulties. Farmers have done their share and it is up to us as Canadians and as members to continue our support of agriculture.
I will conclude my remarks by paying a well-deserved tribute to our two excellent ministers responsible for agriculture in Canada. As Canadians, we must continue our support so that they can do more, if possible.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 10.30 o'clock p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to the order made earlier this day, proceedings on the motion have expired. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock a.m. tomorrow.
At 10.31 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order made this day.

Friday, November 2, 1973