1973-07-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts in English and French concerning television advertising directed to children-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in order to inform the House and the Canadian public of developments to this date concerning the death of two Canadian girls on the Zambian-Rhodesia border, I wish to table in both official languages, a statement on this tragic matter.
This statement sets out the facts of this tragedy as we know them. I wish to quote from, and thereby draw the attention of hon. members to, the conclusion of the statement I have just tabled:
The situation now is that our strong and persistent representations to the Zambian government have resulted in expressions of regret and apologies, which I have no doubt are sincere, and an offer of ex gratia payments to the families of the slain girls. We appreciate these indications of their concern. The Zambian government has not denied that the shots came from their guards but it has maintained that the sentry or sentries acted in accordance with their duty in the circumstances as they saw them. We do not consider that there is evidence of a threat to Zambian installations which would justify the prolonged shooting which resulted in the deaths of two innocent Canadian girls. As long as this major difference remains between our view of what happened and the view of the Zambian government, we cannot consider the matter closed. Our stand all along has been that it is the responsibility of the Zambian government to carry out investigations and produce explanations that will satisfy reasonable Canadian opinion.
That is the conclusion of the quotation from the statement I have just tabled. I have instructed our High Commissioner in Lusaka, Mr. Broadbridge, to present the text of the statement I am tabling to the Zambian authorities.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the minister for giving me a copy of the statement that he has just tabled. It is primarily a summary of events. I think my first words to the minister and his department would be that they have taken altogether too long in making this statement and, secondly, that the whole matter seems to have been handled with a lack of promptness from the very day it happened. There seemed to be great delay in finding out the cause of this tragic situation. However, we are glad that the minister has seen fit to tell parliament and the Canadian people the facts as they are known at this time.
The department cannot escape criticism for its failure in extending courtesy and assistance to the Drijber family who wanted to go to South Africa, Rhodesia and Zambia to do everything possible in the hope that their daughter might still be living and also in the hope, if she was not, that they might be able to find her body. In this connection, the department suggested, or in plain language told them, that they should not go. When they did go, the representative of the Department of External Affairs did not meet them at the plane in South Africa. These poor, stricken people arrived in South Africa, but were not met by anybody from the department, although I am told that our closest representative is within 30 miles of the airport. It seems to me that the officials should be severely reprimanded for not having been there to have met Mr. and Mrs. Drijber at the plane.
The matter of the envoy was mentioned in this House without naming the envoy. This immediately created an area of suspicion. Why was the envoy's name not given? It turned out to be Dr. Phillips, Dean of Arts and Sciences at the University of Windsor, a man who had been for seven years an adviser to the President of Zambia, Dr. Kaunda. Naturally, he would go there with a rather prejudiced opinion. However, he was sent with only one mission and that was to express Canada's concern about this whole tragedy. He was not given terms of reference which would allow him to explore the circumstances and get the true facts. He returned here without the facts. For the life of me, I do not know why an envoy was sent with such narrow terms of reference.
I would think that the fact the matter, which is so important to me and I am sure to the families of these two girls, is not closed would cause the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) to take the opportunity to discuss it further with President Kaunda when he is in Canada attending the Commonwealth Prime Ministers Conference and at that time get a first hand report. But, Mr. Speaker, it seems a very, very strange way to handle a situation in which a coqntry kills two nationals of Canada in cold blood, innocent girls. On the one hand they say they are sorry and, on the other hand, they take a million bucks from us. It seems a very strange way indeed to handle this whole situation.

July 16, 1973
External Affairs
I am glad, however, that the minister has made this statement up to this point. I hope he will keep the matter under constant review and that any facts that should be revealed will be made known in due course.


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express thanks to the minister for providing the House with this reasonably comprehensive report of Canadian actions in connection with the tragic and reprehensible incident, the killing of two Canadian nationals by Zambian soldiers. All of us in this House welcome the statement by President Kaunda, referred to in the minister's statement. President Kaunda's statement was one of regret and apology, and an offer of ex gratia payments to the two families of the two young women who were killed.
However, I agree with the minister that it is the responsibility of the Canadian government to continue to insist that the Zambian government carry out an investigation in order to produce an explanation that will satisfy reasonable public opinion in Canada. The revulsion in Canadian public opinion and the dismay of the Canadian public because a friendly government would not carry out such investigation and provide a reasonable explanation should be borne home to the Zambian government with considerable force. I hope the government will continue to exert force, and perhaps intensify it, if these explanations are not forthcoming; this could be done, as the hon. member who just spoke suggested, perhaps at the conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers.
My party does not suggest that Canada, as a result of this tragic incident, should engage in a sort of economic gunboat diplomacy nor that our relationship with the Zambian government should be determined on the basis of this one incident which, as I said earlier, is both tragic and reprehensible. I suggest, however, that if a satisfactory explanation is not forthcoming at the time of the Commonwealth Conference, the minister should give serious consideration to inviting our High Commissioner in Zambia home to discuss the whole matter, indeed, to consult with him on the matter.
[ Translation]


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, the government of Zambia has undoubtedly not yet given all the explanations we were expecting and we wonder whether the minister should not send other official notes of protest to them. It is all very well for them to excuse themselves, and to give brief explanations for the circumstances surrounding the tragedy, but it seems to me that such a thing should never have happened, and consequently, if the explanations are not clear enough, I believe that the government should return to the charge to give Zambia a severe reprimand, or at least to let them know quite clearly that that sort of behaviour is abnormal, undemocratic and inhuman.


FAMILY ALLOWANCES ACT, 1973 MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT OF FAMILY AND SPECIAL ALLOWANCES
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-211, intituled "An Act to provide for the payment of family allowances in respect of children to supplement the income of Canadian families and for the payment of special allowances to provide for the care and maintenance of other children, and to amend the Income Tax Act in consequence thereof".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[ Text]
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What studies have been carried out on the form that icebreaker hulls should take for 10 to 12 months use in the Canadian Archipelago?
2.	(a) What were the costs of such studies (b) on what date did they (i) commence (ii) finish (c) who conducted them (d) under what budgetary items did they appear?
3.	Who is in receipt of a contract to carry out studies on power sources for such icebreakers?
4.	(a) What were the terms of reference of this contract (b) how was it awarded (c) on what date was it awarded (d) how soon does the government expect a report, either interim or final?
5.	When does the government intend to make any or all of the results of these studies public information?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: 1. Some general investigations have occurred in the Ministry of Transport in order to survey the state of the art. Formal contracted studies will begin in 1973-74.
2.	(a) Only normal Operation and Maintenance costs were incurred. These amounted to about $25,000. (b) (i) The studies were initiated in 1970. (ii) They are still underway, (c) They are being carried out by the Canadian Coast Guard, (d) The costs appeared under Coast Guard Operation and Maintenance Administration.
3.	German and Milne.
4.	(a) This contract was for a study of alternate power plants for all types of Coast Guard ships. The terms of reference for an Eastern Arctic (Class 6) icebreaker. "The machinery design is for an advanced ship concept and is to have a superior overall system effectiveness. The power modes to be analyzed and compared with those of existing major icebreakers as to performance, reliability and capital and operating costs, are to include the following: Gas turbine power for main propulsion. Combined gas turbine and steam turbine for main propulsion. Combined gas
July 16, 1973

turbine and diesel power for main propulsion. Gas turbine machinery with mechanical gearing or direct drive to reversible controllable pitch propeller. Gas turbine machinery with hydraulic geared, reverse gear or electric transmission to fixed pitched propeller." (b) By tender, (c) March 9, 1973. (d) January, 1974.
5.	No thought has been given to making it public since the material will be used in the design of future icebreakers for the Canadian Coast Guard.


Mr. Olaussen: For how long has Northland Navigation been receiving subsidies from the government and how much did these amount to?


Jean Marchand: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: Since 1958, $6,748,473.91.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	In the constituency of York-Simcoe, in each of the past three years, how many applications were received for LIP grants and for each year, what were the aggregate amounts requested in the applications?
2.	How many of the applications were approved and what were the aggregate amounts so approved in each of the three years?
3.	What was the actual amount dispersed in each year including the amount dispersed to date in the current year?
4.	Were there applicants approved in the current year who were also successful applicants in one or more of the previous years and, if so, how many were there and what were the aggregate amounts involved in each of the years?
5.	How many jobs were created in the constituency in each of the years through implementation of LIP projects?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. For 1972-73, 16 applications were received for a value of $317,013. For 1971-72 similar information was not computerized and therefore is not available to provide an accurate answer to this question.
2.	1971-72, three for $119,499; 1972-73, five for $66,984.
3.	1971-72, $119,499; 1972-73, $41,711 as of June 15, 1973.
4.	Yes, one for $26,278 in 1971-72 and for $8,424 in 1972-73.
5.	1971-72, 245 man-months; 1972-73, 137 man-months as of June 15, 1973.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	In the constituency of York North in each of the past three years, how many applications were received for LIP grants and for each year, what were the aggregate amounts requested in the applications?
2.	How many of the applications were approved and what were the aggregate amounts so approved in each of the three years?
3.	What was the actual amount dispersed in each year including the amount dispersed to date in the current year?
Order Paper Questions
4.	Were there applicants approved in the current year who were also successful applicants in one or more of the previous years and, if so, how many were there and what were the aggregate amounts involved in each of the years?
5.	How many jobs were created in the constituency in each of the years through implementation of LIP projects?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. For 1972-73, 19 applications were received for a value of $534,866. For
1971-	72 similar information was not computerized and therefore is not available to provide an accurate answer to this question.
2.	1971-72, three applications for $136,664; 1972-73, five applications for $194,001.
3.	1971-72, $136,664; 1972-73, $136,088, as of June 15, 1973.
4.	Yes, two for $111,454 in 1971-72 and for $124,431 in
1972-	73.
5.	1971-72, 280 man-months; 1972-73, 398 man-months as of June 15, 1973.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	In the constituency of Ontario, in each of the past three years, how many applications were received for LIP grants and for each year, what were the aggregate amounts requested in the applications?
2.	How many of the applications were approved and what were the aggregate amounts so approved in each of the three years?
3.	What was the actual amount dispersed in each year including the amount dispersed to date in the current year?
4.	Were there applicants approved in the current year who were also successful applicants in one or more of the previous years and, if so, how many were there and what were the aggregate amounts involved in each of the years?
5.	How many jobs were created in the constituency in each of the years through implementation of LIP projects?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. For 1972-73, 16 applications were received for a value of $421,354. For
1971-	72 similar information was not computerized and therefore is not available to provide an accurate answer to this question.
2.	1971-72, eight applications for $244,167; 1972-73, 12 applications for $265,591.
3.	1971-72, $244,167; 1972-73, $204,839 as of June 15, 1973.
4.	Yes, one for $12,368 in 1971-72 and for $24,570 in
1972-	73.
5.	1971-72, 501 man-months; 1972-73, 545 man-months as of June 15, 1973.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	In the constituency of Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe, in each of the past three years, how many applications were received for LIP grants and for each year, what were the aggregate amounts requested in the applications?

July 16, 1973
Order Paper Questions
2.	How many of the applications were approved and what were the aggregate amounts so approved in each of the three years?
3.	What was the actual amount dispersed in each year including the amount dispersed to date in the current year?
4.	Were there applicants approved in the current year who were also successful applicants in one or more of the previous years and, if so, how many were there and what were the aggregate amounts involved in each of the years?
5.	How many jobs were created in the constituency in each of the years through implementation of LIP projects?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. For 1972-73, 33 applications were received for a value of $1,581,805. For
1971-	72 similar information was not computerized and therefore is not available to provide an accurate answer to this question.
2.	1971-72, two applications for $58,257; 1972-73, 13 applications for $351,391.
3.	1971-72, $58,257; 1972-73, $255,827 as of June 15, 1973.
4.	Yes, two for $58,257 in 1971-72 and for $32,191 in
1972-	73.
5.	1971-72, 119 man-months; 1972-73, 721 man-months as of June 15, 1973.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	How many summones, tickets or other evidences of alleged offences have been turned over to the Protocol Division of the Department of External Affairs or other governmental departments with respect to alleged offences committed by diplomatic personnel in Canada in each of the years 1967 to 1973?
2.	How many of the offences were prosecuted in each of the years?
3.	How many of the alleged offences resulted in convictions or the payment of a fine or penalty in each of the years?
4.	What was the aggregate amount of fines or penalties in each year forgiven, waived or absorbed by the Government of Canada or other governmental bodies?
5.	Who were the ten leading countries in numbers of alleged offences and in amounts so forgiven, waived or absorbed in each of the years?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1967, 1,034; 1968, 1,115; 1969, 1,016: 1970, 777; 1971, 755; 1972, 803; 1973-May 31, 710<'>.
a) The number of traffic violations notified to the Department of External Affairs increased considerably from April of this year when the Ottawa Police Force instituted new measures in their efforts to control illegal parking.
2.	There were no procecutions as a result of the alleged offences numbered above. Diplomatic personnel resident in, or accredited to Canada, are granted immunity in respect of such offences in accordance with article 31-1 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which was ratified by Canada in 1966.
3.	There were no convictions as a result of the alleged offences listed in answer to question number one. It is however the policy of some embassies to advise their staff members to pay parking tickets. The following figures

represent by year the number of parking offences for which fines were paid voluntarily by diplomatic personnel in Canada; 1967, 195; 1968, 235; 1969, figures not available; 1970, 10; 1971, 47; 1972, 67; 1973-May 31, 33.
4.	The aggregate amount is not available. In most cases the Department of External Affairs is notified only that an infraction was committed.
5.	It is considered a matter of diplomatic courtesy not to make public the number of alleged offences committed by members of individual embassies. The Department of External Affairs notifies missions in writing of any offences other than parking infractions, allegedly committed by their staff members, and requests the mission concerned in each case to impress upon the alleged offender the gravity of the offences. Missions concerned are also informed of any serious or frequent abuse of parking regulations by their staff members.


Mr. Rose: 1.	What specific Phenoxy herbicides are authorized for use in Canada by the Department of Agriculture?
2.	What specific Phenoxy herbicides did Canada, in the UN, along with 58 other countries, ask to be banned in Viet Nam as biological warfare agents?
3.	If the replies to Part 1 and Part 2 include identical chemical preparations, how does the government reconcile the contradiction of authorizing a chemical for use at home while being critical of its use in a foreign land?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Departments of Agriculture and External Affairs as follows: 1. The following are registered under the Pest Control Products Act for the control of herbaceous weeds and woody plants in some crops and non-crop situations: 2,4-D, 2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetic acid; 2,4,5-T, 2,4,5-trichloro-phenoxy acetic acid; 2,4,5-Tp, 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy prop-rionic acid; 2,4,-DB, 2 (2,4-dichlorophenoxy) butyric acid; MCPA, 2 methyl, 4-chlorophenoxy acetic acid; MCPP, 2 (2 methyl, 4-chlorophenoxy) proprionic acid; 2,4-Dp, 2 (2,4-dichlorophenoxy) proprionic acid; MCPB, 4 (2-methyl, 4-chlorophenoxy) butyric acid.
2.	None. In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned Resolution 2603A adopted by the 24th Session of the UN General Assembly on December 16, 1969, declared as contrary to the generally recognized rules of international law, as embodied in the Protocol for the prohibition of the use in war of asphyxiating poisonous or other gases and of bacteriological methods of warfare, signed at Geneva on June 17, 1925, the use in international armed conflict of any chemical and biological agents of warfare. The resolution did not specify phenoxy herbicides. Canada abstained in voting on this resolution on the grounds that the interpretation of an international legal instrument should only be made by parties to that instrument, not by the UN General Assembly. The effect of the resolution would have been to nullify the reservations made by countries, which had ratified or acceded to the Protocol; in the Canadian view, changes to these reservations would have to be made by the parties to the Protocol.
3.	Not applicable.
July 16, 1973


Mr. Mather: In 1972, what was the amount in dollars of federal expenditures in respect to smoking and disease education?


Marc Lalonde: The total federal expenditure in dollars in respect of smoking and disease education related to smoking for the year 1972 was $536,339.97.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	In what year were plans drawn up for DOT Terminal 2 at Toronto International Airport?
2.	In what year were these plans finalized and approved?
3.	What were projected costs and what was the final cost?
4.	Was a comprehensive study made of passenger requirements and convenience prior to approval of final plans?
5.	What is the projected time use of Terminal 2?
6.	What are the plans of DOT with regard to Terminal 2, when and if Pickering Airport becomes a reality?
7.	(a) On what date was the decision made that Air Canada would utilize Terminal 2, providing alternate airlines with Terminal 1 (b) who made that decision?
8.	What is the yearly cost, to Air Canada, for the use of Terminal
2?


Jean Marchand: 1. Stage I, March 1968-August 1970; Stage II, September 1970-April 1971; Update for Air Canada, September-December 1972.
2.	Treasury Board Stage I, September 1970; Stage II, April 1971; Update, September 1972.
3.	Projected Estimated Costs of Air Terminal Buildings No. 2, Stages I and II excluding associated air and ground side facilities $32,460,000. Total MOT expenditure to May 31, 1973 $36,586,840. Estimated additional expenditure to complete Stages I and II $265,000 to give total MOT expenditure of $36,851,840.
4.	Yes.
5.	Terminal 2 is a permanent structure-20 years plus.
6.	This is subject to the results of the public examination.
7.	(a) May 5th, 1972. (b) MOT and Air Canada reached a mutual decision as a result of two independent studies of alternative ways to best serve the public's and the combined airlines' needs.
8.	The annual cost to Air Canada for the space in Terminal 2 for which it has exclusive use is approximately $1.2 million. In addition Air Canada pays other charges for excess energy, water etc. and general terminal service charges in accordance with Air Service Fees Regulations, the latter amounting to approximately $1.4 million annually.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	When consideration was given to the recent reorganization of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, was consideration given to establishing an office to be open five days a week in Gananoque, Ontario and (a) if so, on what date was this consideration given and by whom (b) if not, for what reason was such consideration not given?
2.	What were the specific reasons that a full-time Unemployment Insurance Commission office was not allotted to Gananoque, Ontario during the recent Unemployment Insurance Commission reorganization?
Hon. Robert K, Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration): 1. Yes. Consideration was given by both the Ontario Region of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and subsequently by the Head Office to the opening of a full time office in Gananoque, Ontario, (a) This study took place during 1972, when the whole concept of decentralization was being considered, (b) Not applicable.
2.	Gananoque is only eighteen miles from Kingston and for this reason most claimants report to the Kingston Office. Due to the short distance from the Kingston Office and the minimum number of clients, the present services are considered adequate and no plans are being made to establish an office in Gananoque.


Mr. Matte: 1.	What are the rules concerning telephone installations?
2.	What is the authorized cost for each installation?
3.	Can telephone companies refuse to install a single installation at cost without a monthly rate?
4.	Is it normal that a monthly rate be required for each installation?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: 1.	The rules concerning telephone installations are contained in the tariffs of telephone ocmpanies approved by the appropriate regulatory authority as determined by their Charter.
2.	The authorized charge for each installation is specified under "Exchange Service" of the company tariff as approved by the Canadian Transport Commission or the appropriate provincial regulatory body.
3.	Tariff regulations stipulate the telephone company must provide and install an instrument connecting it to the network for which a monthly charge is assessed. The telephone company can refuse to install a single installation at cost without a monthly rate.
4.	Yes.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	For what reason or reasons do Air Canada pilots interrupt the welcome silence of flight with ritual announcement of time and location?
2.	Is it intended to discontinue that practice?

July 16, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Jean Marchand: Air
Canada management advises as follows: 1 and 2. Indications are that the vast majority of passengers welcome periodic reports on progress of the flight. This practice is followed by most airlines. It is not intended at this time to discontinue it.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Did the Union of Canadian Transport Employees indicate to the government that the new plan for firefighting safety in our airports is unsafe and, if so, does the Minister of Transport plan to increase the staff of firefighters accordingly?
2.	Does the Minister accept the contention of the Union that the government's plan will add to the hazards faced by firefighters and curtail the efficiency and ability to carry out their duties in a proper and prescribed manner?
3.	Does the personnel complement required to man foam tenders and pumpers at CAF air bases differ from that at category A airports and, if so (a) how many in each case (b) what is the ratio of flights for each (c) do the types of aircraft and numbers of passengers play a role in determining such complement?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, because of the length of the answer, perhaps it could be accepted as read and printed in Hansard in the normal way.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The statement referred to above is as follows:]
I am informed by the Minister of Transport and the Department of National Defence as follows: 1. As this was considered to be a technological change, joint consultation was carried out. The Union of Canadian Transport Employees presented a brief which outlined their concern. The ministry replied to the brief and expanded on the concept. The technological change is considered to provide improved operational tactics and better utilization of manpower. No increase in staff of firefighters is planned as a result of this change.
2.	No. The planned manpower utilization provides two men without vehicle operation responsibilities for fire area duties, whereas the existing manning standards permit only one man for this function. The availability of these two men for overall supervision and assistance where needed reduces the hazard potential and provides for improved efficiency.
3.	(a) and (b) Any comparison between DND and other airport fire protection policies must be made in general terms as there is no direct relationship. Equipment differs in size and capacity. In addition, Canadian forces' airports are categorized according to weight of aircraft, number of movements (take-off and landing) and type of armament carried. The fire protection staffs at these airports are responsible for structural as well as crash/rescue fire protection and, therefore, must cross-man fire fighting equipment depending on the type of emergency situation reported, (c) The number of passengers is not a significant factor in determining personnel establishments.


Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	How many copies of the first edition of the working paper on Income Security were printed?
2.	What was the cost of (a) printing (b) the plates for the first edition?
3.	How many copies of the first edition were distributed?
4.	How many copies of the second edition of the working paper on Income Security were printed?
5.	What was the cost of (a) printing (b) the plates for the second edition?
6.	What was the purpose of printing a second edition?


Marc Lalonde: 1. Six thousand two hundred forty.
2.	(a) $13,335; (b) $640.
3.	All.
4.	Seventy thousand.
5.	(a) $32,415; (b) $640;
6.	To meet the heavy demand for copies of the working paper from Members of Parliament, federal and provincial government departments, professional organizations, voluntary welfare groups, labour organizations and from the public at large.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What was the amount spent by the National Museums of Canada in purchasing artifacts of historical significance in each year since 1965 inclusive?
2.	What was the amount budgeted for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964?
3.	Does the government consider that the funding as outlined above is adequate?
4.	Is the government considering the giving of the highest priority to the acquisition of artifacts of historical significance for the preservation for generations of future Canadians?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: In
reply to Parts 1 and 2, I am Informed by the National Museums of Canada as follows, on the assumption that the purposes of the Corporation, to demonstrate the products of nature and the works of man, are considered to be of historical significance:	1. The National Museums of
Canada came into existence on January 1, 1968. 1968-69, $990,044; 1969-70, $1,448,936; 1970-71, $1,068,733; 1971-72, $1,376,902; 1972-73, $2,941,133.
2.	$3,400,000.
3.	Yes.
4.	The government continues to give high priority to the acquisition of objects which form part of the Canadian heritage. An Emergency Purchase Fund has been established under the National Museum policy, announced by the Secretary of State on March 28, 1972, which is administered by the National Museums of Canada so that the competent authorities can act quickly in the event that objects deemed to be of particular significance to the Canadian heritage risk being lost to the country through sale abroad. The Fund can also be used to repatriate Canadian treasures already in foreign hands. Objects
July 16, 1973

*
obtained through purchase by the Fund may be retained by the National Museums of Canada or presented to nonfederal institutions throughout the country providing the appropriate guarantees.


Mr. Forrestall: Is it the intention of the government to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to provide for unemployment benefits for the full duration of illness, in the initial benefit period, rather than the 15 weeks as now provided and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, for what reason?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: The Unemployment Insurance Commission is conducting a review of the Unemployment Insurance Act and Regulations in the light of representations made prior to and since the tabling of Bill C-125.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is any research and development being carried out by the Department of Agriculture on Hiproly Barley and, if so (a) what is being done (b) what are the potential prospects?
2.	Have representations been made to thp government by the Western Hog Growers Association for assistance in establishing a development program involving the federal government, the Province of Alberta and producers and, if so, what was the response?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. (a) Active plant breeding work is underway using the high protein, high lysine accession "Hiproly" (C.I. 3947). The achievement of higher protein and higher lysine content is the main quality objective in feed barley work. This year a seed increase plot has been established for one of the high lysine selections with a view to obtaining sufficient grain for an animal feeding trial, (b) The plant breeding work has not progressed sufficiently to speculate as to the date when a variety would be available for release to farmers.
2. The Western Hog Growers Association made representations for a cooperative research program involving the Association, the Alberta Department of Agriculture and the Department. The Department is now waiting the final decision of the other parties in respect of implementation of the proposed cooperative program.


Mr. Alexander: 1.	How long has the Federal Labour Intensive Project scheme been in existence?
2.	What was the budget for this program for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74?
3.	What department administers the program?
4.	How many ministries are involved with the program?
5.	For the years 1972-73 and 1973-74, by province, how much money was expected in relation to the program?
6.	Who initiated the program and what is its purpose?
7.	By province, what is the name of the project, where is it located and how much money has been allotted in relation thereto?
8.	How many summaries of employees have been filed and what is the purpose of them?
Order Paper Questions
9.	What is the source of the funds being used for the Federal Labour Intensive Project?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: 1.
There have been two "Federal Labour Intensive Project" programs. The first started in October 1971 and ended May 31, 1972. The second started in late 1972 and ended May 31, 1973.
2.	The programs were budgeted for on a seasonal rather than on a fiscal year basis. The budget was $80 million for the first program and $60 million for the second.
3.	The programs were carried out by several departments and agencies under the general direction of the Treasury Board.
4.	Eighteen ministries were involved in the 1971-72 program and twenty in the 1972-73 program.
5.	Expenditure data were accumulated by region rather than by province. The actual costs for the fiscal years 1971-72 and 1972-73 and the forecast costs for 1973-74 are as follows:
1971-72	1972-73	1973-74Atlantic	7,244,000	5,123,000	4,320,000Quebec	15,840,000	15,615,000	11,651,000Ontario	15,099,000	10,277,000	10,308,000Prairie	9,069,000	6,062,000	5,760,000Pacific	6,318,000	3,490,000	4,163,000Total	53,570,000	40,567,000*	36,202,000
*$21,556,000 relates to the first program and $19,011,000 relates to the second.
6.	The program was initiated by the government to provide jobs for unemployed workers during the traditionally high winter periods of unemployment.
7.	A listing of all projects by province is not readily available and would be difficult and costly to compile. There were approximately 5,000 separate projects undertaken in the two programs.
8.	It is assumed that "summaries of employment" refers to the forms employees were asked to complete. There were 5,674 replies received under the 1971-72 program and approximately 4,000 to date under the 1972-73 program. The information is required to assist in evaluation and the planning of possible future programs.
9.	The projects are financed temporarily from departmental votes in Main Estimates, and are recouped later in Supplementary Estimates as necessary.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	For what reason or reasons was the program "The Sloane Affair" chosen to be re-run on the national English network of CBC on June 27?
2.	Was there any correspondence or other communication between CBC and the office of the Minister of National Revenue leading to the decision to re-run the program and, if so, what was the nature of that correspondence or communication?

July 16, 1973
Order Paper Questions
3.	If the program had been a sponsored program, what would the sponsor have been charged?
4.	What was the cost of production of "The Sloane Affair" and what was the proportion paid by (a) the National Film Board (b) the Department of National Revenue (c) any other participant?
5.	Were any payments made by CBC to the Department of National Revenue, the National Film Board or anyone else for this film and, if so, how much and to whom?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the National Film Board as follows: 1. The program was scheduled for a second presentation for several reasons: It was considered a quality drama, Canadian in content; a second showing at no charge was allowed under the CBC contract with the National Film Board; it is normal practice to repeat programs in such circumstances particularly during the summer when the schedule is better able to accommodate them.
2.	No.
3.	Discussions with potential sponsors did not reach a point where a program price in this instance was actually established. In the case of TV specials, as opposed to continuing series, the program price normally ranges from $20,000 to $50,000 or more, depending on a program's attractiveness to a sponsor at a given time.
4.	The total cost of the production "The Sloane Affair" was $164,903. (a) The proportion paid by the NFB, $32,265. (b) The proportion paid by the Department of National Revenue, $132,638. (c) Not applicable.
5.	CBC payment was made to the National Film Board only. It has not been customary to require the CBC to disclose financial details of its contractual arrangements; however, the contract allowed for a second showing at no additional cost.


Mr. Gillies: What is the policy of the government in regard to public servants (a) belonging to any political party (b) holding executive positions in any political party (c) belonging to the Committee for an Independent Canada (d) holding executive positions in the Committee for an Independent Canada?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: (a) The policy of the government with respect to public servants and political activity is as defined in Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act. While the Act is silent regarding membership in political parties, there is no outright prohibition to public servants being members of a political party, (b) The Public Service Employment Act specifically prohibits public servants from engaging "in work for, on behalf of or against a political party" (s.32(l)(a)). (c) The Committee for an Independent Canada was advised by the Treasury Board in 1971 that there was nothing to prevent an employee of the Public Service from becoming a member of that organization, nor from supporting it financially, (d) Public servants are free to participate in activities outside of normal hours of work provided there is no conflict of interest and the employee's usefulness is not impaired by such activities. The Committee was advised in 1971 that should this organization

become involved in campaigns designed to influence the government's policies, a conflict of interest situation would occur, affecting any public servants so involved.


Mr. Stackhouse: Was a grant or loan made by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to the Union Oil Company of Canada Limited to finance the drilling of a 6,000 foot exploratory well on the southwest tip of Newfoundland and, if so, how much money was involved in the grant or loan?


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: No grant or loan was made by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to the Union Oil Company of Canada Limited.


Mr. Neil (Moose Jaw): 1.	In Saskatchewan, as of (a) December 31, 1971 (b) December 31, 1972, what was the total number of (i) persons in receipt of retirement pensions under the Canada Pension Plan (ii) widows in receipt of widows pensions under the Canada Pension Plan?
2.	What was the average monthly amount of the widow's pension in each of the years 1971 and 1972?


Marc Lalonde: 1. (a) (i) 12,069; (ii) 2,732; (b) (i) 14,886; (ii) 3,724.
2. 1971 $59.25; 1972, $59.80.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	In the period September 30, 1970 to December 31, 1972, how many women were appointed to a position or otherwise employed, other than under the provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of the Public Service Employment Act, by the government under conditions or remuneration equitable to a salary of $10,000 or more per year and (a) what are their names (b) by whom were they employed (c) what was the rank of their positions?
2.	How many men were appointed or otherwise employed under the same conditions during the same period of time?
Return tabled.



PURCHASE OF TROPICAL PLANTS FOR GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS

Mr. Haliburton: 1.	Between January 1, 1966 and January 1, 1973, how many tropical plants were purchased to decorate government buildings and offices in Ottawa?
2.	In each year, how many such plants were purchased?
July 16, 1973

3.	To which departments were such plants supplied and over the period January 1, 1966 to January 1, 1973, how many were supplied to each department?
4.	What was the total cost for purchase and care of such plants during each year?
5.	What firms supplied such plants and in what amounts by number, specie and dollar value?
Return tabled.



TRANSPORT-CAR RENTAL CONCESSIONS AT AIRPORTS

Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How many car rental concessionaires are, at this date, operating at Department of Transport airports across Canada?
2.	Who are they and where are they situated?
3.	Is the Department proceeding with blueprints indicating that a decision has been reached allowing for an additional concessionaire and, if so, who is it and at what airports will it be located?
4.	Is the addition of this concessionaire economically feasible, in relation to the present concessionaires and, if so, on what basis was this decision made?
5.	(a) Is adequate parking space being provided for present concessionaires (b) are any additional ones being contemplated (c) how and what is the basis of allocation?
6.	Is any consideration being given to those services provided by the wholly Canadian-owned car rental company?
7.	For what reason does the Department of Transport allow an unlimited number of car rental operators at airports and yet restrict book shop, limousine and barber shop concessionaires?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL JOINT PROGRAMS

Mr. Matte: Orders for Returns
3. For the same years (a) what was the average export price per bushel for each of these grains (b) how did the Canadian Wheat Board dispose of any revenues it realized, for each of these grains it sold on the export market?
Return tabled.



RATIFICATION OF CONVENTIONS APPROVED BY UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON LAW OF THE SEA

Mr. MacLean: 1.	With regard to the conventions approved by the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Geneva, 1958, has Canada ratified (a) the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone (b) the Convention of the High Seas (c) the Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas (d) the Convention on the Continental Shelf?
2.	What other nations have ratified these conventions, in each case?
Return tabled.



APPLICATION FOR DREE GRANTS FROM MONTREAL SPECIAL AREA

Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	How many applications for grants has DREE received from the Montreal special area since the Department was established?
2.	How many applications have been (a) accepted, which ones and what was the amount involved in each case (b) rejected, which ones and for what reasons?
What are the names of the federal-provincial joint programs for which each province has sighed an agreement separately?
Return tabled.
3.	What were the names of industries in the Montreal special m*ea,"which, having "declared bankruptcy^ or having assigned their property or closed down later, obtained a grant from DREE?
Return tabled.



IMPORTATION OF UNIVERSAL No. 65 TRACTORS FROM ROUMANIA

Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Did the government negotiate or participate in any way in the importation of Universal No. 65 Tractors from Roumania?
2.	What was the nature of such participation?
3.	Were any arrangements made, or undertakings given, concerning (a) guaranteeing the quality of these machines (b) availability of spare parts for them?
4.	What was the nature of such arrangements?
Return tabled.



WHEAT PRODUCTION IN ALBERTA, SASKATCHEWAN AND MANITOBA

Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	For the years 1969 to 1972 inclusive, what quantities, in bushels, of (a) fall wheat (b) spring wheat (c) rapeseed were produced in the Provinces of (i) Alberta (ii) Saskatchewan (iii) Manitoba?
2.	For the same years, what was the average price per bushel, for each of these grains (a) paid by the Canadian Wheat Board to farmers from these provinces (b) sold by the Canadian Wheat Board to farmers from each of these provinces?


Mr. Knight:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On February 13, I placed questions Nos. 927 to 931 inclusive on the order paper. They relate to overtime expenses of senior civil servants. This information is normally provided through the public accounts. Could the government hurry in providing this information, in spite of the fact the Department of External Affairs is somewhat embarrassed with regard to giving out that information?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member raised this matter last Wednesday, I have taken it under advisement. I also discussed it with the hon. member in late February. I have not yet come to a conclusion as to what we will do. We are examining the cost of obtaining this information in some departments. We will make our decision based on how much it will cost the taxpayers to provide the information.


William George Knight: The parliamentary secretary ought to point out this information is normally supplied to public accounts. What is it costing the Canadian taxpayer in terms of overtime for senior civil servants in this country?

July 16, 1973
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
(English)

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to direct my question to the Minister of Labour. Perhaps he will be back in a few moments. In the meantime, I will direct it to the Prime Minister. It is in connection with the railway dispute. Has the government prepared any contingency plans to ensure there will be no disruption of the movement of essential foodstuffs as a result of this dispute? I ask this in view of the rising cost of food and the shortage of certain types of foodstuffs.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the position of the government is that we very much hope a strike will be averted. We have confidence in the goodwill of the parties negotiating in this dispute. However, if contingency action is needed, the government will of course be prepared to take it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Am I to assume the Prime Minister's answer would be the same with regard to contingency plans for the movement of western grain to world markets in the event of disruption?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


DISPUTE WITH NON-OPERATING RAILWAY EMPLOYEES- POSSIBLE NEW PROPOSALS-DATE OF RESUMPTION OF NEGOTIATIONS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour with regard to the dispute between the railways and the non-operating unions. Are the services of the experienced departmental mediators to which the minister referred now being used? Are new talks underway between the railways and the unions concerned? Have any new proposals been prepared and are they being discussed at this time?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, I do not think any new proposals are being discussed at this moment because the parties are now studying the conciliation board report. As the Leader of the Opposition may know, we officially received it late Friday afternoon. Both sides are formulating their views with respect to the report right now. This process will take, perhaps, today and tomorrow. But they are aware, unofficially certainly, that the mediation services of our department are available, and we are standing by. As soon as they have had an opportunity to formulate a reaction to the report I hope they will accept intervention by our mediator in an effort to resolve the dispute.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Am I correct in assuming from what the minister has said that no date has been fixed for any renewal of meetings between the parties concerned?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker. That is correct. There is no point in setting a date until the parties have formulated their reaction to the report. As soon as they do so, we can endeavour to set a date-immediately afterwards, I would hope, or within a day or so.


DISPUTE WITH NON-OPERATING RAILWAY EMPLOYEES- POSSIBILITY OF RECESS OF PARLIAMENT BEFORE SETTLEMENT
Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: A question for the Prime Minister. Is the government prepared to recess the House before there is a settlement of the railway dispute or any assurance that there will not be a rail strike later this summer?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think the government and the opposition parties will have a chance to express their views on these various subjects if and when an adjournment motion is put before the House.


TRANSPORT
William George Knight: A further question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that on a number of occasions parliament has been called upon to bring an end to rail strikes and, in effect, to bring an end to collective bargaining within the railway system, can the right hon. gentleman tell the House whether the government is giving consideration to putting the estates and operation of the CPR into trusteeship and examining on that basis the entire question of national railway transportation policy in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question of the national aspects of transportation problems is one to which the minister has been giving considerable attention. Some discussion of it will take place at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference. As to the other part of the question, the answer is no.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: A supplementary to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that the conciliators failed to reach common ground, and since a strike can now legally take place at about the time parliament is scheduled to adjourn for the summer recess, may I
July 16, 1973

ask the hon. gentleman whether it is his intention to intervene personally in order to bring the two parties back together?


John Carr Munro: As I have answered before, if personal intervention by me, as minister, would help, I would take such a step. However, I do not think the parties would welcome it, nor would it be appropriate at the present time, due to the fact, as I have indicated, that they have not yet had an opportunity to study the conciliation board report and formulate their positions, something which they want to do and which the procedure in fact calls for. They wish to do this, I think, before they communicate with each other or with me.


James Aloysius McGrath: Since the report of the conciliation board indicates that the members failed to agree, and since all the provisions of the law have now been carried out preparatory to strike action, may I ask the minister whether he now feels it is appropriate for him to intervene personally, since a rail strike is imminent?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, if there was an intervention by the Minister of Labour, I think it would be most appropriate after the parties had a chance of formulate their own positions, having had the opportunity of studying the report. I do not think they have been able to do that or communicate with their own memberships, so far as the unions are concerned, and I do not think management has had an opportunity to consider it or to decide whether in fact its position has changed since the conciliation board report came out.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that any session of this House this fall is almost certain to be congested with a tremendous volume of business, and in view of the fact that this would jeopardize the possibility of the family allowance bill being passed in time for it to come into effect at the first of next year, would the minister reconsider his position and arrange for this bill to be dealt with before the House rises for a summer recess?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that there is no indication that the agenda for a fall session would be less congested than the agenda is at the present time. As far as arrangements for consideration now are concerned, I think this certainly would be better left in the hands of the government House leader and the House leaders of the respective parties.


Mr. Baldwin:: Don't blame us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I should like to ask the government House leader whether he is prepared at least
26446-65|
Oral Questions
to have the second reading debate on this important legislation before we rise for the summer recess?


POSSIBILITY OF RECONVENING PARLIAMENT EARLY IN FALL TO CONSIDER FAMILY ALLOWANCE LEGISLATION
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has indicated that the family allowance bill must be passed by November to get proposed payments out by January 1, 1974, and in view of the fact that more consultation will have to take place with the provinces, making time limitations rather rigid, will he assure the House that if this bill is not passed before the recess the House will reconvene in time to pass all stages of this bill?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I did not say prior to November, I said in November.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I gather the hon. member has asked a question, but I am not sure whether it was directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Prime Minister or the President of the Privy Council. In any event, the hon. member has the floor for the purpose of asking a supplementary question.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my question was directed to the Prime Minister and I will repeat it. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that if the subject matter of the family allowance bill has not passed through all stages before the summer recess, the House will reconvene in time for all stages to be passed in order that the measure will become effective on January 1, 1974?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did in fact hear the question, but I assumed it to be a matter of representation. I can only answer by saying that I have had enough experience with this parliament to know that I am unable to answer that question. This really depends on whether the opposition parties will co-operate with the government in order to get legislation through, or whether they will use their frequent obstructionist tactics.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You don't know what obstructionism is.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This question was asked because members of this party have had enough experience with the stupidity of this government and its legislative programs to know that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would hon. members kindly resume their seats. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who asked the first question. Following that I will recognize the hon. member for Champlain in an effort to complete the fir^t round of questioning.

July 16, 1973
Oral Questions


SUGGESTED AGREEMENT ON TIME LIMIT ON DEBATE OF FAMILY ALLOWANCE LEGISLATION
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the government House leader did not realize that one of my previous questions was directed to him, I should like to put this question to him. In light of the questions and answers that have taken place in the last few moments, I should like to ask whether the minister will seek an agreement among the parties with respect to a time limit for the second reading debate of this bill so that we can at least get that stage through before we recess for the summer?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I will make an effort to reach an agreement on this legislation. I would have more optimism in making that effort had I succeeded in reaching an agreement in respect of items of legislation which have at the moment taken precedence over this present bill which has just received first reading today.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Can he tell the House whether his department has conducted an investigation to determine whether the mad increase in the price of gasoline in eastern Canada is justifiable?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, an investigation of the oil industry is now in progress, as a result of a complaint filed with the department by the Canadian Consumer Council.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.
Can the minister tell us whether he intends to grant his support soon to the Canadian Charter of Consumer Rights as advocated by the Canadian Consumer Council?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, we are always influenced by such good ideas.


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, if I may in the absence of the Minister of Transport, I should like to

direct a question to the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that submissions with regard to Application "B" before the Canadian Transport Commission have to be in by August 1, will the Prime Minister ensure that the hearings will this time be held in centres in Canada other than Ottawa and copies of transcripts will be made available on a reasonable basis to responsible consumer groups.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the plans in this regard, but I will take the question as notice on behalf of the minister.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware, as alleged by the Centre for Public Interest Law, that groups to date have had to pay one dollar per page for the 3,000 page document covering hearings of Application "A" and, if so, will the Prime Minister take action at once to ensure that in future copies cost no more than those of the evidence of standing committees of parliament?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would have to give the same answer.


HOUSING
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has the minister discussed with the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and housing the details of the serious charges of complicity and illegality contained in the evidence of Vincent Lapetina in respect of the student cooperative housing program, copies of which were generously made available to me by the hon. member for Calgary North and which can be obtained by any member or minister who wants them at this time? Were these facts discussed and was there any discussion of the question concerning why facts which apparently warranted the present minister to launch an investigation into this very serious racket did not justify an inquiry by the hon. gentleman previously?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I have been aware, of course, that allegations have been made recently in this House and apparently in the press. My colleague the Minister of State for Urban Affairs had a discussion about this with me the other day. I informed him I was most certainly not aware of those allegations to which the hon. member has just referred when I was minister. I do not know whether my predecessor, who authorized three of these particular student co-operative housing projects when he was the minister, and who submitted the orders in council and in fact was the responsible minister when the funds were committed, was aware of them either. But that, of course, would remain to be seen when the investigation is completed.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to discuss the relevancies with the

minister, but I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister or the acting minister. Now that the Minister of State and the government are or ought to be aware of the nature of the charges contained in this sworn testimony, as well as in letters sent to CMHC over the last few years, and the condemnatory report of Mr. Yorke of the legal department of CMHC, will these documents be produced to this House and to the country? Will the government launch a proper and full inquiry, instead of the so-called internal investigation which, after five months, have not been heard of and appears to be the figment of some well-endowed imagination?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think I got the gist of the question and I believe the answer will have to be the same as I gave last week, that if the inquiry conducted by the minister and his department reveals that a public inquiry is called for we will institute such an inquiry.


STUDENT CO-OPERATIVE PROJECTS-REQUEST FOR DELAY IN APPROVAL OF FUNDS FOR TREFANN COURT UNTIL JUDICIAL INQUIRY HELD
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. I am sorry, but I do not make anything of it, that the minister is not here. In light of the fact that CMHC is about to make a loan for a project called Trefann Court in Toronto and that the head of the group applying for the mortgage is Mr. John Jordan, former executive director of the Co-operative College Residence Incorporated, I should like to ask the Prime Minister, in light of the fact that there have been allegations of scandal and terrible mismanagement, whether he can assure the House, until the minister returns, that there will be no approval of this mortgage involving a large sum of money of which CMHC is putting up 95 per cent.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the hon. member said he would make nothing of the non-attendance of the minister. He probably knows that the minister is attending a tri-level meeting in his own province, the province of Alberta. So far as the question is concerned, I will make sure that it comes to the attention of the minister.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I want to welcome, first of all, the Prime Minister back from that conference which was a flop in Vancouver.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member could ask the question now.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary to my first question. I would ask the Prime Minister to take the first question asked very seriously. In light of the fact that Mr. Yorke, legal counsel for CMHC, in making a report to the minister mentioned the incompetence of Mr. Jordan, will he assure the House now that no approval of that loan will be made to that particular group or person until the whole matter is investigated by a judicial inquiry.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I thank the member for welcoming me back. I am afraid I cannot say the same thing about him. He does not seem to know there is a tri-level conference in his province. He should go there so we could welcome him back. As to the representation, I will refer it to the minister.


ALLEGED SHIPMENT OF ARMS FROM CANADA TO IRELAND-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION IN VIEW OF NEED FOR EXPORT PERMIT
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, might I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce arising out of a report that the Dublin police have seized a Manchester Lines freighter Vigour and found eight cases of arms marked as machine parts consigned from Montreal to northern Ireland. In view of the fact that the freighter Vigour made no stops between Montreal and Dublin, it can be presumed that these arms were loaded in Montreal. I want to ask the minister if his department has made any inquiry into the matter and, if not, is the minister prepared to investigate and to identify the consignor to ascertain whether or not an export permit was issued for the shipment or transshipment of these arms and if not that appropriate action will be taken?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I will make an inquiry and report back.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that a peaceful nation like Canada does not want to be used for the shipment or trans-shipment of arms to terrorist groups in any part of the world, may I ask the minister what steps his department is taking to supervise and to inspect arms shipments passing through or originating in this country?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there is the Export and Import Permits Act, and such shipments are subject to export permits.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that those shipping arms need an export permit, but I am asking the minister how it was possible for these arms to be shipped to Northern Ireland either with or without an export permit.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest this is an argument rather than a question.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the reports that the two Canadians held by Viet

July 16, 1973
Oral Questions
Cong troops were manhandled, and the attempts were made to force them to sign confessions that they were foreign spies, has the government of Canada launched a formal protest to the Viet Cong concerning the treatment of the Canadians held by the Viet Cong?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the attitude of Canada towards the imprisonment and detention of these two men was known from the beginning. We protested their detention. We took every measure we could to get them released. I am very happy, as I am sure all hon. members are that they have been released in good health. Whether we make formal protests is a rather different matter since the Viet Cong are not recognized by us as a government, but we are members of the international control commission and in our future dealings with them we will bear this is mind.


VIET NAM-ALLEGED FAILURE TO ISSUE PROPER IDENTIFICATION TO TWO CANADIAN OFFICERS ATTACHED TO CONTROL COMMISSION WHO DISAPPEARED
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of National Defence who does not seem to be in the House. Perhaps he is still at the weekend western wake. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence outline to the House, what the officers were doing at the time of their capture, why they were not issued ICCS identification, and were ordered without escorts into Viet Cong held territory?


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the two officers were on routine duty at the time and got out of their jeep to investigate an incident. They were taken captive at that time.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary missed the second part of the question. Why were they not issued ICCS identification cards?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I will take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to point out to the hon. member that the Minister of National Defence is today in his home riding.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nowlan:: After Vancouver, that is where he should be if he wants to save his skin.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether the parliamentary secretary had completed his answer to the question. If not, he will be recognized, after which I will recognize the hon. member for Lisgar.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just want to state that the minister is in the hon. member's home riding.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Since sugar beet producers asked some time ago for a 10 per cent increase in the deficiency payments for sugar beets, and in view of the fact that no word has yet been forthcoming from the government on this matter, can the minister state at this time the position of the federal government?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we discussed this request just recently. The price of sugar beets, even granting their request for a support price, would not come near what they are going to receive for their sugar beets this year. Therefore, according to what sugar beet growers have told me, the matter is not that urgent.


Jack Burnett Murta: As a supplementary question, can the Minister of Agriculture say if there is any action being taken by the government to increase total Canadian acreage of sugar beets so that our farmers may produce more sugar beets for Canadian consumption?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, this was part of the discussion that took place just recently, and we are still considering this proposition. I stated earlier in the House that I am very determined that we will increase our sugar beet production and our refining of sugar beet production in Canada.
*	4	*


CANADIAN COASTGUARD
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, may I direct my question to the acting minister who probably will give it some attention. Can he advise if instructions have gone out to the Canadian Coastguard College to the effect that third and fourth year navigation and engineering students are to report for the fall term at either Cornwall or Ottawa, rather than at the present location?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Acting Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice for the minister and get a reply as soon as I can.


Robert Muir: I wish to thank the minister for replying. Would he also advise if senior officials of the college have been advised to secure housing in either Cornwall or Ottawa by September 1 or thereabouts for the fall term of the college?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
July 16, 1973
Oral Questions HEALTH


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that the CNR pension plan has not been discussed before the Standing Committee on Transport because no reference has been made to that committee by the House, can he assure hon. members that before action is sought in parliament by the government with regard to the railway labour dispute, the present proposals with regard to pensions for CNR employees will be satisfactory to the workers on the railroad?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give any guarantee as to what will or not be satisfactory to the workers at this stage, whether in the pension area or any other area, although I can assure the hon. member that if it should occur that legislation is required in a dispute of this kind, which we all hope it will not be, there would be ample opportunity to discuss the CNR pension plan.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport, but since he is not in the House perhaps some other member of the cabinet will reply. Can we have some assurance that a reference, such as the CNR annual report or CNR financing, will be made to the Transport Committee so that there will be an opportunity for the workers to appear before that committee with regard to the pensions that are proposed?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will bring this representation to the attention of the minister.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the ruling on the Indian Act by Mr. Justice Osier of the Supreme court of Ontario, and in view of the increased anxiety and uncertainty that have been created among native people of Canada, will the Prime Minister give the House a definite commitment that the government's long awaited statement on Indian policy, and in particular on aboriginal rights, will be forthcoming before the House recesses?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government intends to make that policy known very soon.


ALLEGED SHORTAGE OF DOCTORS-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE FOREIGN MEDICAL STUDENTS WILL NOT DISPLACE CANADIANS
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the shortage of doctors in Canada, I would like to ask the minister if applicants from outside Canada are being accepted at our Canadian medical schools, and will he assure us that students from outside Canada will not be accepted in place of qualified Canadian boys and girls?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take notice of this question. I will be very pleased to communicate with the hon. member and give him a report.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that local manpower offices, by their own admission cannot supply adequate labour for harvesting in fruit and vegetable areas, will the minister now reconsider the cancellation of Mexican and Portuguese work permits which had been granted in this and other years?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, if Canadians are not available, and of course if working conditions that are including but not limited to wages, meet various required labour standards, we will be very keen to look at that situation and grant permits to foreigners who are here. I might say that we have brought in something in excess of 6,000 foreign seasonal workers, on contract, to satisfy these kinds of situations, this year, and I am aware that our manpower offices have been in touch with these employers who are experiencing such difficulties. We will cooperate in these circumstances.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Last week the Prime Minister did not answer a question on whether the government would consider some emergency action at least to help those on fixed incomes. In view of reports that increases in old age pensions accelerated a general round of rental increases in major cities, and have left many of the poorest on pensions almost no better prepared to face increasing prices than

July 16, 1973
Oral Questions
before, would the Prime Minister now answer the question and indicate whether any immediate action will be considered?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is repeating a representation of which the government is already very well aware.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Harry Kuntz (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, through you I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the fact that his department has assured the agricultural industry of an adequate supply of alfalfa pellets by requiring export permits, is it the government's intention to impose the same requirements on the export of hay?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the hon. member's question properly, he is asking if we are considering using the same type of system for the export of hay out of Canada as for alfalfa pellets. This request had been sent to us by the President of Unifarm from Alberta and we are looking at it. At this time I am not prepared to take any action on this request because hay is moving from Washington into British Columbia freely.


Harry Kuntz: A supplementary question. In view of the concern expressed by the dairy farmers of British Columbia about a severe shortage of hay for this winter that could be aggravated by restrictions on exports by the United States government, could the minister assure the House that there will be an adequate supply and what steps will be taken in this regard?


Eugene Whelan: The only thing that has been brought to my attention, Mr. Speaker, is that we have stopped some illegal imports of wheat straw that carried a fungus disease, and which is banned, but no real restrictions are being placed on products coming into British Columbia. If the hon. member has evidence of this, I should be glad to hear it and see it.
* *
*


AIR CANADA
Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour and concerns the strike of the finance section of Air Canada in Winnipeg which is now in its eighth week. Since the minister has been aware for sometime of the allegation that Air Canada is using undue pressure to have non-union personnel replace the striking workers in the finance section, has he investigated and is

his investigation now complete and what is the report? If the investigation is not complete, when may we expect to receive that report?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be in a position to indicate to the hon. member the results of our study of those complaints very shortly. I would indicate to him, too, that we might be able to be helpful in these parties reaching settlement. I am fairly optimistic that perhaps we can achieve that laudable result this week.


ALLEGED USE OF NON-UNION PERSONNEL DURING STRIKE-RESULT FOR LEAVE TO PROSECUTE- RESUMPTION OF MEDIATION
Douglas Charles Rowland: With respect to the minister's last remark, that he hopes to achieve settlement this week, can he indicate to the House whether mediation talks have resumed? If they have not when does he expect that they will and further, if they do not resume, will he give consideration to the union's request to prosecute under the unfair labour practices legislation?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I should like to leave without comment for the moment the answer to the latter part of the hon. member's question. As to the first part, I should like to say that I believe the most recent proposals are being tested in respect of their acceptability or otherwise by the membership. As soon as we have some clear reading on that,-I have not had a chance to get a clear reading yet-the time would be appropriate to decide if further action is required by means of direct intervention through mediation.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and relates to the commitment he made back in mid February with regard to giving a report to the House on the matter of monitoring the passing on of reductions in sales and excise taxes included in the budget some five months ago. Can the minister tell the House whether such a report-even an interim report-will be made before the recess for the summer, as and when that takes place, or is the minister hoping that the House will recess and everybody will forget his failure to carry out a commitment?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend is mistaken. I have carefully checked the Hansard record and as far as I can see, what I said was that I would be pleased to present information to the House on this monitoring process once the work has been completed. As yet, the work is not completed and I do not think it will be possible to present a report before the House adjourns for the summer.
July 16, 1973

Oral Questions LABOUR RELATIONS


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Is it correct that a veteran who is receiving both the war veterans allowance and disability pension-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot ask the question in those terms.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Is a veteran going to have his disability pension increase deducted from his war veterans allowance pension, thereby receiving no increase whatsoever?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to that, each case is different. In some cases he is receiving a disability pension and therefore possibly would not receive war veterans allowance. Each case is different.


A. Daniel McKenzie: The idea behind the disability pension increase was to cope with the cost of living. If this increase is going to be deducted from him-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member appreciates this is an argument, not a question.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister for the Unemployment Insurance Commission and deals with the invasion of privacy of the individual. Does the minister propose to continue with the practice now enforced by the UIC staff whereby they raid a private individual's bank account and take from that account moneys to pay indebtedness to the UIC without the signature of the owners of that private bank account?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I should most certainly want to have the specific instances and evidence of that before I would reply. If that in any way were the case, I would take steps to prevent it, but I am certainly not aware of it and I should like to have the clear evidence.


Alfred Dryden Hales: May I call it ten o'clock so that I can present the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! The Chair has no objection to the House calling it ten o'clock right now, but I gather there is intervening business.


DISPUTE WITH NON-OPERATING RAILWAY EMPLOYEES- CONTINGENCY PLAN TO GET SUPPLIES TO NEWFOUNDLAND IN EVENT OF STRIKE
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the heavy dependency on the province of Newfoundland on an inadequate transportation system which would be completely disrupted with any strike, does the government have any contingency plan to accommodate the dependency we have on imports of all foodstuffs and building materials as well as the dependency of the tourist trade on that system?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that question was asked by the Leader of the Opposition at the very beginning today and I replied to it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I know that the right hon. gentleman did not mean to create a wrong impression but I did not ask the question about Newfoundland; my question was of quite a different nature.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Prime Minister did not hear my question correctly, so I wonder if I could ask it again. Does the government have a contingency plan for transportation to the province of Newfoundland in the event of an unfortunate strike, bearing in mind the unique nature of the province and its dependency on the transportation system for all foodstuffs, all its industrial materials and its exports, as well as its dependency on the tourist trade?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did deal with that question generally, and it was a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition as regards the economy of Canada in general. I can assure the hon. member that I do not propose to deal with any province in a particular way. I will deal with each province and each regional situation as it needs.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate on a supplementary and then the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.


John Howard Lundrigan: The right hon. Prime Minister seems to be quite an expert on international affairs since his trip to Cuba. I wonder if he would take a few moments from his busy schedule-


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Oh yourself, Joe!


John Howard Lundrigan: -one of these montlJs to realize that the province of Newfoundland is an island.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat?


John Howard Lundrigan: His ignorance is abominable.
5632

July 16, 1973
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat?


REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR FAMILY
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the minister's statement in committee some weeks ago that if the need for more funds for family planning could be proved, such funds would be made available; and in view of the fact that both the large number of requests for funding and the growing number of abortions attested to the need for more funds for contraception, is the minister prepared to make funds available and if so, when?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, there are funds available in the estimates for the financial year 1973-74 which have not yet been used up, far from it, for the purpose of family planning. We expect there will be additional funds available again next year.


Winona Grace MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the provincial government obtain funds for family planning programs under the Canada Assistance Plan?
[Transla tion]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this question as notice. However, I can say that the provinces can obtain, under certain circumstances, funds from family planning as such, if there are specific programs to be put forward.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. In light of the very unusual precedent, established may I say under peculiar circumstances, surrounding the takeover of a private sawmill in British Columbia, Plateau Sawmills in Vanderhoof, by the government of British Columbia, and in view of the British Columbia government's apparent intention to take over private industry in British Columbia, has the minister considered how he will replace tax revenues previously paid by that industry in British Columbia?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not; but this sounds like a

serious problem in British Columbia and I hope we will not have to share any losses of the people of British Columbia.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a supplementary, and then call orders of the day.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Since in the case of Plateau Sawmills the federal government could suffer a loss of $3 million for the current tax year alone, does the government consider that letting the provincial governments take over private industry is part of its scheme to help western Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member appreciates that the question, asked in those terms, is not in order.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the debate that is to take place this evening commencing at eight o'clock on a motion under Standing Order 26. Although there have been discussions among the parties, and although we have not yet agreed about a cut-off time, it has been agreed that the length of speeches should be as follows: 20 minutes for each of the lead-off speakers of the four parties and 15 minutes for each speaker thereafter. Perhaps that could be made an order of the House at this time, so that hon. members might know about these arrangements.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in relation to discussions between party representatives. Is it agreed that it be so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, July 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-195, to amend the Customs Tariff (No. 2), be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with the last of the four components devised by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) for deal-
July 16, 1973

ing with the budgetary provisions first introduced in 1972. The minister has suggested that the one we are now considering is the last one. I hope he will not emulate his colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras), by bringing in emergency legislation and then going down on his hands and knees praying for it to be passed in less than one day.
In dealing with these customs tariff changes let me say quite frankly that they are the least justifiable part of the budget. The minister was at pains last Friday afternoon to indicate that the thrust of his budget was to provide continued stimulation for economic growth. At the same time, the budget will seek to mitigate the inflationary pressures that are squeezing family budgets. Therefore we have before us a proposal to reduce the tariff on certain ranges of manufactured goods and on fruits, vegetables and meats. In some cases the tariff will be removed.
When we were looking at the sales tax on Friday the minister, in reply to questions from the opposition, indicated that it was difficult to determine whether cuts in sales tax are being passed on to the consumer. I suggest that it will be more difficult, in fact, practically impossible, to determine whether the tariff cuts-which the minister says are to be 5 per cent, but which I say apply not to 5 per cent of the retail price but to 5 per cent of the Customs tariff applicable-will be effective. The cuts will be miniscule in many instances and impossible to monitor. The effect will be something less than the minister wants to see achieved. Some of my colleagues will speak about the psychological effect of these cuts, an effect that has to do with the timing and nature of the cuts, with their being made without consultation and introduced on the eve of negotiations that will be on a wider basis.
The minister suggests that that argument can be countered by the fact that these cuts are for one year only and can be reimposed or restored, if not to their former level at least to an intermediate level, and that therefore they will not hinder our negotiations with regard to tariff cuts if those negotiations ever come about. I am not so hopeful as the minister in that connection. If we are prepared to come down to a certain level subject to returning to an upper level, our trading partners will know about it and may try to drive us to an even lower level. Therefore, such action will affect negotiations. I will simply leave it at that.
I find it somewhat difficult to follow the whole philosophy behind this matter. Perhaps some day the minister's officials who are particularly concerned about this will explain to me their thinking. I want to see what made the wheels turn around, so to speak, in this particular way because I am far from convinced that this was the better option open to the government. I cannot see that reductions in tariffs of this kind will do anything to stimulate the Canadian economy. A good number of my colleagues and many industries will report to the minister on the effect of the cuts, even though they may be limited to one year. If conditions are not better in one year, the minister would be hard put-if he is still minister-to bring the tariffs up again to the levels that existed prior to the February cuts. After all, if this action will have failed to stimulate the economy, he will not further change tariff levels. To do so would be to admit that what was proposed in February, 1973, was another of the aborted moves of the 26446-66^
Customs Tariff (No. 2)
government to try to stimulate the economy. That was something I just could not buy. At page 5606 of Hansard for July 13, the minister said:
-but also by the effect it will have in pressing many Canadian producers to moderate their own prices in order to remain competitive.
This is not only Canadian manufacturers but producers. I invite the minister and his officials to listen to my colleagues when they talk about upward pressures on costs of Canadian agricultural producers who are being told by the minister they will have to moderate their own prices in order to remain competitive. I invite those people who have something to say about fruit and vegetables and the horticultural industry to participate in this debate. It is not enough to say these Canadian producers will have to moderate their own prices in order to remain competitive. We will see what that does to stimulate the Canadian economy.
The next point we must stress is that these tariff cuts are temporary. The general public is not aware of this. Clause 2 of the bill modifies all the schedules in the Customs Tariff Act. Clause 3(2) provides:
Section 2 shall expire on the 19th day of February, 1974, and all rates of Customs duty reduced by section 2 shall be deemed to be restored on the expiration thereof to the rates that were in effect immediately prior to the 20th day of February 1973-
This is a one year, a one-shot affair. I do not know what the Canadian public thinks of this. Is this a midsummer stock reduction sale to clear out old goods? Once the period of the sale is over, will prices go back to their former level? Tariff rates will certainly go back to their former level. Frankly, I very much doubt that this policy of the budget will make an equal contribution to the twofold thrust of the budget as a whole. I do not think there is that potential in this move by the very nature of the Customs tariff as to how it affects Canadian industry and producers, certainly as to how any Customs reduction is passed on to the Canadian consumer.
The minister did say, and we must be very much aware of this, that Canadian producers need not fear too much. By reason of the effective devaluation of the Canadian dollar, or the upward revaluation of foreign currency, provided the commodities come from offshore North America and not from the United States the reductions will be negated by the upward revaluation of foreign currency. Therefore, there will not be a reduction in the price to the Canadian consumer. What is the value to the Canadian consumer? There will not be a price reduction; there might be the elimination of a price increase on imports but the Canadian producer will not gain thereby.
I find it rather strange for the government in its economic policy to rely on fortuitous events over which it does not have one iota of control, namely, the difficulties the United States dollar is facing in the world exchange market. We cannot do much to control that, but the government seems to be relying on it as justification for one part of the economic thrust of its budget. That is an awfully shaky base. I would like to see something much more solid behind any budgetary move the government makes. One could discuss a number of good features but we will deal with these in the schedules, the examination

July 16, 1973
Customs Tariff (No. 2)
of the particular items. Many of my colleagues wish to speak to the minister about the budgetary proposals dealing with Customs tariffs that affect their parts of the country.
The minister did not go west this past weekend. Some suggest he should have. He probably would have, had he listened to the comments, some of which were pretty pithy. Some of his colleagues went west to hear something, and I do not mean siren songs. They will be the ones singing the siren songs. Westerners are proving hard of hearing on this point. The minister will hear from all parts of the country regarding these proposals.
As I said, I find this the least attractive part of the budget, if the minister is trying to substantiate the thrust of the budget and rely on changes in Customs tariffs. That combination of events and the inability of the government to deal with inflation will be an exercise in frustration. Perhaps the minister could forecast that happening. Perhaps the reason for having an automatic date for the restoration of these cuts was so that he or someone else would not have to come before the House next year or the year after and confess the abject failure of this particular move to deal with our present problems. In this way, he will not have to ask the House to pass legislation to restore the tariffs to the former level. That would really be leaving oneself open to flagellation. The minister has protected himself, or someone else, by making February next the cut-off date of these tariff cuts.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, how important these changes are likely to be in directing the economic trends, particularly in relation to agriculture. I wonder how the department concerned proposes to assess the effect of these tariff cuts as distinct from the other factors which are at work in the economy, factors which I suspect are having a far greater effect on decisions made both by individuals and corporations.
I did not notice here any reference to farm machinery, but I would point out that at least two firms in Canada have been importing tractors and other machines from Germany, Sweden and other European Countries. The devaluation of the dollar has made these machines about 18 per cent more expensive than they were some 12 months ago, the last time I checked. Since then, the dollar has again been devalued in relation to the mark, so the additional cost to the Canadian consumer will be correspondingly greater. A spokesman for the Volkswagen firm announced publicly not long ago that the cars which their agents were exporting into the United States were becoming so expensive as a result of the altered exchange rate that this manufacturing company would be operating not at a profit but at a loss.
Against this background of a disorganized world monetary situation, the tariff rates which one nation or another imposes, such as preferential tariffs, most favoured nation tariffs, general tariffs and so on are, I suspect, playing only a secondary role in deciding what will or will not be imported into a country. It is with this aspect of our economy that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and the government should be concerning themselves. I have heard no statement from a minister of the Crown on this

subject. We do not know what the settled policy of the government happens to be.
I believe the minister should make a statement to the House, before the recess, concerning the relationship of the Canadian dollar to the U.S. dollar, the role the government is playing in international discussions and the leverage, if any, it is trying to exercise or is capable of exercising at the international level. There are few industries in Canada more seriously affected by monetary policy, when it comes to exports and imports, than agriculture. I suppose the pulp and paper industry and the lumber industry face the same challenges.
Another matter with which the government should concern itself is the ability of Canadians to feed themselves. A couple of weeks ago we noted the reaction to the United States policy of controls on the export of certain cereals and oil seed crops. The Canadian government respond by taking similar action. Today during the question period we heard an hon. member asking about the importation of hay into Canada. This provoked some laughter in the House, but it is not really very funny because a farmer who needs hay is like a Texan with his gun: when he wants it, he wants it damned bad. And when we talk about a shipment of alfalfa pellets, we must remember that alfalfa pellets are protein, and protein is what the controls are all about. Again, the tariff structure is not the most important factor involved.
There is something else which it seems to me tariffs do nothing to control, and that is the cost of food. On Saturday I made a tour through the stores along with my wife and made note of the amount people were having to pay for tomatoes, for example-69 cents a pound, and more. Tariffs are not governing the price of tomatoes, Mr. Speaker. It is the people who bring them in, the wholesalers and the retailers, who are governing the price of tomatoes and deciding what consumers shall pay.
We in this party have expressed concern about what is happening to the consumer. We have repeatedly asked that the Prices Review Board become active and begin to do a job on behalf of consumers. Mr. Speaker, the silence with respect to this review board is deafening. Somebody raised the question in committee of the salaries paid to board members. Whatever it is, is not the real question. They should be on the job now, in the stores in Ottawa, Toronto, Saskatoon and Regina protecting the consumers of this country. The government removed the tariff on beef entering Canada from the United States. It did so without calling for any balancing concessions from the U.S.A. But the increase in the price of beef was not halted. The answer to the increase in beef prices lies in part with the Prices Review Board and, in part, in producing more beef to meet the needs of Canadian consumers.
Instead of having an agricultural policy directed toward the objective of producing more, we have a policy that results in the abandonment of farms. To see this, all one has to do is read recent editions of the Globe and Mail which have described the abandonment of farms within a 50-mile radius of Ottawa. Some of these farms are being planted in flowers. One has heard about the playful bull that spent his time sniffing the daisies: this is the trend
July 16, 1973

that is developing. Instead of producing milk, beef, butter and eggs farms are lying idle, unworked because farmers can make more in wages and salaries in the cities. One farmer pointed out that he has quit farming and taken up carpentry because he can make more money. These people should be encouraged to produce food.
At the same time, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) says we must have good farmers in order to maintain a productive farm economy. The only way to keep people down on the farm is to enable a decent profit to be earned from farming. We await policies of the government designed to achieve this objective. We wait in vain for any kind of guaranteed income. We wait in vain for any kind of support price or for any kind of policy to meet the needs of our farmers.
We welcome these tariff adjustments because they may offer assistance in certain quarters but as far as I am concerned this is a tidying-up bill; it is designed to tidy-up some of the loose ends but does not represent any change in policy and will not result in any material improvement in our economy. The government must give real direction to our agricultural economy in order that we can produce the things the people need.
[ Translation]


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, further to the remarks of the former speaker and the financial critic of the official opposition, we feel it might be well to remind the government of its responsibilities towards the overall Canadian economy and more specifically in the fields of exports and imports.
Obviously, we must import especially what we do not produce, and export what we produce in abundance. Only, let us not believe that imports and exports alone will solve the economic problem in Canada, that they alone will favour an economic system capable of allowing Canadians to benefit from the progress of their country, which, basically, is built and developed by them. According to us, the Social Credit Party, the objective should be serving the Canadian consumers, organizing our economy in such a way that it can meet the needs of Canadian consumers.
We have seen paradoxes in the past, and we are seeing even more of them now, with some farmers faced with the problem of surpluses of milk, butter and cheese, complaining that they are selling their products at a loss. We are importing dairy products from New Zealand, Australia, Switzerland and Denmark; we are buying eggs from New Zealand and butter from a number of countries, but at the same time we have a surplus of millions of pounds of this product in Canada.
The same is true of meat. At one point we have a meat shortage perhaps because we have exported a little too much. On the other hand, we import meat from the United States and other countries. Of course, we try to export our surpluses, but without much success, for the very reason that we import too much, and our imports are always in the name of international trade, though we have no need for these products. We are told that we should encourage such and such a country.
Last winter, for example, I was in Jamaica and a black who was serving me at the hotel where I was staying asked me whether we still sold sardines in Canada. So I
Customs Tariff (No. 2)
asked him: But what sort of sardines do you want to buy from Canada? He had trouble pronouncing the name "Brunswick", but he liked that brand of sardines, and he said that it had been impossible to get any for the past two years. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) might perhaps take note of that. There is an export market for our "Brunswick" sardines, which are appreciated in Jamaica.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: We will give you a commission.


David Réal Caouette: The minister is offering me a commission as a salesman for Canadian sardines in Jamaica. We shall use it.
Mr. Speaker, in many areas, we must indeed correct our range, adjust our trade with other countries. If a Credi-tiste government were in power, we could also enter into agreements with other countries, especially those which produce goods that do not produce in Canada. Nevertheless, this is no reason for punishing the farmers, the producers, the industries and the manufacturers.
It seems to me that the primary market for Parliament, this government and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is indeed our domestic market, that is, the 22 million people living in Canada. It is the market whose needs should be met first.
Everyone knows that currently Canada is short not only of food but also of clothing, farm machinery and many other things because precisely people cannot afford to buy those commodities whereas countries which can no more afford it can purchase those goods through loans granted by the Canadian government. In fact, if India is in need of Canadian commodities, it is granted millions to purchase them here. During the 1972 election campaign, the current Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier) told me on television that credit to foreign countries should exist so as to enable them to buy from Canada. And the minister asked me on television: "Why do you not tell that on television?" It is exactly what I was saying. India will buy from Canada, the Rouyn-Noranda municipality would also buy from Canada as India does if it could be granted interest free loans. Montreal-Mayor Jean Drapeau's city-would do the same: It would buy from Canada for the 1976 Olympic Games. Certainly the minister was wrong when discussing this question. I admit that to get votes you can invent about anything but honesty should be respected.
A $100 million loan was granted to Algeria; this country has changed its government through revolution and is headed by Communists-yes, by Communists, for the guidance of the minister looking at me-and series of murders have been committed to impose the current government.


William George Knight: What about Spain and Portugal?


David Réal Caouette: It is the same thing! They did the same in Cuba. As for Communist China, we have ignored it for years; today it has become the guardian angel of the Minister of Communications.

July 16, 1973
Customs Tariff (No. 2)
Mr. Speaker, $100 million have been loaned to Algeria. At what interest rate? Without interest! For how long? Probably as the other loans: 50 years plus 10 years of grace! Now, when we ask the government to do the same thing for Manitoba, Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and the Maritimes, which are almost in distress, and we are told: Algeria is going to buy in Canada. As if the provinces would not buy in Canada! But the same funds, Mr. Speaker, would allow the provinces to have such an economic expansion that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would not have to go to Vancouver and say: We are going to change a lot of things that exist. We now have 70 per cent of the Regional Economic Expansion Department staff working in Ottawa and 30 per cent elsewhere. We are going to change this: in future, 70 per cent will work out of Ottawa, and 30 per cent will stay in Ottawa. This is the weekend statement.
Mr. Speaker, if the provinces had the economic freedom, the financial freedom, the monetary means of developing normally, the Prime Minister would not have to go and see them and tell the provincial authorities that things will be rearranged in Ottawa to help you. We will move the bureaucrats from Sparks Street and send them to Main Street in Victoria, others to Halifax and others to Sydney. These people will jump this high when the Prime Minister or the department try to move them. They will not want to leave Ottawa and with reason, because this is not a solution. This is the system that wants to choke us, to limit us in our expansion.
Yes, instead of distributing plenty, rarety is handed out. I understand that, in the present circumstances, the Minister of Finance is forced to go into this, what can you do? There is no more. We ask him and he must answer I have no more!
The same thing happens for the famous federal-provincial conferences. The premiers of all provinces come here to Ottawa to meet the federal authorities. Each premier rises at the beginning of the sitting to tell Ottawa: Gentlemen, we lack money to develop normally. After each premier has said the same thing, the Prime Minister of Canada rises and says: Gentlemen, I am happy to see you. You seem to be charming premiers, but I am sorry, we are in the same situation as you are, we also have no more resources than you have.
Then, the provincial premiers return home offended, disillusionned, and you hear them cry against Ottawa, against centralization, and the Minister of Finance is under the gun same as the others, and afterwards, they are always after Ottawa. Why? Because Ottawa does not take precisely the action it can and should, namely the monetary action that no province can take Ottawa can solve that problem, because by virtue of the constitution,the monetary matter is under the jurisdiction of the federal government and not of the provinces.
Taxing can belong to the provinces as well as to Ottawa, yes, but monetary matters cannot; the issuing of money is Ottawa's responsibility, and by no means the provinces'. Evidence of that is the fact we had scored administrations in western Canada, in Alberta for 35 or 37 years. One has never been able to solve the economic problem. Why? Because each time a measure was presented to reform the monetary field, Ottawa had that measure declared "ultra

vires". It was Ottawa who opposed it or the Supreme Court of Canada. Aberhart's government was even forced to go to London to be repudiated at Ottawa's request. The right hon. Mackenzie King was then Prime Minister of Canada.
I am not lying, Mr. Speaker, I know what I am talking about. This is what happened. We are still discussing the same problems as in 1935. In 1946, I was sitting near the present member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) with Mr. Solon Low, who was then leader of the Social Credit and the same problems were submitted to us.
Indeed, Mr. Blackmore who had the seat of the present member for Winnipeg North Centre was warning the government about the consequences of the Bretton Woods Agreements which can now be appreciated. If we read over Mr. Blackmore's speech, this is exactly what happened.
However, we took 25 years to realize it. When we "preach" something 25 years in advance, we are called ninnies, but when our predictions come true, we are told: "We did not know about it." The same thing will happen again.
At the present time, we have some foreign markets. We still had more 10 years ago. When some of us were elected in 1962, we could sell in almost any country throughout the world. This has changed today. Some countries who used to buy from us have become exporting countries 10 years later. In technical and scientific areas, we helped them stand on their own and produce themselves. And today, these people can sell us the same goods we sold them 10 years ago.
But in the meantime, we are 10 years older as well and we are still at grips with the same problems. And the government, including the Minister of Finance, under the pretense of improving Canada's future, of improving trade with foreign countries and manufacturing conditions in Canada, under the pretence of helping agriculture to compete better, the excise tax is eliminated in order to increase exports in our country.
As far as oil is concerned, for instance, it is embargoed; a control is exercised in order to prevent Alberta from exporting too much oil to the United States, so as to avoid a shortage in Canada.
But, Mr. Speaker, let the Minister of Finance tell me why Canadian oil products which are distributed in Canada, are likely to become more expensive within one, two or three months? These are not imported products but domestic ones. They will allow increases of 4 cents, 5 cents, 6 cents, even 10 cents a gallon. This is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. Why? Because far from protecting Canadian consumers and our domestic market, this exploits them even further.
As I said earlier, the first market to be protected and satisfied is the domestic market. Some people in Montreal, Vancouver, Halifax, Rouyn-Noranda, Cornwall, Hamilton need commodities they cannot get at present because their purchasing power is too low. Foreign countries' purchasing power is organized but they cannot organize that of the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, the first duty of this government, of the Prime Minister, of the Minister of Finance, is to organize
July 16, 1973

the Canadian market so that, in the first place, our citizens may buy what they need, and second, that surplus may be exported throughout the world. Our market must really become competitive, even if we must subsidize the export of our surplus. We approve this, but let us start to subsidize at home, in Canada, in all our provinces, in municipalities, in order to satisfy Canadian consumers.


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, there are some pertinent things that should be said in this debate on Bill C-195 dealing with the Customs tariff. It was with a great deal of relief that the fruit growers of Canada found the other day that a surcharge was being put on cherry imports into Canada, but it came almost too late. The price of cherries had dropped in the Pacific northwest from $7.50 f.o.b. on June 7 to $5 f.o.b. on June 27. Almost 80 per cent of the American cherries had been sold, but British Columbia was just beginning to sell its crop. B.C. producers were being faced with a situation in which they were selling for below the cost of production, while much of the produce of their competitors had been sold for better prices. Some 170,000 cartons of cherries were imported into Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver this year, compared with 72,000 cartons a year ago. It is a good thing something was done or it would have been a disaster for the Canadian industry.
Again I remind the minister that the action came too late. Once more British Columbia producers, even though they had a plentiful supply of excellent quality cherries, had to face a market with the pipelines full of a cheap product. Faster action is necessary. The price at the retail level has not changed across Canada and in some instances has come down even though the surcharge was imposed.
Because of past policies of the Liberal government, Canadian farmers have been made to compete with the production of fruits and vegetables of other parts of the world which use cheap labour and have subsidized their producers. The Canadian growers have had little or no protection, and what protection they have had is being gradually taken away from them. Witness what happened to the tariffs on apples a few years ago, or indeed in the last GATT round. It was decided that the tariff would be taken off apples between the United States and Canada over a four-year period. No sooner had this period begun than the then minister of national revenue decided that he would take off the tariff on apples coming into Canada.
After he took this action, he went to the United States government and asked them if they would do the same. They laughed at him and said, "When we make an agreement, it is an agreement and we will hold by it." Thus, we had free trade in apples coming into Canada for three years and a tariff on apples imported into the United States for the same three years. It is no wonder that growers often say that the worst competition they face is their own government or the governments of other countries. The government of Canada believes in free trade; the fruit growers believe in fair trade. When other countries do not want our produce, they find some gimmick to keep it out, not through tariffs but through no trade at all,
Customs Tariff (No. 2)
while they subsidize the produce of their own growers that is being shipped into Canada.
In Japan they have a gimmick whereby they say they will not accept any fruit from any country that has coddling moth. This effectively prevents the importation of apples into Japan from Canada or any country in the world. Australians said that they would not accept apples from Canada because they had fire blight. When it was proved to them that the fire blight could be controlled or fumigated, they came back and said they did not want our apples anyway, which was exactly what they meant in the first place.
Let us consider the trade in canned cherries between the United States and Canada. The duty into Canada on U.S. canned cherries is IV2 cents per pound, or 60 cents a case. The duty on Canadian cherries entering the U.S.A. is 7 cents a pound, plus 10 per cent. This means that the duty is $2.80 a case, plus 10 per cent of the value, which could make the duty as high as $3.50 a case. All kinds of similar situations can be found. Peaches coming into Canada are subject to a duty of 63 cents per case, while peaches going from Canada to the United States are subject to a duty of $1.45 per case.
When the United States has a large crop of soft fruit, invariably there is a surplus destined to come into Canada at a low price just as our producers begin their harvest. The Canadian producer barely recovers his cost of production, or goes in the hole. Over the years the producers and their organizations, the horticultural council and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, have been pleading with the government not to further reduce the tariff protection. But no, the government keeps on reducing the tariff.
We see people clamouring for a freeze on land. Almost every day we read that there are going to be food shortages and that farmland must be preserved. In the two main fruit belts of Canada, the Okanagan valley and the Niagara peninsula, we have seen two forms of land freeze. It may be ironic, but it is in these areas where the land is being frozen that the producer needs the most help and is being hard pressed to maintain a viable operation. I do not believe that consumers will deny the producer the right to make a living. I believe it will be in their best interests in the long run to see that he is able to make a good living. Thus he will be able to preserve this land and keep it in agriculture.
Take the example of the cherry deal. This year in B.C. we had 5,000 tons, in total, for the fresh fruit market. Just 20 per cent of the American crop amounted to 7,000 tons. If you had put the Canadian cherry producer out of business I am sure there would not have been a great reduction in the price of U.S. cherries making up this 7,000 tons. U.S. producers would have marketed them in Canada and, because they do not offer the same quality, the same floor price protection policy and, indeed, do not underwrite claims when the cherries are not up to standard, I am sure the price would have remained considerably higher than the consumer paid this year, I have observed this type of thing over the last 15 years and I have never yet seen a situation which would lead me to believe that in the long run the people of Canada will get their food cheaper.

July 16, 1973
Customs Tariff (No. 2)
I would also like to speak about the hard pressed fruit and vegetable canning industry in Canada. Again, those in the industry have been pushed harder and harder, with no protection on much of their canned fruit against cheap, subsidized imports from Australia and other countries. Once again we see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) erode more of their protection. It almost appears that the government enjoys seeing them go out of business-and many have gone out of business in my riding over the years. It would appear that the government almost enjoys seeing jobs being exported to other countries even in face of the unemployment problem we have in Canada. The chairman of the Ontario Tender Fruit Growers Marketing Board put the case very clearly the other day when speaking in Toronto when he said:
Canada has become a dumping ground for surplus canned fruit from Australia, South Africa, and California.
Canada is a prime target for the export of canned fruit from these regions at dumped or subsidized prices. However, the long-run result could mean higher prices for Canadian consumers. He went on to say that Ontario tender fruit growers and processors are facing the same situation of surplus and low world prices that wiped out the once flourishing sugar beet industry in southwestern Ontario with the concurrence of the federal government. Now the price of world sugar has more than doubled and we are more dependent than ever on imports to supply our market.
He stated that the tender fruit growers are seeking some form of quota system or import tax on processed fruit entering the country so they can obtain a fair share of the market on a competitive basis. Remember, these prices are not even remunerative to the industry in the country of origin. He also charged that the peach industries in Australia, South Africa and California have agreed not to compete severely in countries where they are seeking markets. He believes it is in the public interest for governments to assist basic industries which are in trouble to maintain a broad productive base in the country.
When questioning the Minister of Finance in committee I was surprised at the sort of carefree attitude he adopted, but more surprised at the answers I received regarding the tariff on cartons and cans. I asked if there was a tariff on cans and cartons coming into Canada full, and he replied, to my amazement, "There is a tariff on the cans and there is an additional tariff on the contents if the contents are dutiable". I pursued the matter by saying that in other words they came in free and there was no tariff on them. I was then told, "There is a tariff on the can and an additional tariff on the can contents if the contents are dutiable". As I say, I was amazed, not so much that the minister did not know but that the people at his elbow who were advising him did not seem to know. I can tell the minister that there is no duty on a carton of apples coming into Canada, neither the contents nor the carton. Neither is there any duty on a can of citrus, on the can or the citrus where he recently removed the duty.
If the Canadian packer wants to import cartons or cans, empty, for Canadian products from the U.S.A., they have to pay a duty of 17 lA per cent. I understand that some

canners in Ontario, and probably others in Canada, are now having their citrus packed in the U.S.A. Why not, when they can make 17 per cent right off the top? A very good industry was starting in Canada canning citrus and concentrate. However, there go the jobs to another country. This sort of policy certainly helps the unemployment problem!
In closing, I should like to talk about the mobile home industry which has built up in my riding of Okanagan Boundary. This industry had good assistance in getting started by way of area incentive grants. It has become a very promising part of industry in the area. These companies provide jobs and are good corporate citizens. It is an industry which is compatible with the environment. The government is reducing their tariff protection by 2 Vi per cent. Just as they get going, the pressure begins to be applied. A reduction of 2 Vi per cent is enough, in this type of industry, to mean the difference between profit and loss. If they get the same treatment over the next few years that the fruit and vegetable industry has been getting, the jobs they are supplying will soon be in another country. They must have protection to be able to compete with manufacturers in the United States who have cheaper input.
We must take a longer, broader look at our tariff structure to give protection to producers and manufacturers when needed jobs are at stake. Let us not just trade off our natural resources. Let us have industries of our own. This is the only way we will reduce unemployment in Canada. The next round of GATT starts very shortly and it will be too bad if this government has by then traded away all its options. There is talk of this bill being in effect for just one year. However, I am afraid the producers of Canada are very nervous when they hear this because they have not seen tariffs added in the last few years; rather, they have been eroded.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I begin my few remarks by saying I am pleased to see the removal of tariff item 47835-1 as it relates to disabled persons. Although this is not a tremendous item of national interest or security, it is the kind of move that has the touch of humanitarianism, something that we seldom see from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). This item and the one in the previous bill which removed the sales tax in respect of workshops for the mentally handicapped and disabled are areas where I sincerely congratulate the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stan-bury): A community project such as the Weyburn work-in shop does a great deal of work with the mentally retarded, and now the sales tax will be removed on the items it produces for the market. This measure will assist them in the carrying out of their projects.
We have seen in this bill a step toward the reduction of the tariff on food items. This is the kind of move that has not in any grandiose way taken place since the days of Laurier; it is the same political party doing it on a limited basis. We see them remove the tariff on food items. One item is coffee. I would rather that had been left and the people encouraged to drink milk. When it came to removing the tariff on the cost of drugs, it was a limited reduction on a commodity that many low income people and the aged in this country cannot afford. There we have a
July 16, 1973

limited reduction in tariff, but when it comes to food items produced by the farmers of Canada we remove it all.
The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) spoke about his area, and I am sure the hon. member from the area just outside Windsor will mention others. I do not refer to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) from Windsor, but the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth). They will point out the farmers facing farmers in their areas. Farmers in my area have formed an organization to get the tariff removed from pumps for a small irrigation project related to a creek running through the area. One type of irrigation pump being imported is tariff-free. I wish the Minister of Finance would explain to them why the government will not remove the tariff on the kind of pump they are using for their small irrigation project.
The government removes the tariff on food products on the supposed ground that it will reduce the price to the consumer. I point out that for well over 100 years farmers in western Canada-indeed, farmers all over Canada paid hundreds of thousands of extra dollars for commodities which were protected by tariffs. Tariffs protecting manufacturing and processing and secondary industries applied to a whole range of commodities that farmers used. However, when the cost of living rises and tariff cuts are sought, some of the first products with respect to which tariff reductions are sought are agricultural products.
Where is the general reduction of tariffs on other items which add to the farmer's costs? Where is the move to curtail high interest rates on mortgages? Where is the move to curtail tariffs which would affect items coming from the golden horseshoe area surrounding Toronto? There has been no move in that direction. The government, having adopted the concept of supply and management relating to farm products, has decided to remove tariffs from certain agricultural commodities. Let me quote from the remarks of an hon. gentleman of whom the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Finance are well aware. I will tell the House later who made the speech from which I am about to quote. In his speech made in the west, the hon. gentleman said:
But first let me lay a few myths to rest. Let's take the Canadian tariff, for example. Protectionism costs Canadians money- Canadians from coast to coast. Beat protectionism down and everyone benefits, Easterners and westerners alike. We are all consumers whether we live west of the Rockies or east of the Ottawa River. Do away with import duties and we will all be better off from an economic point of view.
Canadian economists are fond of saying that our customs tariff reduces the real income of Canadians by about 4 per cent. It raises the price of imported goods from one end of the country to the other.
That applies equally to the urban dweller of Toronto and the rural dweller of Assiniboia. I continue:
It means less competition from foreign suppliers. It means that the incomes of Canadians, wherever they live, will go only 96 per cent as far as they would if we had free trade with the U.S.A., western Europe and Japan.
This isn't the whole story. Prices would come down by 4 per cent. But salaries and wages would also rise if other countries would trade freely with us.
Customs Tariff (No. 2)
Speaking on the effects of free trade upon Canada, the hon. gentleman went on to say:
Looking through the latest writings on international trade, I find that easy access to foreign markets, if anything, is more important than free entry into Canada. It's worth about 6 per cent of our National Income. A 4 per cent drop in prices and a 6 per cent increase in salaries and wages adds up to 10 per cent-10 per cent in real purchasing power.
That applies both to rural and urban members of our society. He went on to say, and I underline the following:
Free trade, both ways, can add 10 per cent to our standard of living. More Canadians, obviously, should get into the act.
He went on to say that free trade has raised incomes in Oshawa and Windsor, and cut prices. I will not read that part of his speech. Then he said:
Why not trade freely in such things as electrical apparatus, chemicals and machine tools? More people would benefit in central Canada and more people would benefit in the west as well.
That advocate of free trade happens to be a cabinet minister. He is the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis), who participated in the collective decision with regard to the tariff reductions dealt with in this bill and who, in Vancouver, talked about free trade for Canada. He was followed by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie), - who denounced everything that the Minster of the Environment had said about free trade. I suggest that these kinds of selective tariff reductions are not in the interests of Canadians who live in the west or the east.
If the government is concerned about western alienation it must not be so blind as to ignore the concern of western farmers regarding free trade in the commodities they produce and tariff reductions which ought to apply not only to children's clothing but to all clothing and to other commodities which cause their costs to rise. Essentially, the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Finance, in viewing tariff reductions, ought to view those reductions in terms of how they affect Canada as a whole. You must not view just one element of our economy; you must review all the areas which have suffered the income policies of the federal government.
You cannot just pick out certain tariffs and reduce them, and ignore the fact that the very people of whom I have spoken, those engaged in farming and industry, have borne the burden for the past 100 years in this country under our policy of protective tariffs. So when the government calls its western economic opportunities conference, or when it calls a special meeting of its own supporters and asks, what is our problem in the west, it ought to realize that the problem has to do with tariffs and with the freight rate structure.
Those problems must be resolved in this country if we are to overcome western alienation. We do not need ridiculous talk about placing DREE offices all over the country. That will only spread out the bureaucracy. True, such action will bring about an increased spending of federal funds in the west. For instance, a few big DREE offices in Regina will certainly be useful if only because DREE salaries will be spent in the city. When you do something like that, however, you are not really looking at what is essential, at what needs tc be done in Saskatchewan. That is not the kind of action that will end western alienation.

July 16, 1973
Customs Tariff (No. 2)
That is not the kind of announcement which we expect next week when the western opportunities conference gets under way. That will not end the alienation of the previous 100 years.
Some tariff reductions I support, namely, those to do with disabled persons and their equipment. I understand that reduction. I regret that there have not been reductions across the board which would benefit the Canadian economy and the consumers of Canada. We were not looking for a reduction just for one segment of the economy. We were looking for an over-all, general reduction relating to many of the goods that members from Ontario, both in the Tory and Liberal parties, would never expect to see involved in free trade but which ought to be so involved.


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in this debate, one of my main reasons being that I represent one of the major agricultural areas of British Columbia. In his speech on the budget on February 27 this year my colleague, the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth), said that he believed a great injustice had been perpetrated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in his budget when he indiscriminately lowered the tariff on foods coming into this country. I would support that stand today. I speak as a member who represents an area that produces a sizeable quantity of horticultural products.
My colleagues mentioned in the same debate that as recently as two years ago the government approached all the commodity groups in agriculture, requesting that they bring forward a carefully detailed study on how the tariff problem in respect of GATT might be approached in order that we might grant some concessions that would not injure the industry in return for concessions that would benefit the industry. He stated, as recorded at page 1697 of Hansard:
This government which issued this invitation deliberately slapped every commodity group in the face by the action taken on February 19 when it deliberately lowered the tariffs before the results of any of these studies could be made known to the government.
I realize that the Minister of Finance, when speaking the other day, indicated this is not so and that the position he had taken, as well as the action he had taken, would not jeopardize Canadian agriculture. This afternoon the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) took issue with the statement of the minister. I prefer to accept the views of the hon. member for Edmonton West in this connection rather than the hopes which were expressed by the Minister of Finance.
I would like to refer to one such study which was disregarded by the government. The study is entitled "Position paper re GATT negotiations 1973". It was submitted to the Canadian Horticultural Council on behalf of the British Columbia vegetable industry. I think most people are aware that British Columbia is perhaps in the most vulnerable position of all of the provinces with regard to vegetable production, mainly because of its location. Its border is adjacent to the states of Washington and Idaho which together produce by far the heaviest volume of

potatoes of any area in North America. As well, Washington is a major producer of most other common vegetables.
It is obvious that the imposition of seasonal tariffs on incoming products does offer a measure of protection for the domestic industry. However, the opening of the Canadian marketing period often coincides with the end of season sales in the southerly zones. These tend not only to deflate the market price structure here initially but also to establish such levels throughout much, if not all, of the domestic season. The thrust of the aforementioned position paper is that for the crops we can produce within our productive period, our home market is of first and major importance. This factor, the home market factor, is something I think the government has forgotten.
The U.S. maintains a strict import quota. Unless our government can negotiate the removal of that quota, it is only reasonable and sensible for Canada to establish a similar quota system with increased tariffs to apply to U.S. vegetables entering Canada over the quota. However, this government has displayed the fact that it is neither reasonable nor sensible by eliminating the tariffs before negotiations have ever taken place.
The British Columbia vegetable industry warned us in the study that because our domestic market is the prime outlet for our production, our existing tariffs should not be -here I quote-"bargained away". Whatever bargaining was done was between the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). The government gave away the tariff. It did not even wait for an opportunity to bargain at the GATT negotiations. The British Columbia vegetable industry summarizes by stating:
We take the stand that our prime market is in our own country, and this must be retained by measures that will allow the industry to grow along with other sectors of the economy. This not only precludes the practical possibility of meaningful trade concessions, but also poses the obvious need for more flexible applications of surtax provisions.
I think that statement illustrates the miserable way in which the government has failed the vegetable industry of British Columbia. The only market is the home market. By the measures outlined in this bill, the government has gone a long way in removing that market. The government, through this bill, is trying to make agriculture a scapegoat for inflation. It is in a sense saying that food prices, especially the price of fresh fruits and vegetables, are too high and that is the fault of the primary producers of the country. To my mind, the government has laid the responsibility for high food prices at the door of the primary producers. This is arbitrary and unreasonable and shows an incredible lack of knowledge on the subject.
The document I have quoted from points out that vegetable prices in Canada increased by 8.6 per cent in the month of December, 1972. The British Columbia vegetable industry maintains that this reflects a recurring development in which prices rise as the domestic supply is phased out and is replaced by imports. We in this party tried to tell the government that in February-and urged the finance minister to rescind the tariff cuts. We were derided for that stance at that time and were assured by both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture that all was well and no one would suffer from these budget provisions. They were wrong: that is as simply as I can put it.
July 16, 1973

December, 1972, was not an isolated month. On Tuesday, July 10, Statistics Canada reported that fresh vegetable prices rose more than 8.7 per cent in the previous month. The price of fresh fruits jumped by 5.1 per cent. The prediction is that if the consumer price index continues to rise at this rate, 1973 will see the highest inflation rise in more than 30 years. This was pointed out in the July 10 edition of the Citizen. I would like to know now, do the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture still believe that reducing tariffs will lower the price of food for the Canadian consumer? There is much evidence that the opposite is true. So in effect the finance minister has helped destroy the Canadian market for our horticultural products and at the same time has forces up the prices of imported goods. No one is deriving any benefits from the provisions of this bill.
I wonder if the Minister of Finance really knows the importance of this industry to Canada? The total value of horticultural production in Canada in 1971 was about $325.4 million. This industry provides employment to many thousands of workers and in the aggregate makes a very significant contribution to our economy. I might add that this is an industry where the profit margin is very low. The fact is that some horticultural industries in Canada are only marginally viable. This tariff cut has meant that for some it is no longer practical to continue in business. In a letter written to the Minister of Finance on February 28, 1973, the Canadian Horticultural Council outlined these contributions of horticulture to the Canadian economy and then stated:
We are convinced that these contributions are worth maintaining and that our industry should not be sacrificed to short-term- perhaps even short-sighted (No, not "perhaps" at all! Definitely short-sighted)-benefits presumed to attend tariff cuts on competitive imported produce.
The council went on to say that unless certain adjustments were made in the proposed tariff reduction, our domestic fruits and vegetables would lose the necessary protection in our marketing season. The letter then outlined the desired adjustments in the budget measures. I shall not repeat them here. Suffice it to say the minister did not pay any attention to the Canadian Horticultural Council but went right ahead with these tariff cuts. This appears to be a blatant disregard of the interests of the horticultural industry in Canada and the interests of the Canadian consumer.
I appreciate the minister's action with regard to British Columbia cherries and greenhouse tomatoes. Last Saturday I picked up a couple of tomatoes, they were not very large, and handed them to the clerk to be weighed. There was a gentleman who was weighing and marking them. I watched as he marked the price-93 cents. He saw me watching and said, "don't say anything; I know what it's all about." Anyway, I asked the question, "Where do these tomatoes come from? "He said, "I believe they come from Arkansas." So there they were, 69 cents a pound. I don't know where that fits in, but it indicates consumers are not getting too much of a bargain.
The minister's argument in favour of non-consultative, unilateral action does not stand up to reason. He said he did not have time in which to consult. It appears to me
Customs Tariff (No. 2)
that the tariff cuts were made on the spur of the moment, overnight so to speak, and that the minister did not consult anyone other than possibly the Minister of Agriculture who certainly would not have had time to consult his department. If, on the other hand, the minister did consult his department and the Minister of Agriculture and his many and varied advisers and assistants-I emphasize the word "varied"-why did he not have time to consult the various groups which would be affected by these tariff reductions?
I conclude by repeating a statement from the letter sent by the Horticultural Council of Canada to the Minister of Finance:
To deliberately place industries in jeopardy and to export badly needed jobs to foreign countries cannot be acceptable policies, even on a short-term basis.
Our growth and development for the future cannot be linked with a gradual phasing out of labour-intensive industries and eventual total reliance on the sale of basic resources and raw materials. This will totally negate progress and growth.
I urge the minister to heed these warnings.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker,
although the bill before us may seem like a small bill brought in late in the session, there is no measure which is of greater concern to the agriculture industry in Canada since it affects the whole issue of tariffs. Although it covers a wide range of imports, I shall not attempt to deal with them all; my hon. friends will be speaking on many other aspects of the measure. I shall confine my comments to those which affect agriculture, specifically the growing of fruits and vegetables in Canada.
One of the reasons this legislation is of such great concern to producers of agricultural products is historical in nature; the whole industry in Canada was based on what I might call considerations of political expediency. As a new country, one of our prime concerns was, for the sake of a measure of national independence, to encourage secondary industry and the production of food. In pursuance of this objective, prior to 1939 various steps were progressively taken to impose tariffs on a number of commodities in order to encourage the production of fruits and vegetables in this country. As a result, there was extensive development in this sector of the industry. Expensive and conplicated greenhouse equipment was set up in various parts of Canada, mainly in Ontario and British Columbia, production of fruits and vegetables greatly increased. Peach and apple orchards were planted extensively.
Along with this, provincial agricultural colleges developed in their students special skills making it possible to grow crops which require a good deal of technical knowledge, for example, tobacco, sugar beet, celery and the tender fruits. All this was made possible because government had protected these activities to a degree which made it profitable to grow such fruits and vegetables in a country whose climate was northern rather than temperate. We were thus able to compete with the United States and other countries where the climate works more to the advantage of growers.
Over the years the government has increasingly taken the position that there should be free trade among nations and specific steps have been taken to lower tariffs on the

July 16, 1973
Customs Tariff (No. 2)
importation of fruits and vegetables both fresh and processed. The position of the growers has been affected to such an extent that this section of the agricultural industry is presently experiencing tremendous hardship. This is borne out by the large number of representations made to the government from time to time by farm organizations.
I listened to the minister's speech with interest and later I read it over so that I could understand its full import. As I read the speech I realized that once more this issue was being approached on the basis of expediency rather than of a well thought-out plan of action. The minister said:
The lowering of the tariff will help reduce the upward thrust in the cost of living, not only by reducing the price to Canadians of many imported goods, but also by the effect it will have in pressing many Canadian producers to moderate their prices in order to remain competitive.
There are three points here: first, to fight inflation by lowering the cost of living; second, to reduce the cost of food to the consumers of Canada; and, third, to force producers to charge more competitive prices. Consider what has happened, Mr. Speaker. There has been no effect on the cost of living. The cost of food has increased at the fastest rate ever experienced in Canada. There has been no effect on consumer prices; consumers are paying more for food than ever in the history of Canada.
As for forcing producers and processors to moderate their prices in order to remain competitive, this is nothing new as far as the government is concerned. The policy of tariff reduction has obliged producers and processors to engage in this practice for years to such an extent that there is no room left for manoeuvre. Producers and processors have tried desperately, through increasing use of technology, to become more competitive. Every time they succeed in becoming competitive, the government takes action to destroy the results of their efforts and does so without consulting those directly concerned.
Let me give one example of what has happened as a result of government intervention. I need only point to the sugar industry in southwestern Ontario. Because international sugar prices were so low, and because Canada was a signatory to the international sugar agreement, sugar beet growers were unable to derive sufficient income from their production to make it feasible for them to continue to produce. In these circumstances the government made a subsidy available to the growers so that the industry might be maintained. This was not done out of the goodness of heart of the government; it was an acknowledgment of the danger of war. We wanted this as insurance in the event that offshore supplies were cut off, so we would have available this sugar beet crop. I suggest the government took this expediency at that time to insure that there would be sufficient Canadian production of sugar in order that we could carry on.
Then what happened? Without consulting the primary growers of sugar beet, the federal government decided it would not pay a subsidy on sugar beet grown in southwestern Ontario. For the sake of approximately $700,000 which, in terms of Canadian money today does not mean a great deal, we lost an industry which provided employment for 4,000 people. We lost a number of successful farms and a viable industry in southwestern Ontario. Now

the government contemplates the restoration of this industry at a cost of $30 million to $50 million. It would seem that government expendiency is very costly. We lost that industry and it will remain lost to us for perhaps another ten years.
When the government reduces tariffs we can only expect Canadian crops to disappear. I have mentioned sugar beet but I can recall literally acres of celery growing in Ontario-this is a very high cash crop-which disappeared because this government would not subsidize freight rates and remove certain tariffs. I could refer to lettuce as another striking example of what happens when the government removes tariffs. At one time there was a tremendous tonnage of lettuce produced in the wintertime as a prime crop in southwestern Ontario but because there was not adequate protection, in respect of importation, to the markets in Toronto and Montreal, the growers of these crops were forced out of business. They no longer operate as lettuce growers, and domestically grown lettuce has disappeared from our marketplaces.
As Canadian consumers, we are subject directly to world markets and very often the prices we pay bear no relationship whatsoever to supply and demand. The importation of primary foods is controlled by a few large corporations. I could refer to a number of products including melons, peppers, rhubarb and asparagus, all of which were tremendous tonnage crops at one time in Canada but which have now disappeared as primary Canadian crops. These foods are no longer available as a result of constant government intervention.
One does not realize the tremendous part the government plays in respect of the production of food in this country. We have marketing boards which regulate in respect of almost every phase of food production in Canada. We have government regulation in respect of production and delivery quotas. We have government regulation in respect of inspection of produce, regulating that which shall be placed on the market. We have government regulation in respect of the size and shape of packages. We have government regulation in respect of the colour of those packages and the printing which appears on them. We have government regulation in respect of how the food shall be transported to market and how it shall be sold. We have government regulation in relation to how this food shall be displayed. A producer can no longer go into town and offer his wares for sale on a direct basis, because of these regulations. We have regulation in respect of the fertilizer that will be used and the insecticides that are permissible.
All these government regulations have a bearing on the standard of living of primary producers. Is it any wonder that producers in this country are going out of business? We also have regulations in respect of unemployment insurance and the filing of various reports with government agencies such as Information Canada. We have regulations in respect of the use of land and we direct the disposition of that land. We even have government regulations that prevent the sons of farmers from building homes on the family farm. It is no wonder the farmers of this nation are crying "enough".
This government, like others, has received representations from various farm organizations across the country
July 16, 1973

in respect of the lifting of tariffs. The government does not approach them on the basis of increasing tariffs but, rather, on the basis of lifting certain tariffs which will cause the least harm. There is little talk about increasing tariffs to protect these primary industries, but there is always constant pressure to reduce protection.
I have had some experience in this regard, and every farm organization with which I am familiar has very carefully and painstakingly produced evidence to show there should not be tariff reductions but tariff increases to protect producers. Very often, before these representations can be made the government announces through the Minister of Finance the removal of certain tariffs. The minister has on occasion suggested that these actions will force Canadian producers to lower their prices in order to remain competitive. That is one of the reasons suggested for reducing tariffs. Is it any wonder the Canadian producer has little faith in this government?
Before the Kennedy round, the producers of this country made representations to the government in respect of tariff reductions, pointing out the disasters that could result. But apparently their representations were not even read. The results of the reductions were disastrous to Canadian producers. That is why we do not have many of the Canadian-produced vegetables that were so plentiful at one time. It is impossible for Canadian producers to produce these commodities required by the consumer. They have no margin of profit, and if they produce at all they do so at a loss.
Many members of this House have not experienced, as I have, walking through acres and acres of rotting fruits and vegetables. This situation resulted from the fact that producers could not recover the cost of production or even the cost of harvesting their fruits and vegetables. We always think of Canada as being a land of plenty, but the stench of rotting food has prevailed in this country for many years, particularly since the government negotiated the previous Kennedy round of tariff reductions.
As a result of this measure, we are today faced with a similar situation. The minister suggests that tariff reductions are carefully limited to certain items. I believe that to be the case, but the reductions are so broad that few producers will not be affected. Already in this country small canneries are going out of business. Many of them operated last year but found they could not compete. The government suggests this is an experimental measure for a period of one year. It will then reassess the situation and decide the effect. If it finds the measure to be harmful, it will go back to the old method. But the producers in this country are well aware that very seldom in the history of Canada are tariffs replaced once they have been removed. This government does not realize that the reduction of tariffs on certain items for a period of one year can force many producers out of business.
The only saving factor so far as this government is concerned is the worldwide shortage of food. That is the only thing that has saved this government from a march on Parliament Hill by the primary producers of this country. Had it not been for the worldwide shortage of food, the reductions this government has now brought in would have put hundreds of producers out of business. The minister talks about the producers of this country remaining
Customs Tariff (No. 2)
competitive. With the constant reduction in their returns it is impossible for them to remain competitive because many of the essential elements, much of the imput into their production, are not favoured by these tariff reductions.
If the minister wants to realize at first-hand what the farmers of this nation are faced with, he should accompany me or one of my colleagues when we visit the department and inquire whether a specific item should or should not be classified as an agricultural implement. He would find out how difficult it is to convince members of the department that an article should not bear the 17 per cent import duty. This adds to the cost. The officials of the department do not seem to be very much concerned about this fact. The question could be a very infinitesimal one, such as establishing whether or not one part is attached to another part in order to obtain the classification. If an item should be imported in two parts, both parts are subject to duty. One must spend hours arguing with the officials concerning classifications. Sometimes this involves weeks, and these are vital weeks for the primary producer and often he does without the machinery rather than go through the process which is involved.
We have reduction of tariffs, and then we have an increase in the input of farmers so they cannot remain competitive. What bothers farm leaders and farmers today is a point which has been emphasized by my colleagues. After being asked to present a case for contemplated tariff reductions at the GATT negotiations, we find the minister taking this action. It is all right for him to assure us it is to be effective for a short duration, but the nations of the world are sharp traders and will say we were able to reduce tariffs because we did not feel they were necessary, and are asking them to accept their reimposition. We have given away our bargaining rights. They will say we did not need the tariffs before, and now we come to them at a convention set up deliberately to encourage free trade among nations and ask them to accept the reimposition of tariffs which we have voluntarily dropped. This does not make sense. I am sure the negotiators around the world will take this attitude.
There is one thing more I should like to mention. It has to do with the statement of the minister. He stated they had carefully gone over the list of foods, and if there were any cases of hardship they should be made known to him and he would reimpose the tariffs. He did this specifically with respect to greenhouse cherries and tomatoes in British Columbia. I thank the minister for taking that action. It was absolutely vital. Perhaps the process had to take the length of time it did; I have no argument in that regard.
However, this is the same statement made by ministers over the years. They have told us that if there is a case of hardship, we should bring it to them and they will change the tariff. There are only two cases in the history of this government in which a tariff has been reimposed after having been taken off as a result of delegations making representations and presenting briefs to the government. I have no confidence that this action will be of only one year's duration. Even though the minister indicates the bill states there is a time at which it becomes ineffective, I

July 16, 1973
Appropriation Act
am afraid it might become redundant and that we will return to the original tariff.
There is a small escape clause which says that this matter will be reviewed prior to the expiry date of the bill. I fear the government may not only maintain all the tariff reductions presently incorporated in the bill before us but may bring in further reduction. We may at that time have a further list placed before parliament in respect of greater tariff reductions because the government states it is interested in free trade among nations. What always bothers me when I hear the government talk about free trade among nations is that the phrase seems to have one meaning to the government and another to every other country with which we trade.
We have no tariff barriers with other countries, and when we protest as producers our protests fall on deaf ears and we are left without any redress, while they are at liberty to dump commodities into this country. I cannot understand why the government takes this attitude so far as the primary producers are concerned. The measure before us is an indication that the government does not consider the primary producers to be important. Never in the history of this country have the producers of food been more important. Never in the history of this country should we peruse bills of this nature in a more intense way than now, because our primary producers must not be hurt financially any longer if we are to retain them in this country. It is shocking to realize how many Canadian producers are looking for other countries to which to immigrate and produce food where the economic climate is more favourable than here in Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper. Before I call notices of motions I should like to call the attention of hon. members to the terms of the special order providing for the debate commencing at eight o'clock this evening.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, where a government program entails the expenditure of public funds in excess of $5 million annually to a purpose detailed only in an Appropriation Act and the program continues in existence for more than one fiscal year, the government should introduce a measure to incorporate such program in a distinct and detailed statute.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to my motion I want to place on the record the basic considerations that prompted me to put forward this proposition in the first place. I aim at restoration of parliamentary control over matters with which parliament should be able to deal. I submit that it is fundamental to our form of parliamentary

democracy that government be under an unremitting, moral responsibility to introduce legislation covering programs involving major expenditures from the public purse. This obligation weighs even more heavily on the government when these programs are of a continuing nature or are repeated year after year.
The government has introduced far too many such programs without seeking the consent of parliament, without giving us the opportunity of considering the principles on which these programs should rest and the safeguards, in the shape of operational and financial controls, on which we should be able to insist. There has been an increasing tendency on the part of the government to rely on shortterm, stop gap measures for the creation of jobs.
My motion reads that where a program entails the expenditure of public funds in excess of $5 million annually, to a purpose detailed only in an appropriation act, and that program continues in existence for more than one fiscal year, the government should introduce a measure to incorporate such program in a distinct and detailed statute.
The argument prompting me to put forward this resolution boils down to this: If programs of this sort and this scale are worth launching and continuing, they deserve- nay, Mr. Speaker, they demand-in terms of parliamentary supremacy to rest on a statutory foundation. Anything less is a usurpation of parliament's rights and prerogatives.
It is in the area of manpower programs that the government most conspicuously has resorted to by-passing parliament, and therefore it is in this area that I wish to concentrate my remarks. Without extensive research it is just not possible to isolate all the programs offending my premises. LIP, OFY and LEAP are the most obvious. New Horizons, although not directly in the sense of an employment program, is certainly another.
It is especially in the area of manpower programs that the government has fallen down in its legislative responsibility. This perhaps is significant. The government has reduced parliament, which has legal and legislative supremacy, to a rubber stamp for decisions that have been made elsewhere. And where are these decisions being made? I suggest that many of them are being formulated in the civil service, and to this I shall return in due course.
As interim measures the Local Initiatives Program and Opportunities for Youth may be satisfactory. I say, "may", be; whether they are or not, Mr. Speaker, is something for parliament to decide. They could perhaps be justified, if that is the term, as being the only direct job creating efforts the Trudeau government is willing to make. And they are only temporary. That is a poor justification.
A series of LIP type programs laid end to end over the years cannot replace long-term employment growth strategies. We need positive legislation in this area to provide continuity, and to provide jobs and satisfaction for Canadians.
We need a long-term stratey of a permanent nature in industrial and employment terms, one that will probe the true needs of our communities. There is the question of
July 16, 1973

priorities for the future. One is led to question whether the government has any long-term strategy for the economic and social development of Canada. Where is the government leading us? Does it know? I doubt it.
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) himself admitted in committee on May 15 this year that, "I would argue that we have made ad hoc decisions with regard to the direct employment programs from time to time, and it may be necessary in the future to continue to do that depending on the fluctuation of employment and unemployment." What will be the government's reaction if unemployment is significantly reduced? Will it cancel a program which may have proved worthwhile in some aspects?
There is little question in any of our minds that these programs were produced chiefly from the pressure of economic circumstances and were offered as a substitute for unemployment, as a means of reducing unemployment. We would never argue that unemployment insurance or welfare are superior alternatives to work opportunity programs. But one of the most serious shortcomings of such programs is the frustration caused by the cessation of projects that have become an integral and meaningful experience for both project workers and those receiving the projects' aid. This is one of my reasons for asking for legislation.
As it stands now, OFY, New Horizons and LIP type programs are scattered over many departments. They affect the priorities and planning in many departments such as Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Agriculture, Indian and Northern Affairs, Health and Welfare, just to name a few. And I was told this morning that this debate is to be fielded on the government side by the spokesman of another department speaking on behalf of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury).
Some of these programs are difficult to find in their budgetary manifestation, OFY, for example, is administered by the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), and yet it is impossible to find in the budgetary provisions of the Secretary of State any mention of OFY. I leaf through the estimates to no purpose. Why is that? Where is it? I eventually found it in the budgetary provisions of the President of the Treasury Board, and only part of the item, part of Vote No. 10, is for OFY.
Vote 10 provides $54 Vi million for student summer employment and, I note, "including an Opportunity for Youth Program." But how much of the $541/2 million is for an Opportunity for Youth Program? Why are things not clearer in the budget? Is it intended to dazzle, bewilder, or just to confuse? Why all this obfuscation? Here surely is divide and misrule, if ever I saw it.
The government must be consistent in its goals. It must provide some security through legislation. If the government were truly interested in individual fulfilment it would provide Canada with the atmosphere in which longterm job opportunities would be created, or at least reasonably long-term job opportunities that allow for the development of skills. Yet the government has put little real effort into creating long-term job opportunities.
LIP type projects do little to provide any continuing benefit, such as the acquisition of skills or, most impor-
Appropriation Act
tant, future job security. They do not provide, and this is most important, circumstances by which a man can pursue a career pattern and fulfill his economic needs. This is certainly one of the most damning criticisms to be levelled at these programs.
In the 1971-72 LIP program, extensions of the program from May 31 to June 16, to September 30 and then to November 30, 1972 substantially altered it from a winter job creating program to one of continuing employment aid.
The announcement that the program will be extended this year until June 30 for all projects of an educational nature, and until November 30 for all projects involving native people, projects with the potential of becoming self-sustaining businesses, and projects in any area in which the March unadjusted unemployment rate was higher than 6.8 per cent, is a sure indication that again the program is one of continuing employment aid. If this is the purpose then why have the government not introduced legislation? What kind of scrutiny is being carried out by the Treasury Board before the estimates are presented in committee when it is obvious from past experience that the programs cost much in excess of the sums mentioned? The entry in the 1972-73 budget, for example, against this item is $25 million with a forecast based on the previous year that it was going to cost $125 million-$100 million more. In the 1973-74 budget, although only $10 million is requested the forecast for 1972-73 is $254 million. Here is real confusion, and confusion compounded, because only part of this sum is allocated for the LIP programs.
As early as January of this year, in his contribution to the Throne Speech debate, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) admitted, as reported at page 105 of Hansard, that there had been another $125 million obtained in October, presumably through warrants. This gives us a measure of the deception perpetrated on this House, the government submitting a request for $10 million this year for a LIP program which is obviously going to cost a great deal more. Recognizing that only $10 million was sought this year, how much will Parliament be asked to find in the 1973-74 supplementaries to complete these programs? This, Mr. Speaker, is not proper government; this is misleading ad hocery at its worst, and it is thoroughly confusing to boot to me and to all other members.
Do the Department of Manpower and Immigration and Treasury Board intend to initiate another winter works program to combat the seasonal rise in unemployment? If so, why has this intention not been shown to us and to the people in the estimates on indirect legislation? Can this be taken as a demonstration that the 1972-73 program was a failure?
I also have a number of questions with regard to auditing. A reliable source has stated that an internal directive issued stated that no projects under $15,000 were to be audited unless there was a signed statement that the project would require special consideration-if it had received a bad press, for example, or there was suspicion of fraud, or when irregular business practices had occurred. Legislation incorporating the criteria for a proper audit procedure would assure the people that a

July 16, 1973
Appropriation Act
proper over-all audit is done. This is a must. It is the taxpayers' money and this government has a duty toward taxpayers.
By not bringing in legislation for programs such as the ones referred to, those which I cannot find in the estimates without a great deal more research, but which fall within the ambit of my motion, this government is circumventing parliament and the people of Canada. The only recourse left to us in too many cases is to vote against the government estimates. Yet in many cases, unfortunately, such programs have been disguised; they are hidden. They are wrapped around legitimate votes which we want to support. Vote 10, which includes the LIP program, if we voted against it, would cut off many other things such as payments to the provinces for other purposes.
The influence of bureaucratic advisers on policy decisions is becoming very great indeed. But we must never forget that the bureaucrats, unlike members of parliament, are not elected by the people. I recognize that they have the advantage of technical expertise but they have not the obligation that I and members of this House have to the people of Canada to ensure that their well-being and their tax dollars are properly protected. We in this House have the responsibility to represent the electorate and consider the national interest of Canada. As it stands, too much of the public purse is subject to little political control by politically irresponsible people. I use the word "irresponsible" here in the proper, non-critical sense.
A number of calculations will show that 1 per cent of the programs which fall within the ambit of my motion for this year are beyond the control, purview and survey of parliament.
Another criticism that I should like to level at LIP, OFY and such programs is that they give rise to unrequitable expectations. I think others may want to elaborate on this aspect of my motion. Some local initiatives programs really use imagination and initiative; let us recognize that. They provide services that are needed in the community- taking elderly folk to their medical appointments, getting handicappped children about, financing recycling projects. But when funds run out at the end of May, or possibly June, the community, the municipality or the province is left to go on financing the project or being subjected to violent criticism by the citizens for their failure to do so. Where are they to find their funds?
Projects aimed at unemployment problems should perhaps concentrate on municipal works programs that can be completed, not on social service programs which, by their nature, are ongoing.
In drawing my comments to a close, Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind this House of the importance of the motion before us. Constitutionally, it is the parliamentary stage of policy-making in the form of legislation that is the most critical process, for parliament is legally supreme.
I want to suggest four steps we should follow in considering programs in this way. In the first place, I suggest that a decision should be taken by parliament as to whether these and similar programs are worth-while. That is the first thing that has to be decided. Are they just stop-gap measures? If there is a permanent need that has to be met,

is it a need that the federal government is required to fill directly or indirectly, or should it be through the appropriate provincial authorities? Once that is decided then guidelines for filling that need should be drawn up, or at least approved, again by parliament.
Next, decisions need to be taken in respect of funding, and this includes auditing. That is parliament's business. Projects should not be cut off at an arbitrary date. Why cut them off at the end of May? Is it because they are winter works projects?
Finally, the whole deal should be couched in its appropriate legislative form and become a statutory program, not one relying on pressures that can be brought to bear on ministers for one cause or another, but one that stands comfortably because it has parliamentary approval. Mr. Speaker, I hope that this motion will be referred to the appropriate committee for further study.


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on the motion of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) regarding his proposal that government programs of over $5 million expenditure and over a year in length should be incorporated into a detailed statute for parliamentary study.
As we are all aware, at the present time these estimates lie buried in the various departments and it is very difficult for members to scrutinize them thoroughly.
The hon. member's motion relates to the problem of creating jobs in Canada, and specifically to the comprehensive Local Initiatives Program, the Opportunities for Youth program and, possibly, the recently announced New Horizons program which funds projects by senior citizens. Let us recognize from the outset that OFY and LIP are temporary, make work programs that have met with some success, but certainly in no way have alleviated unemployment in this country.
The OFY and LIP programs have been in operation for a few years. Those programs, introduced to answer certain needs, have existed for some years, as I said, and we have seen during this trial period how they have worked. I suggest the time has now come for us to question more rigidly the criteria, purposes and successes of these programs.
The recent revelations of the Auditor General, who complained to the present parliament as well as to the previous one about the trend of the government to make spending decisions without reference to parliament, have disturbed me. I think the process should be arrested. The Opportunities for Youth program, which does not come before parliament for scrutiny, is a controversial one and has been the subject of a fair degree of criticism.
Let me refer to a recent internal memo circulated in the Treasury Board a couple of months ago which examined the 1972 Opportunities for Youth program, a program costing the taxpayer of Canada some $34 million in that year. I understand that the cost has risen to $40 million. That memo, in a major criticism of the OFY program, suggested that the objectives of the program were vaguely defined and that participants were poorly selected. I quite
July 16, 1973

agree with some of these criticisms, and have pointed these out to the minister in committee on various occasions.
If there is to be an Opportunities for Youth program, we must ask ourselves two questions: Is the aim of this program that of promoting socially useful tasks, or is this purely a make work program? If the program is one of enabling young people to perform socially useful work, we run against the problem of its being a temporary program. It lasts for the summer months and ends in September. My hon. friend pointed out that most socially useful works are ongoing. You do not do them for two months and then fold up and leave the people whom you were serving high and dry. The program fails in this regard.
If it is meant to be a make work program rather than one that is socially useful, it is a failure on that score. Why do I say that? We find that students on the average, employed in OFY projects save only about $600 over the summer. That will not go far towards paying for university tuition and residence fees. So, it is clear that the young people entering OFY projects come from our middle and upper middle income groups. Part of their fees come from OFY projects, and the rest is supplemented by their parents. We find, in the result, that non-students, the disadvantaged, young people coming from lower income categories, do not participate to such a great extent in OFY programs and are at a distinct disadvantage. In that sense there are some distinct drawbacks to this program, if it is to be considered as a temporary one.
We must also look at the criteria for selecting participants in OFY projects. Again these questions are decided without parliamentary reference. Clearcut criteria are not established by the members of this House, who are responsible to the electorate.
Examining the history of the OFY program will convince one that it is the organized, usually university students, those coming from a more favoured socio-economic background, who know the angles and obtain the grants. They are the most articulate, the most familiar in dealing with government bureaucrats and in drawing up forms and making representations, and they are the people who get grants, as opposed to non-students, or young people who come from lower in the scale socio-economic background.
One criterion for selection is that the group shall have community support. That sounds good. But how do you define community support? Is it what the local council will tolerate? Often some adventurous and worth-while programs are considered too radical by local politicians or the establishment, or whatever you want to call them. So there are drawbacks in this area as well.
The Local Initiatives Program also is a make work program. Indeed, many worth-while projects have been brought forward both by individual groups and municipalities. In my constituency I am thinking of dedicated people who are involved in the Big Brothers organization, in the mental health group and in the self-help group for the disabled. That kind of project is useful. Yet what happens? Come the spring, their budget runs out, and there is a mad scramble for an extension of grants, for carrying on their worth-while projects.
Appropriation Act
In passing may I mention some of the criticisms I have heard about the federal Local Initiatives Program. One problem is that the amount a person can earn is limited to $100 a week, I believe. That is far too low, as in many unionized towns such a wage will not compete with the going labour rate. If our young people are to engage in worth-while projects, let us make the rate realistic. Further, the application form with respect to LIP projects is a horrendous one, and, compared with the provincial scheme, the federal scheme lacks flexibility in that it is difficult to adapt a project to day-to-day requirements.
I was informed of a city which had entered a LIP application, heard nothing about it and then, a few months later, got a telephone call from Ottawa. The city was asked if it could start and be ready to go in a few days. City officials were given two hours to make up their minds, contact people, interview others, and hire them for the project. I ask, what chance has a member of this House to bring forward criticisms to responsible officials unless criteria governing selections are hammered out here in the House of Commons?
I understand from the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), speaking in committee and from press reports, that the government is considering merging Opportunities for Youth, Local Initiatives, and New Horizons into one program. It is trying to counter the criticism that these programs are not ongoing. The merged programs will provide work and fulfil socially useful tasks.
If the new program is to operate all year around and no longer be temporary, as were the OFY and LIP programs, it seems to me, before we agree to its being made permanent, that it should be scrutinized by the members elected by the people of Canada, the members of this House.
In his motion the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) suggests that programs such as the ones I have talked about ought to be incorporated in a statute. We could examine these programs in the House and, presumably, in committee as well. However, speaking as a new member of this House, I am disturbed by the way our committee system works. I have often sat on a committee studying the estimates of various departments, only to find that members questioning officials do not really want to know where this $100,000 or that $1 million is being spent. They did not have the background data for such questions.
What tended to happen in committee was that someone would hunt for some dirt to embarrass the minister, or questions would be vague generalities. The estimates, totalling millions of dollars, would get cursory examination and be passed without too much scrutiny. It disturbs me that members of parliament pass departmental estimates, often amounting to millions of dollars, without knowing exactly how the money will be spent.
If the hon. member's motion is accepted, I do not think it will really solve the issue unless we solve the very basic problem of the committee system and how it is working. I am not alone in this opinion. Members must have more research facilities. We should have research people to provide the necessary background on government spending. The Auditor General has indicated there is a real

July 16, 1973
Appropriation Act
deficiency in the scrutiny of public spending. How can members, without anything even approximating the support staff of the Auditor General, discover how the estimates are being spent and if they are being spent wisely?
I think the hon. member's motion has considerable merit, but until we reform the committee system I do not think we are really going to get at the root of the problem. I agree in principle that the House needs more say in the make-up of and expenditures on programs which no longer seem to be experimental but are becoming a permanent feature of this government.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take the opportunity afforded me to say a few words on the motion before us, which states:
That, in the opinion of this House, where a government programme entails the expenditure of public funds in excess of five million dollars annually to a purpose detailed only in an Appropriation Act and the programme continues in existence for more than one fiscal year, the government should introduce a measure to incorporate such programme in a distinct and detailed statute.
Mr. Speaker, I have read this motion through several times, and I am wondering whether it is aimed at specific programs, or the legislation affecting certain sectors or certain programs as has just been mentioned, for example, Local Initiatives, Opportunities for Youth, or New Horizons projects, or whether it is aimed at the industrial assistance or economic expansion programs. The hon. member is nodding in agreement, and I thank him, for I found the motion before us somewhat limited in scope, if it concerned only the small LIP and OFY programs, which never cost more than $5 million.
As far as the economic expansion programs are concerned, I must say that I have always been a member of the regional economic expansion committee, and in all frankness I admit that I have often questioned myself about these programs. On the other hand, I can see that it would be difficult to pass legislation for each program costing over $5 million, or lasting longer than a year, for we would then be creating a series of little statutes in the framework of a main statute. I think that we are having enough trouble getting the general principle accepted, without adopting legislation for each program of over $5 million. We will never solve the problem, with the committee set-up we have today. Another formula must be found, and I agree with the hon. member that these projects of over $5 million which extend over a year surely deserve more attention than our subsidy of $15,000, $20,000 or $80,000 for the Local Initiatives Program or Opportunities for Youth Program.
It is understood that when, for example, an amount of $500 million is voted, the minister has an absolute veto power as well as the right to determine what amount will be earmarked for such and such industry. As for us, we have no control over the administration of those programs. The hon. member probably had those programs in mind when he introduced his motion. This proposal will surely attract notice on the part of the government to the question of trying to put the members more in relation with those big programs within a legislation that is good in itself.
(Mr. Symes.]
Members lose all control over the operation of those programs, because they all have the benefit of a few of them in their constituency. It is hard to know how the money is administered and who gets it. With respect to the projects in my constituency, I would be at a loss to speak about them, because it is primarily a question of politics belonging more to the department than to Parliament, because we have granted all rights to the department. We voted for a package. We merely said to the minister: We are giving you $500 million, administer that amount as you like it.
During the last election, when we gave $500 million to regional economic expansion, the minister went across the province in order to distribute the million dollars to whoever wanted some, probably to whoever promised to give more to party funds.
In that connection, it is on those programs that I would draw the attention of this House; it is under that point of view that the member's motion constitutes, I believe, a blessing. As far as these small local initiative projects are concerned, we said a word about it a while ago. The LIP and OFY programs are good in themselves, but I think there is a lack of supervision as regards most of them. So much that I know students who work at the present time within three programs. They get three salaries because they work for three programs. That is not due to parliamentarians nor to the minister, but probably to the external organization, the regional organization, that shuts its eyes.


An hon. Member:: He is a smart guy!


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: We have smart guys in our constituencies in the province of Quebec, throughout Canada, for I saw fantastic things in those programs. Speaking about the western programs, I even saw, in the field of aid to the natives, 62 teachers for 58 students; when I went to northern Manitoba, this is where I found it fantastic. They were mploying 62 teachers to teach 58 Indians. This shows how we can exaggerate. I think that the government should find another formula.
We are told that these programs of Local Initiatives, Opportunities for Youth and New Horizons are temporary. Yes, because it is understood that these programs do not come within the member's motion, but I also want to say in passing that even these programs are lacking because the sectorial councils, in my opinion, often miss. I am not ready to accuse them in such a way, they do not have the necessary powers to try and have a general view of all these programs. I have spoken to some of them and I have been told that some of these committees are created to advise the department, to advise the people who will accept these projects, one projects among better projects according to criteria. It is obvious, indeed, that I never could find them. I ask of such a program: Why did you not accept it? Well, it was not according to our criteria. But these criteria were never defined and I think that they are much more political than economic.
Furthermore, even the persons appointed by the government in the various regions have not much authority. I refer to my own region for I have been in contact with them when a number of very acceptable projects have been established and the officials in Ottawa considered
July 16, 1973

about 20 or 30 per cent of the recommendations of these committees. Then why appoint committees which are supposed to be responsible is only 30 or 40 per cent of their recommendations are considered? That becomes a monumental joke and this is why the government should find another formula. I am not against these programs in themselves; I would even wish that some of them become ongoing as I have faith in the programs implemented in my riding, for instance, particularly those for the mentally retarded. I believe that such programs should be ongoing and draw the attention of the government to the provincial and the national level. In fact, I have gone in person to see some of these programs for the mentally retarded being carried out and it was quite a revelation for me. I visited a group of handicapped persons whom I had never met before as they were too isolated. There were about 20 or 30 of them and I spent two hours there. When you see these people working it is incredible what they can accomplish. When you have spent two hours with them you forget that they are handicapped for they are overjoyed at being useful members of society.
I believe that the minister responsible for the LIP program should take the trouble to study projects such as these which could contribute something and, in time, produce concrete results which will be benefit the entire population. I believe that such programs cannot be condemned by anyone but special legislation is needed to regulate them. As for me, I support the hon. member's motion calling for the adoption of such special legislation to establish a nationwide program.


Mr. H. T. Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I feel this debate has degenerated into a discussion of the merits of LIP and OFY. It is strange it should have done so, because the mover of the motion did argue that long-term planning should replace short-term measures. Then, later in the discussion, he did agree that such programs as LIP were necessary in times of pressing need. I suggest both these programs are poor examples, inasmuch as they are shortterm programs which would not fall within the terms of the motion now under discussion. I would prefer to stay with the terms of the motion as drawn up.
I can appreciate the concern of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) as suggested in his motion, but I would like to expand further upon the opportunities available to parliament for the review of legislative matters which are contained in Appropriation Acts, keeping in mind the need to ensure that the limited time available to this House for legislative debate is used for those matters which are of the greatest importance to the nation.
I would also like to remind the House that this is not really a new issue. The use of Appropriation Acts for legislative items has been discussed a number of times before, both in this House and in the other place. In these discussions, the need to conserve the valuable time of parliament has usually been given high importance.
As hon. members know, the conservation of parliamentary time was a major factor in the adoption of revised standing orders for this House in October, 1969. One of the
Appropriation Act
key features of those revisions was the method of dealing with supply bills. The introduction of a detailed review of estimates by the various standing committees was a substantial improvement, in my opinion. Also the standing orders provide ample time for committee consideration of estimates. If I may, I will quote paragraph 14 of section 58 of the standing order:
In every session the main estimates to cover the incoming fiscal year for every department of government shall be referred to standing committees on or before March 1 of the then expiring fiscal year. Each such committee shall consider and shall report, or shall be deemed to have reported, the same back to the House not later than May 31 in the then current fiscal year.
This rule guarantees at least three full months in which the various committees may study the main estimates. This provides extensive opportunity for members to examine in detail the various aspects of those new programs provided in estimates which would be covered by the motion we are considering today. Ministers may be questioned. Officials and outside authorities may be called. Departments may be asked for written replies to questions.
This spring, opposition members had the opportunity to examine the recently passed 1973-74 main estimates at 177 meetings of our various committees. The total time expended was the equivalent of 80 days of debate in this House. These main estimates contain more than 1,200 pages of detail. I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich say he could not vote against item 10 in the estimates of the President of Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) because it contained other provisions with which he was in agreement. He probably has not heard that hon. members may move to reduce items with which they disagree, should they wish to do so, by presenting a motion. This brings the matter into the House for discussion.
In the estimates which have been tabled there are about 150 items of an amount exceeding $5 million. I suggest it might be a considerable task to determine which of these 150 items fall within the scope of the motion under discussion. I also suggest that, since we have some 15 or more committees to discuss these items which have no theoretical limit on the amount of time they want to spend during the three months, period of allotted time for discussion, there is all the time in the world for debate that anyone might require.
The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) referred to the inadequacy of committee discussion and in fact suggested that this motion would not solve the problem. He suggest there should be an improvement in the committee system. I suggest that there is a tendency in setting times for committee meetings to take into account the fact that there should not be a meeting on Monday because some hon. members will not be back, and we should not set meetings for Friday because hon. members want to get away. I have heard all kinds of excuses from members in the opposition as to why we should not have committee meetings. There were some 177 meetings in the spring during which members had the opportunity to discuss the estimates, and this time could easily have been doubled if opposition members had so wished.

July 16, 1973
Appropriation Act
The revised standing orders also contain another important feature that should satisfactorily provide the opposition with the opportunity of debating those government programs for which they have particular concern. Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to another part of our standing orders, namely paragraph 5 of Section 58, which states:
For the period ending not later than December 10, five sitting days shall be allotted to the business of supply. Seven additional days shall be allotted to the business of supply in the period ending not later than March 26. Thirteen additional days shall be allotted to the business of supply in the period ending not later than June 30. These 25 days are to be designated as allotted days.
Paragraph 3 of Section 58 also directs that:
Opposition motions on allotted days may be moved only by members in opposition to the government and may relate to any matter within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada and also may be used for the purpose of considering reports from standing committees relating to the consideration of estimates therein.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, these opposition days provide the opportunity to bring before this House any program of the government that the opposition considers is worthy of debate. The degree of examination that is possible may not be equivalent to the clause-by-clause study afforded to detailed bills, but certainly there has been penetrating debate on some of the opposition days during this session. However, I do not feel that all subjects brought forward by the opposition have been of the highest importance. If opposition days are not used to full advantage, it is the responsibility of the opposition to correct this shortcoming and to organize themselves so that the days are consistently used to discuss national issues rather than minor topics.
There is quite a bit I could say about the administrative implications of the motion before us, but since our time is limited I should like to give other members of the government an opportunity to speak on the matter.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, in supporting the motion moved by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) I should like to say that, in my opinion, there is no place for programs, such as we have been discussing this afternoon, under which money is arbitrarily allotted by a person not directly responsible to the people of Canada.
Under local initiative programs this year in my riding we had two identical communities 30 miles apart asking for an identical amount for the erection of medical centres, one of which received approval and the other did not. This is the type of thing that frequently happens when civil servants have the power to make these decisions rather than having them made by this House.
Recently as a result of questions asked by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) we were provided by the government with figures for 1972-73 LIP programs in Ontario amounting to some $22 million. It was interesting to note that the top five ridings receiving funds for LIP programs received an average of $1 million each, whereas the bottom five received an average of $33,000. It seems to me there must be a question in the mind of anyone looking at these statistics as to why five would receive over $1 million and the other five only $33,000 particularly when it is known that the top five has Liberal
[Mr. Herbert.)
members of parliament and the bottom five had representatives sitting in the opposition. That may not have anything to do with it, but some might feel there is an inference to be drawn from those statistics.
Another statistic can be found in the fact that 45 per cent of the ridings in Ontario receiving LIP grants in 1972-73 were represented by Conservative members and received something in excess of $8 million, whereas 40 per cent of the ridings were represented by Liberal members and received something over $13 million. Again I would not want to draw an inference from that fact, although I think perhaps others might. I have spent a good deal of time in municipal politics and as mayor of a city I always made sure that the road in front of my home was the last one to receive surface treatment. Others, however, do not seem to do things that way.
In respect of the Opportunities for Youth Program, we were all given questionnaires by the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) and asked to answer them. As we found out later, if we had answered them these answers would have been taken down and in all likelihood used against us. If Opportunities for Youth, the LIP program and others are to stay they should be administered by statute. If that is not the case these programs are redundant, and we must ask the question: Should they be allowed to operate in a pork-barrel manner? If that is not to be the case then let us have legislation to cover them.
I will cut my remarks short because it is almost six o'clock and I am sure hon. members would like to have a vote on this measure.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) has already referred to the degeneracy of this debate over what one might have expected from a reading of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro). Indeed, it is hard to know what is the point of the motion. Is it a high-minded attempt to reform the rules of parliament, or is it a cheap attempt to take some easy shots at government programs, such as LIP or OFY, which his party has failed to take during other direct opportunities? In other words, the hon. member appears to be putting before us, under the guise of discussing something else, certain objections which were not taken at the appropriate time under parliamentary procedure, directing his criticism at the government in a way which normally could not be answered directly.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m., at which time the House will consider the motion to be moved by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), in conformity with the provisions of Standing Order 26.
At six o'clock the House took recess.



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Leave having been granted to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) to move the adjournment of the House pursuant to Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the threat to Canadian agriculture created by the United States action in licensing and controlling the export of oil seed products, and the consequent threat of higher prices to Canadian consumers for meat, poultry and dairy products, and the urgent need for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board to outline to parliament the government's proposals for its new policy on the sale and pricing of domestic feed grains.
Accordingly, the motion is as follows: the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), moves:
That this House do now adjourn.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I have asked for this opportunity, which the Chair has been good enough to grant, because I think there are matters which are urgent that this House should discuss. We have had no indication from the ministers responsible that an opportunity would be given to this House to discuss the matters raised in the motion. The first part of the motion, which deals with the matter of the United States action in licensing and controlling the export of oil seeds, and indeed the counteraction on our part to control supplies in this country, while of definite concern is not really the major concern of myself in this debate, because these circumstances will pass and we will again have bountiful crops and adequate supplies. The phenomenon of short crops in many areas of the world and shortage of oil seeds will be corrected in the natural course of events and through agricultural technology.
It is the latter part of the motion which concerns me more, namely the urgent need for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board to outline to parliament the government's proposals for its new policy on the sale and pricing of domestic feed grains. The minister on numerous occasions has been asked in the House by myself and others to outline what that policy may be and will be. In answer to our questions we have had vague replies lacking definition and failing to tell the farmers and this House what the policy of the government is.


Mr. Lang:: Will be.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Or will be. The minister said "will be". Well, this is July 16 and the minister since early in June has
Feed Grains
replied in this House that he will make his statement known prior to August 1. That is some two weeks hence. Even at this time the minister is failing in his responsibility to this House and to the farmers of Canada, not merely the western farmers but all farmers in Canada who are interested in the production and use of feed grains, in that he has still not made his announcement.
At this point in time we have the rather ridiculous situation in which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), who has not bothered to show up tonight, at least to this point in time, sends a wire to all ministers of agriculture telling them he will be going to Prince Edward Island on the 24th and will discuss what the policy will be in respect of the marketing, pricing and sale of feed grains. At the same time we have another announcement by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board to the effect that he will be at the western economic opportunity conference and will be discussing with anyone there who wishes to speak to him the policy for feed grains. So at this time we have Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum tossing the policy back and forth between them and failing to put their real policy before this House.
This is one of the very important matters that will come before this House. The Canadian Wheat Board was established in 1935 by the then Conservative government. Finally in 1943 under war conditions it was given the responsibility for handling all wheat in western Canada. Since 1949, a period of 25 years, it had had the responsibility for handling all feed grains as well from western Canada.
I do not suppose a matter of such major importance has ever been handled more cavalierly by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, if, indeed, he is in charge and if, indeed, he does know what is going on. We have been dealing in rumours. In fact the other day a telegram from the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool urged the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board to lay these rumours to rest and to put the facts before the people. The "Report on Business" in the Globe and Mail of June 28 had this information:
The federal government has a plan to throw the Canadian market for domestically produced feed grains wide open on August 1, Report on Business has learned.
Did the minister and his assistants deliberately leak that? Did they want it thrown out as a flyer to see what the reaction would be? Did some reporters sneak in behind the cabinet meeting and listen to what ministers were saying? I think it is a disgraceful way to treat a matter as important as the marketing of feed grains.
The same story went on to say:
Opposition to the Wheat Board's selling policy was greatest in Quebec, and at one stage Agriculture Minister Normand Toupin set a deadline of February, 1972, for the development of a national grain marketing plan.-
As well the Premier of Quebec, the hon. Mr. Bourassa, addressing an annual meeting of the Cooperative Federee de Quebec, said that so far as he was concerned there would have to be a new policy on feed grains.
The minister would have done a service to this House and to the farmers had he brought this matter before the

July 16, 1973
Feed Grains
House at an earlier date and allowed it to be discussed in the Standing Committee on Agriculture, so that those on the various sides of the matter could meet face to face and discuss the issue facing the Canadian farmers. The minister has failed miserably to do that.
This brings up the question of who wants this change made to the present method. I would say the answer to this lies in statements made by the Quebec government, the Coop Federee, and the Canada Grains Council which has also made its position known. Others seeking the change are the private trade in the Winnipeg commodity exchange, and some large scale feeders in western Canada.
It is ironic that at the same time as the Quebec government seeks to break down the pricing policy of the Canadian Wheat Board it opposes lower freight rates on rapeseed meal and oil going to Montreal. It is a matter of record, Mr. Speaker, that the only crushing plant in Montreal, Canlin Ltd., opposed the application of the western oil seed crushing plants for more equitable freight rates on shipments of oil cake meal to Montreal. So did the Quebec government.
Is the Quebec government really interested in providing lower feed costs for Quebec farmers? If it is interested in lower feed costs, why does it oppose the movement of oil cake meal at lower cost into the province of Quebec?
If the present control of the Canadian Wheat Board is going to be weakened, we must ask ourselves who wants this change and who will benefit. It will certainly not be the farmers. I have been surprised that no one question has been asked by maritime members about what the minister proposes to do with respect to feed grains. Maritime Co-operative Services has been and is one of the most efficient feed distributors in Canada. Yet I have not heard it asking for this kind of change. I have not heard one member from Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island rise in this House and ask the minister in charge of the Wheat Board why these changes should be made.
I wish one could get into the board rooms and ask the various directors how much enthusiasm they have for returning to the open market system, where they have to buy futures in the fall to assure themselves of supplies in December. I doubt that there is much enthusiasm for that.
Some years ago I sat in the offices of the officials of Coop Federee in the city of Montreal and they were not then enthusiastic about the open market, which the present commodity exchange in Winnipeg envisages as the method of supplying feed grains for the Quebec farmers. Yet what other method is the minister proposing?
There are two methods that can be used to move and price grain on a national basis. One is by using the Canadian Wheat Board; the other is by using the commodity market in which we buy futures. It is about time that some of the people who will be buying feed grains asked how the latter system can serve them.
I ask, how well will it serve the farmers in the Peace River district, who have a system of moving their grain down from Dawson Creek and Fort St. John to the lower mainland under special provisions granted them by the Canadian Wheat Board? How will their interests be served when a different method is in operation?

Some time this evening the minister may say, "This is not what we are going to do; we are going to do something else." If he does, Mr. Speaker, then my motion will have been a success. Its effect will not have been lost. I can only assume that those in charge of marketing feed grains in Canada are going to use one of those two methods that are well known and that have been used for the marketing of feed grain. Surely they are not going to suggest to this House, and to the farmers, that we go back to the treaty method, where a buyer went from yard to yard with a truck and asked each farmer, "Will you take 70 cents, 75 cents, or 80 cents today?" Surely no one is going to suggest that to the purchasers and producers of feed grains in the year 1973.
Those ministers in charge of marketing feed grains have not said what they are going to do. This is where they have completely failed to serve western and eastern farmers. We are both customers of one another. We both serve one another. If we do not, we will not operate efficiently.
If the ministers opposite are so concerned about the fate of farmers in eastern Canada, why didn't they do something about the price of soybean oil which has moved in a very short period of time from $100 a ton to over $400 a ton? Neither of them suggested that we should change the method of pricing and marketing soybean oil. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) said he was going to control the whole thing, but nobody knows what he is using. He has never told this House what effect his actions have had or are going to have on the price of soybean meal. He has never said that because I do not think he knows. I do not think he has a clue.
This, Mr. Speaker, is the sort of nonsense that goes on. At the same time we have a representative of the Alberta government submitting a bill to the Canadian Wheat Board for some $13 million. These are the sort of things that can destroy a marketing system, not build it.
Has the Quebec farmer been used so badly? The total of cattle has gone from 1,895,000 in 1969 to 1,587,000 in 1972; the total of pigs has gone from 1,115,000 to 1,195,000 in this year. I do not see the livestock industry in Quebec disappearing under the onslaught of the western feed grain producer.
The Canadian Wheat Board has assured supplies at a time when the Quebec farmer would not have had a supply if the Canadian Wheat Board had not existed. If the Canadian Wheat Board had not been there, the eastern feeder would be in the same shape as he is in regard to soy bean meal. The supply of meal is not there. The Canadian Wheat Board has been supplying barley at a price lower than the export price into the eastern markets in these last few months. The thanks we get for that kind of policy which has served the Maritimes, which has served Quebec, which has served British Columbia, is a threat to dismantle the marketing machinery which the farmer of western Canada has put together over the years.
I will say this: if the members of this House or the government imagine that we will sit quietly by while this happens, then they are badly mistaken. I hope, maybe against all reason, knowing the record of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, that some time this evening he
July 16, 1973

will tell this House what he proposes to do. He has said in this House that he is going to take the matter to the western economic opportunities conference, but we look in vain for anything about it in the position papers. As a matter of fact there is very little of any consequence about agriculture in those position papers.
Government ministers go out to British Columbia and say what they are going to do for the westerners. Well, they are going to take more away than they are going to contribute, Mr. Speaker, and this government has been doing that for a long, long time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) hoping to hear something that he might believe in and recommend, but I failed to hear any such thing. I was hesitant about rising to speak in this debate because I thought the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang) would have eagerly sought this opportunity to explain the apprehension he has caused throughout the Prairies at a number of meetings he has had with farm leaders and by statements that he has made. I would have thought that he would welcome the earliest opportunity to set aside those fears, and particularly to set aside any outcropping of alienation in western Canada that might still be evident after the Liberals meeting this last weekend in Vancouver. Some one suggests it was a wake. It may well have been. As I flew to Ottawa early this morning, I searched the papers to ascertain what solutions were arrived at in Vancouver at the conference hoping I might be enlightened about what the minister believed and what he might have said about feed grains policy.


Otto Emil Lang: Was there anything in the Crowfoot Eagle?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There was nothing in the Crowfoot Eagle or the Calgary Herald or the Toronto Star or the Globe and Mail that was complimentary to any position the Liberal party might have taken in Vancouver. There was absolutely no mention in any other papers of any position they might have taken on the feed grains issue.
One does not have to be blind or deaf to realize that western Canada is greatly concerned about this problem. I have in my hand copies of at least 40 telegrams received by various members, and maybe by all western members, about the question of a feed grains policy for Canada which the minister has allowed to seep out in a certain amount of his thinking. He has not informed the country of his thinking and he has not told the country what he told the farm leaders which provoked the large avalanche of telegrams from western groups. He has not told parliament what that thinking was.
I hesitated to speak at this time because I thought the minister would be eager to clear the air, to set aside and not build up the alienation that he may have caused. But one only has to begin reading the telegrams to realize that the minister has caused a great deal of alienation. One, from the National Farmers' Union District No. 2 demands that the power of the Wheat Board not be lessened and in fact that control be extended to all grains.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Feed Grains


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is just one telegram on the top of a pile that expressed the thought that the minister may well be building up a great deal of alienation. Yet the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) tries to convince people in western Canada that he is concerned and worried about this build-up of alienation. If he is really worried, Mr. Speaker, the best thing he can do is take the Wheat Board out of the control of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I do not believe that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is too knowledgeable about western Canada's problems, but I think he has conveyed to the people of Canada a deep-rooted feeling of concern for farmers generally. I should like to recommend, as one solution toward lessening the alienation in western Canada, one that the Prime Minister could readily accept and adopt, that the Minister of Justice, who, as I say, has aroused this alienation and provoked the concern of many, many people all across western Canada, relinquish control of the Wheat Board. Certainly his continuance as minister in charge of the Wheat Board will do nothing to set aside that alienation.
Dealing with the particular motion put forward by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, Mr. Speaker, he seems to cover the waterfront and in doing so pours no oil on the troubled waters. The motion is really in two parts. The first part reads:
. . . for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the threat to Canadian agriculture created by the United States action in licensing and controlling the export of oilseed products . ..
Then as an "if and after"-a catchall clause-he adds this:
... to outline to Parliament the government's proposals for its new policy on the sale and pricing of domestic feed grains.
He adds that as a kind of afterthought, a kind of catchall clause dealing with the whole problem of feed grains policy in western Canada. He dealt basically with the problem of feed grains but there is one particular point that I think has been missed in this question of trying to understand the licensing and controlling of export of oilseed products.
Before you solve a problem, you must understand its cause. The United States, finding meat prices rising higher and higher, tried to curtail these ever-rising prices by limiting the export of soybean meal. Canada reacted by limiting the export of soybean meal. We did this with permits and licenses. In addition, we reacted by licensing and controlling the export of rapeseed meal. The products are similar, but one cannot take the place of the other. Perhaps 10 per cent of our soybean meal can be supplanted by rapeseed meal. That fact is not commonly known. I spoke to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) and apparently his officials made him aware of that. He said that we must react; actually he admitted that we were reacting. I ask, what is the purpose of reacting? Apparently he and his officials felt that we ought to react.

July 16, 1973
Feed Grains
What was the result? The result was the appearance of a surplus of rapeseed meal and rapeseed products in Canada. That action limited our ability to export rapeseed products, whether in the raw form, in the form of oil, or in the crushed form. When you limit the sale of a commodity, you tend to create surpluses and bring down the price.
The minister and his supporters should examine closely who sold short on the fall market for rapeseed. Who will benefit most by the government's decision to limit the export of rapeseed? I suggest that those who sold short will benefit most. The people who gambled on the commodities market and sold short will be the ones who will gain. Who they are is easy to determine. We must merely find out which crushing mills in western Canada or elsewhere are not living up to their contracts.
I am told that some crushing mills in eastern Canada are not living up to their contracts and are nearly broke because of the increased price of rapeseed and flax seed. They can only get out from under if we create an artificial situation in which there is a surplus in Canada. We can do that by imposing a rigid system of permits and licenses to control the export of those products. Those who gamble on the futures market may not lose as much as was anticipated as a result of government action. The minister and the government must explain why they reacted so readily in curtailing the export of rapeseed meal, when rapeseed meal will not take the place of soybean meal with the feed grains industry of Canada.
Actually, as I said, rapeseed will only supplant about 10 per cent of our need for soybean meal. That is the question the government must answer in dealing with the motion proposed by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave). The government owes an explanation to the country. Was it trying to save the people who sold short on the futures market? Were those people involved in the crushing business? Did they operate crushing mills in eastern Canada or elsewhere?
I know the answers to some of these questions. I will not put them on record, because when someone is nearly broke, he needs all the help he can get. The minister knows these names as well as I do. I notice he is smiling. Was he trying to bail them out? The minister made some comment just now which I did not hear. I know he will make a speech. Before I stood up I hoped he might stand and make his speech and tell us what he knows about these things. He will have his chance to make his speech, and no doubt will make a poor defence of his policy.
Dealing with the new sale and pricing policy with respect to domestic feed grains, it is a fact that eastern Canada has been concerned about the pricing of feed grains. As recently as 1970 there were rumours of feed grains being sold in western Canada at fire sale prices. Quebec wanted part of that market but has not been able to get it. Feed grains at fire sale prices are not in evidence anywhere in western Canada today. Only in eastern Canada, in cases where the government has been paying the freight on feed grains, have feed grains been selling at less than international prices. Ironically, the minister has not obtained any real political benefit from that action. Quebec is every bit as opposed to the present pricing policy as it has been opposed to such policies in the past. The president of the agricultural producers, the largest

and most important farm group in Quebec, has stated that his continued affiliation with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture depends on solving the feed grains pricing issue in a satisfactory way. He made no secret of that. I sat in on the Federation of Agriculture conference last winter and heard that anxiety expressed.
What has happened since then? The minister called some secret meeting of western farm leaders here in Ottawa, I think about two weeks ago last Friday. That is, western farm leaders were invited to Ottawa, and the minister made statements in the presence of those farm leaders. He told them things that he has not revealed to this House or to the committee and has stirred up a hornet's nest.
In a radio show in Regina he said in answer to certain questions what he would do on July 22. That is prior to the opening of the western economic opportunities conference. Then the following week in the House the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) straightened out his wayward supporter from Saskatchewan and said that this whole matter would be discussed at the western economic opportunities conference. The minister has now learned his lines well, and says that this whole matter will be discussed at that western economic opportunities conference.
The paper tabled in the House and purporting to contain what he told farm leaders here in Ottawa says nothing about the matter at all. There is a discussion of oil seeds and the problems of marketing oil seeds as well as other problems peculiar to oil seeds, but there is nothing on what is bothering the government with regard to pricing arrangements to do with the sale and marketing of feed grains.
Does the minister really think that the Canadian Wheat Board has done a poor job in this regard? Since the minister reports for the Canadian Wheat Board, he should stand up in this House and tell us if that is what he thinks.
My party, as the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar said, originated the Canadian Wheat Board. We have believed right along that they can and should do a good job. We do not necessarily think that their authority should be usurped by some know-it-all minister, who may be in charge of the justice portfolio, or of the agriculture portfolio. The minister should leave some authority and responsibility to the Wheat Board. The present minister has attempted to invade both these prerogatives and has clouded the issue so much that the Canadian Wheat Board as of today does not know whether, after August 1, the beginning of the next crop year, it will be in charge of barley and oats.
That date is significant. The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board has repeatedly said in the House that a feed grains policy will be announced by August 1. Why August 1? Why not July 1? What is significant about August 1? The Wheat Board crop year ends on July 31 and the new year begins on August 1, so one can assume that on August 1 the Wheat Board year will begin somewhat differently from the way the Wheat Board year began one year ago, having regard to barley and oats. Perhaps it will have less responsibility and some changes will be made.
July 16, 1973

In order that everyone will be fully aware of what the minister intends to do prior to the western economic conference, the minister owes it to the provincial governments, federal members, farmers and farm representatives, whether they be farm leaders or members of parliament, to enlighten this House tonight. He does not have to be exact. He can do what the minister in charge of energy suggested, but in less than 700 pages, I hope. He can outline the problem and tell us whether he intends to do A, B or c. Is the minister going to free the borders so that a person can go anywhere in western Canada and buy barley and oats at the same price as a neighbouring farmer? Is he going to allow the Winnipeg grain exchange to set the price? Is there going to be a floor price? Is the initial price going to mean anything? These are the questions that confront the farmers and their representatives as August 1 approaches. The answer is difficult, but not beyond solution.
The minister has a golden opportunity to enlarge the feed grains market for Canadian producers in order to make it more competitive with American corn. He also has a golden opportunity to strengthen the hand of the Wheat Board and bring about a better situation whereby Canadians marketing grain will know exactly the inventory on the farms and in commercial storage.
The minister has dedicated himself to removing grain from commercial storage. He has reduced the wheat supply to 178 million bushels. He is dedicated to saving the federal government money. I can only conclude that, in this new feed grains policy, that thought will again be uppermost in his mind. If one tended to believe that thinking, one would believe he is in essence throwing the farmers of western Canada into the open market in connection with the marketing of their grain domestically. I do not believe that is necessary or that it should happen.
Some changes should be made along the lines I suggested earlier, namely strengthening the Wheat Board, allowing for better pricing, and enlarging the marketing system in Canada with regard to western grown feed grains as well as providing information with regard to the amount of inventory on hand. In this crop year the minister asked that 16 million acres of barley be seeded. Only 11 million were seeded. There were 25 million acres of summer fallow. Why was there not more? The farmers did not have confidence in the minister's judgment. If this debate does not do anything more than bring the minister out clean on this, it will be of benefit to the farmers of western Canada.
[ Translation]


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy that we again have the opportunity to discuss the serious problems now being faced by the oldest, most worthy and most important industry in our country, namely agriculture. In spite of the opinion of certain very learned economists, I am convinced that the farming industry should continue to exist and I sincerely believe that we should put all our efforts into developing and improving it, so that we can supply humanity with the agricultural products and the foods it needs.
We all know that the Canadian farmer is now fighting harder and harder to survive, both in eastern and in
Feed Grains
western Canada. In fact, the Canadian farmer is having much too hard a time. Two of these problems being faced in the agricultural sector have been raised tonight, and they are the importation of certain products essential to the Canadian meat and poultry industry, and the problem of feed grain.
The latter in creating very serious difficulties for farmers, particularly in eastern Canada and in British Columbia. If they are to be solved, the government must take on its responsibilities, it must decide to act, so that a just solution can be found, one that will benefit not just one special part of the country, but the nation as a whole.
In the month of June we attended a meeting in Drum-mondville, at which discussion centred on the feed grain policy to be announced by the government, we are told, in early August. I am still confident that the government will announce a read policy, aimed, not at dividing the country further, but at fostering greater understanding between all Canadians and at creating equal opportunities for eastern and western farmers.
The control that the United States recently imposed on exports of some products which we absolutely need gives rise to some difficulties. And we, in turn, also answered by an embargo on exports of goods essential to production, and by requiring exporters to obtain a permit to export specific kinds of products which the United States also need.
Therefore, economists who work for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the federal government have, in my opinion, failed in their duty. They failed in an unbelievable way. We only have to examine all the problems facing us, which remain unsolved, after applying their recommendations and following their recipes, to realize it.
When a cook prepares any kind of paste by following a recipe, it is in the purpose of making a tempting meal but if, when following this recipe, she realizes that she failed, she will be wiser next time and hesitate a long time before following the recipe of these so-called experts who know everything and pretend to be in a position to solve problems.
Economists who work for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) have not proved to be any better. They have not succeeded yet in finding a financial formula to secure for every Canadian a minimum income, a decent livelihood. It is an approximation, a rehashed job, those are experiments which cost a lot to taxpayers, while the results are slow in coming.
Mr. Speaker, I recall that in March 1972, the present Minister of Agriculture, in the Standing Committee on Agriculture, had made a very right comment, and I am convinced that he had thought about his remark before making it, because he was examining, with other committee members, the estimates of the Department of Agriculture and of various services. This is what the minister who was then member of parliament said, and I quote:
Referring again to the statements of the deputy minister concerning economists, all I have to do, Mr. Chairman, is to check what they did and see in what sad shape they have put agriculture in the last ten years since I have been a member. Some ridiculous decisions have cost agriculture and the farmers in my area millions of dollars.

July 16, 1973
Feed Grains
There is the testimony of a knowledgeable man. That is why I say that we must be very careful, and especially the government, before accepting this or that formula as an experience. I know this always entails some risk, but we must be increasingly concerned about possible results before adopting a policy that is suggested; we must analyze it as carefully as possible to avoid serious errors.
Yet, economists have the duty-to my mind, they are paid for that-to give more serious advice to the government on the eventual needs of our country from the point of view of food in years to come. I think this work is rather complicated, but they made studies to simplify those things, so that we are better advised and able to establish programs which will better serve the Canadian people, particularly producers and consumers. They should be able to indicate effective means to take in order to boost our production, to ensure prices which are tailored to the financial resources of the population and to enable at the same producers to make a fair and reasonable profit margin.
We witnessed a reduction in the seeded acreage in the Prairies in recent years and we have now the repercussions of these reductions. The price of essential materials is going up, and notably the cost of feed grains just at the moment when in the whole world there is a serious problem of food, which is so alarming.
I recently attended a farmers' wives convention in the province of Quebec, those women stand as a good example for men. It is now difficult to gather many men to study our problems, yet nearly 1,000 women studied very specific problems as food, the cost of food and the measures to take in order to solve this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I notice that my time is running out, but I should like to say we have an agricultural industry which not only enables farmers to live but at the same time contributes to provide jobs for many thousands of persons. There are all kinds of related industries which depend on agriculture and if this industry is not effective the related industries will automatically feel the repercussions. It is sufficient to see, for instance, the reduction in the production of meat in Canada, which is a less important change. This means there is less transport and automatically that we need less labor, which contributes to increasing the problem of unemployment. Consumers themselves are also interested in helping us finding solutions to this situation in order to be able to keep on increasing cattle production and food production of all sorts in Canada.
We are concerned with the way things are going now in the province of Quebec. I referred to this some weeks ago. I gave figures and the situation has not changed. You only have to talk with our farmers, with those directly engaged in the dairy industry, to find out that it is not the small producers, but the big ones who have seen the sharp increase in prices and who worry about the possibility of making revenues to face their obligations, to repay the debts that they have incurred last year in order to buy better equipment to be able to produce more, as economically as possible and face the shortage of manpower.
So, these producers, rather than seeing their business going under, although they worked harder, have preferred

to give up their operation. They are selling their dairy herd and automatically, even if it is bought by other producers, a number of dairy cows end up at the slaughterhouse and will not yeild anything next year. This means that in the spring of 1974, there will be a reduction in the food production volume and I am afraid that in a year or two, eating a beefsteak will be the privilege of the rich. The low income people will have to be content with sausages and secondary products and will not be able to buy prime beef. This is inhuman we can do much better than that in Canada.
I am also concerned about another problem stated in an article of La Presse of June 12, 1973, entitled: "Pork producers fear U.S. pressures on Ottawa". I hope it is groundless. In any case, I draw the attention of the minister of Agriculture to this article which reads as follows;
-The Canadian government has been requested by the United States to eliminate the subsidizing of feed grains transportation (for the feeding of cattle) between East and West.
Some say that Quebecers are at an advantage and the farmers from the eastern United States who do not have the same privilege maintain that this is unfair competition and try to influence the Canadian government so that it cuts or eliminates transportation subsidies. It is therefore reported-and I hope this is not true-that-
-the federal minister of Agriculture, Mr. Eugene Whelan, stated last week-
-which means before June 12-
-to the representatives of the farmers' Union that he was considering eliminating those grants once of course the problem of feed grain marketing between western and eastern Canada is solved.
We will not have to wait too long. As far as I am concerned, I do not care about the formula used; if transportation grants are eliminated they will be replaced by another formula which will ensure more equity for Quebec and Maritime producers and I thank the minister in advance. But I hope that, at the same time, we will be happy to learn that, at last, after having waited 30 years, the Canadian Livestock Feed Board is adequately fullfilling its very special mission.
In a brief submitted to the standing committee on Agriculture by the Canadian Livestock Feed Board, one can read and I quote;
Before the creation of the Board, producers were faced from time to time with shortages of stocks at the Lakehead.
That is true.
On the other hand, appreciable price increases would frequently occur during the winter months-
Which is also true.
-in the harbours along the St. Lawrence River. These price increases which would reach $4 to $8 per ton were a source of discontent among cattle and poultry producers in the East and it was often said that export needs were met better than domestic ones. This opinion was based on the many congestions which occurred at the Lakehead and at the terminals.
When the hon. member who moved this motion talked a moment ago about the advantages which had accrued to the producers of the province of Quebec, thanks to the generosity of the Canadian Livestock Feed Board, I think he said-let him correct me, if I am wrong-that during these past couple of months, had it not been for the
July 16, 1973

generosity of the Canadian Wheat Board, the cattle of the province of Quebec would certainly have been deprived of feeds.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board, I wish it were solely at the service of the western grain producers, and at the same time the opportunity of selling at a higher price abroad-which is entirely normal, everyone works for more-but let us beware that we are not taken with that.
It is all very nice to sell at a higher price abroad, but if, at the same time we destroy our production in Canada, we will then be forced to import from outside and then they will sell to us at the prices we used with them and we may then be in an unfavourable position.
I heard, a while ago, the member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) say that he did not propose a solution. Mr. Speaker, I think that the solution proposed by the UPA, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture was good before the split in Ottawa between the UPA and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture; the proposals brought forward were that there must be a difference between the price of a bushel out west and in the east, but not of a dollar.
After a study of the problem, we recognize that there could be a difference of 30 to 32 cents per bushel. This can vary. It can be less, but more than that is unjust. In fact, it is not up to the producer of grains to bear the loss. This is where the central government comes into view. This is why it is at the centre. It must try to give justice to right and left, to east and west.
If the western grain producers lose, it would be up to the central government to vote moneys, putting at the disposal of the Canadian Wheat Board funds to compensate western grain producers. Then they would not produce at a loss; they would not improve their position, but they would be treated fairly, and the eastern producers could get their supplies at prices enabling them to remain competitive in the production of beef, pork and poultry; their prices could then equal those of other provinces.
This is the proposed solution and I endorse it completely. I make it my business tonight, as a member for a rural riding, to ask once more a certain number of things to the Minister of Agriculture. He sits there smiling, I see something coming which will make us proud, I hope.
In any event, I like to give thanks where thanks are due, but I do not hesitate to say frankly what I have in mind, when I am disappointed. I do wish to say means things before I am disappointed, because I hope I will not be.
I expect that in a few days, Canada will finally have a really equitable feed grain policy; I also hope that all the provinces will be taken into consideration and I am then convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the farming industry, the main and the best one, may hope for better days, survive and interest young people in its survival.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us tonight in one of its parts specifically suggests that a difficulty arises because of our not having announced a new policy in regard to feed grains, and the fact that a great deal of discussion and excitement is going
26446-67i
Feed Grains
on, particularly in the three prairie provinces, about certain rumours and stories in respect of what the policy may be.
It had been our intention to announce a feed grain policy in relation to the marketing of domestic feed grains before today. That was our original intention. I find it somewhat ironic that a good part of the reason for our deciding not to do that relates to the request of a number of people, including the NDP leader of Saskatchewan, after learning that we might announce such a policy before the July 24 to July 26 conference. We indicated that we would announce it and then be prepared to discuss this policy and its impact when we would meet with the premiers in Calgary. The Premier of Saskatchewan asked us in very strong language not to make such an announcement until after that date, and we subsequently decided to go along with that request. We felt this would allow us time to have further serious discussions about the matter, and discussions by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) with his counterparts, in a meeting which is scheduled for July 25.
The difficulty I have tonight lies in the fact that in not announcing a policy I cannot elaborate on it. I can only give certain ideas while trying to indicate what the policy is and is not, without making any firm announcement tonight. What we are trying to do is clear, and I would appreciate frank and open statements from members of the opposition on whether they agree or disagree with some of the fundamental questions that exist in this area.
The Speech from the Throne indicated that the government supports the principle of an equitable relationship in prices of feed grains to livestock feeders in various areas of Canada. It also indicated that we intended to move forward with a policy to put this into effect. Those words did not come out of the blue, and are not without a context; they come from a context of serious discussions which have been going on over several years in Canada regarding inequitable prices of feed grains in this country. These words result from a two-year struggle with the question raised by main farm organizations and by a farmers parliament composed of individuals, farm groups and provincial agricultural ministers and officials assembled together to say how to arrive at a solution which would be agreeable to everyone. They did not come up with a solution which they could agree on. So we were left with the problem. Indeed, I think it was Mr. Ted Boden, president of the Saskatchewan Federation of Agriculture, who went so far as to recite the fact that there had been a failure to find a solution. He is reported to have said:
But the west had not arrived at any suitable compromise policy so we can hardly bellyache if the government doesn't come down with a policy suitable to us.
That is only his opinion, not mine, because I want to assure the House that it continues to be my role to see that the policy which is developed is fair and suitable to all parts of this country. This is one of the matters I want to put most seriously to hon. members opposite. I want to say, first of all, that the context of this discussion has been made very clear. We believe in a policy in this country which will support a growing grain and meat industry. We believe in a policy which will enhance the growing of

July 16, 1973
Feed Grains
more grain and meat to supply domestic markets. We believe in an aggressive policy for export markets as well.
That is the context in which this policy is to develop. It is to be a policy in which, so far as possible, we remove inequities in the way in which products in this country may move, in the way in which feed grain and meat move, and indeed the way in which they may move in comparison one with another. In this country generally speaking the rule should be that the natural advantages of an area should decide the production, not artificial barriers erected at one time or held over from bygone days. That is the objective, and I should like to hear what hon. members have to say about that.
Let me say something, however, about what our policy will and will not be, at least in my judgment. I believe that the new feed grain policy toward which we are moving will indeed produce more orderly marketing in Canada than we have had before, and this will be good for all sectors and sections in this country as we develop the growing market for grain and meat which we foresee.
Hon. members particularly from the NDP are talking about orderly marketing in the past as something which must be preserved. I ask them whether they consider there was orderly marketing when a few years ago barley was moving at distress prices from farm to farm in the Prairies regions, when it was moving at one price range in certain parts of Alberta and at another price range in certain parts of Manitoba and at a different price range in Saskatchewan. A completely disorderly situation existed at that time.
Well, the NDP say, why did you not stop that? Of course, one of their long-time arch allies, that socialist who unfortunately leads the National Farmers Union, Roy Atkinson, says that if grain is moving from farm to farm in the prairies and across provincial borders, why do we not have more policemen and make sure that we enforce the rules and stop the movement of the grain. He would have us do it even from farm to farm, no doubt, with a policeman at every farm. He would have us exercise control so that the grain could not be moved without some kind of permission or licensing. I will have no part in any system like that.
Such a system would not work. Even worse, it would really disguise the fact that grain would be valued at two very different prices in terms of grain fed on farms in distress areas, even if not moving at distress prices, and grain which moves in the commercial system. I should like to remind hon. members that no one has even raised the question of the way in which the Canadian Wheat Board has basic and full control of our grain operations and particularly the way in which grain is moved into export markets.
I wish to remind hon. members that less than one-third of the feed grain produced on the Prairies is delivered to the Canadian Wheat Board. The rest is fed on the farm or traded from farm to farm or to feed mills in the prairie region. Only one-eighth of the feed grains produced in the prairie provinces is sold to eastern Canada by the Canadian Wheat Board under the existing system. A great proportion of the wheat delivered to the Canadian Wheat Board has been, and by the nature of the relative size of 
the markets would always be, available and sold on export markets. The Canadian Wheat Board has performed a superb role in knowing how grain is moving in Canada and for export, and in knowing the quantities of grain- barley, wheat and oats-which have been committed for sale overseas. Therefore we have been able to ensure that there would always be in Canada, unlike some other countries, a full assurance of an adequate supply of feed grains for domestic purposes, thanks to the supervision and guidance of the Canadian Wheat Board.
No one has suggested that that control be removed from our existing system. That is a very important part of orderly marketing. Once upon a time the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool had clearly adopted the principle that there was need for a fair price for feed grain between different areas of the country. Various committees were set up by the Canada Grains Council and by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, to cite two of the most important. Mr. Ted Turner, the president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, sat on one of the committees. Mr. Ted Boden, vicepresident of the pool as well as the president of the Saskatchewan Federation of Agriculture, sat on the other. Both had accepted the principle that grain should move at fair prices between regions of this country.
I am sorry to see from a recent report that they had moved away from that policy, and I hope I can persuade them that this would not be in the interests of Canada. Certainly the federal government must attempt to ensure that products move freely and fairly from one section of the country to the other. Perhaps it is different with the NDP, whose only members who are really interested in farming matters come from the Prairies and who therefore state prairie policies, presumably without the rest of the party understanding the important trade implications of this.
This party, however, will stand for free trade in Canada. We will see that the federal government's role is always to make sure that all products can move freely across this country. We will not accept the recent word from the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool that somehow it would be fine to let the Canadian Wheat Board, on behalf on the prairie farmers, do whatever it likes in relation to grain, do whatever it likes in terms of pricing in other parts of the country, that that would somehow be all right. Some steps have to be taken and we will take them. That is why I say to hon. members that the only fair and reasonable thing to do is to wait until they see the policy in all its aspects before they become excited and criticize it.
We have had reference to telegrams. They are all based on rumours which do not fairly or adequately reflect the policies which we will be bringing down, and which we expect to come down with toward the end of July after we have final discussions with the various people who have asked for those discussions.
I must say a few words at least about the other part of the motion of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. I suspect that that part relating to protein and prices of food may have been added more to be persuasive about the emergency of the debate than to be an important part of the substance of the hon. member's speech. Certainly he passed it over very quickly.
July 16, 1973

I noticed he said that licensing controls would be a bad thing because this would drive food prices up. I would at least commend to him the words of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), who said it was bound to drive prices down. I suggest to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar that the hon. member for Crowfoot's logic tends on the whole in this regard to be a little better, but unfortunately for him the facts have moved in the other direction and prices at the moment have tended to go up rather than down. However, that is one of the problems which arise in these logical arguments. It was only a couple of weeks ago that the hon. member for Crowfoot and the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) had said that prices had topped out in the world. They were absolutely sure of that. At that time they were committing themselves firmly to rapeseed at $5. I suggested that if they have that kind of sureness that this is the top price they should go into the market and make some money.
I suspect they did not do that, and since rapeseed is now about $1 higher it was a good thing they did not. I hope some lessons may have been learned about some quick judgment as to when prices are at the top, when prices are at the middle and when they are going down. The Conservatives are good at knowing these things. They always know things the day after they happen. It is, of course, their sense of vision to predict and state clearly what has happened after it has been done.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) and I presented the motion which is being debated this evening we did so with the full support of our caucus colleagues and for the major purpose of advising the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang), and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), that if their new national feed grains policy involves the abandonment of Canadian Wheat Board's supervision of the interprovincial movement of feed grains, they will be involved in a war the like of which they have never seen-and they have seen a few wars over agriculture in this House in the last few years: there will be absolute hell to pay. There is not a major organization representing western farmers that is not adamantly opposed to the abandonment of the concept of the orderly marketing of grain under the auspices of the Canadian Wheat Board.
I have in my office, as I am sure have most hon. members, a fistful of letters, telegrams and news releases from every major national farm organization, from local farm organizations and from individual farmers demanding that members of this House prevent the abandonment of the orderly marketing of feed grains under the Canadian Wheat Board. The following message, circulated by Cooperative Implements Ltd. to guests attending the opening of its new Winnipeg plant, is typical. I would .like to read it in its entirety because it contains the gist of all the messages I have received:
Co-operative Implements as a farmers' institution, like so many other farmers' institutions, was organized for the purposes of improving farmers' bargaining powers and to protect them from exploitation by the monopolies. As such, we are part of and have an interest in supporting the farmers' movement in their struggle to maintain and expand orderly marketing of farm products.
Feed Grains
Your board of directors view with alarm recent reports that the government of Canada is in the advanced stages of returning to the open market, either directly or indirectly, feed grains, including wheat used for feed.
This action, if taken by the government of Canada, would work to the benefit of the grain trade and the speculators of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, and not in the interests of either grain growers or livestock producers in Canada.
Should this retrograde step be taken it will, in fact, destroy 70 years of hard work and struggle by the farm movement for orderly marketing of farm products by allowing the return of the speculators and the manipulators of the grain trade through the Winnipeg Grain Exchange.
The market authority of the Canadian Wheat Board must be maintained and strengthened to effectively
1.	Manage grain supplies entering both the domestic and export markets;
2.	Maintain grain handling facilities and transportation;
3.	Maximize returns to grain producers and assure livestock, dairy and poultry feeders necessary supplies;
4.	Eliminate the influence of the grain speculator and manipulator from the market.
Your board of directors calls upon the government of Canada and the provinces to strengthen the marketing powers of the Canadian Wheat Board. We ask you as responsible co-operators and members of the farm movement, upon your return home, to remain alert to this situation and to actively support those farm organizations who are legitimate members of the farm movement and who are struggling to maintain and extend orderly marketing to the Canadian Wheat Board.
That is the message that Co-operative Implements had. That is the message the National Farmers Union had, that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture had, that the Manitoba Wheat Pool, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and the Alberta Wheat Pool had. It took the farmers of western Canada 30 years of effort to place interprovincial trade in feed grains under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. That jurisdiction has now existed for 23 years. There is no way that western farmers are going to allow any new feed grains policy to abandon the concept.
What we want this evening is a definite, concrete, unequivocal statement from the government-we did not get it from the minister's remarks-that the Canadian Wheat Board will continue to be the centre-piece of any feed grains marketing policy. An attempt has been made to suggest that we are getting excited over nothing and that the government is in favour of orderly marketing. What we want, and what will end the malaise among farmers in western Canada, is a clear statement that it is not government policy to dismiss the Canadian Wheat Board from its responsibility in respect of feed grains.
Indeed, we in the NDP want to see the Board's powers extended to cover flax, rye and rapeseed as well. What we want at the very least is an ironclad guarantee from the government that there will be no diminution of Canadian Wheat Board powers. We did not get that assurance tonight. The premiers of the western provinces are asking the federal government for that assurance, and they have not received it.
We on this side of the House are not unaware that there is discontent in some parts of the country with current marketing arrangements for feed grains. But correcting those problems can only be properly accomplished through use of the Canadian Wheat Board, and not through its abandonment. In this light I want to quote a brief state-

July 16, 1973
Feed Grains
ment by an honoured predecessor of mine in the riding of Selkirk. I quote the following from Hansard of February 25, 1949:
Since 1919 the belief has persisted throughout the west that only a Wheat Board or a grain board, handling the whole of the western crop, will give efficient and satisfactory service, and secure a square deal for the farmer.
That was Scotty Bryce speaking. Those words still remain true. Any new feed grains policy must accomplish three major purposes. In saying this I am repeating something that the minister said in his remarks. First, it must provide a fair and predictable price to the producer for his commodity. Second, and I draw this to the special attention of the minister since he seemed to express some doubt that it was understood by members of the NDP, it must provide adequate supplies of feed grains to feeders in all parts of the country in such a manner that no part of the country has an undue advantage over the other parts. Third, a national feed grains policy must provide for orderly marketing and avoid a return to the chaotic conditions which applied in the marketing of feed grains prior to the Canadian Wheat Board being given jurisdiction over that field in 1949. If feed grain marketing is placed back in the hands of speculators, a major disservice will have been done to agricultural producers in all parts of this country and to the Canadian consumers of food.
One of the major reasons for placing feed grains under the Wheat Board in 1949 was to create conditions which whould ensure adequate supplies of feed grains necessary in turn to ensure adequate domestic supplies of meat and poultry products. An open market condition is bound to frighten many western farmers out of the production of feed grains and back into wheat, with a consequent reduction in availability of feed grain supplies to feeders, with a consequent rise in prices of feed grains and thus, in the end, in the cost of meat and poultry products for Canadian consumers.
In his speech the minister mentioned many of the problems associated with the current feed grain marketing arrangements. Many of the points he made were valid; many others were red herrings. I suggest those problems can best be solved within the context of the Canadian Wheat Board. I want to suggest three or four steps to the minister that would help in this situation. The first principle that must be understood is that the Canadian Wheat Board should continue to be responsible for the interprovincial movement of feed grains. Second, it should be understood that the provinces are responsible for the intraprovincial movement and pricing of feed grains. Third, it should be possible, where a province so wishes, that a province can delegate to the Wheat Board responsibility for pricing and control of feed grains in intraprovincial trade.
Saskatchewan and Manitoba already have such enabling legislation on their books. I am not sure of the position in Alberta, but it is not important to the national scene because very little of the Alberta feed grains move to the east: most of it which leaves the province moves out to British Columbia or to the Pacific rim countries. As I say, the legislation is there; it can be used by a national government that wants to strengthen the Canadian Wheat Board.

Fourth, a national pricing structure should be introduced which guarantees buyers of feed grains in all areas of Canada access to feed grains produced in western Canada at prices comparable to those paid by users of feed grains in western Canada, adjusted for transportation, handling and Wheat Board operating costs. Fifth, in order to prevent fluctuations in price due to variations in supply from year to year, a national feed grains policy should incorporate the principle that the federal government maintain a feed grains bank which could be used to alleviate actual physical shortages of feed grains at any given time necessary to meet domestic requirements.
If a national feed grains policy incorporated those five points we should meet most of the objections and problems which the government placed before us this evening. If the Canadian Wheat Board were establishing the price for the sale of feed grains within the provinces as well as interprovincially-and I insist this is possible under Saskatchewan and Manitoba legislation-then the kind of price differentials which irritate farmers in Quebec would not exist. There would be an even more orderly marketing of grain in Canada than at present.
I commend this five-point program to the minister's attention. I suggest he examine it in detail before he goes to see representatives of the western governments in Calgary. I suggest, also, that the Minister of Agriculture examine these suggestions before he goes to see the ministers of agriculture in Prince Edward Island. To me this is the way to deal with the very real problems the minister presented to us this evening. There are problems in the marketing of feed grains, but they will not be solved by abandoning the Canadian Wheat Board, an institution for which the western farmer fought for over 70 years. The western farmer will not stand for the abandonment of that organization.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, listening to the speeches made so far this evening, one wonders about a motion such as this and why we are debating it. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) and the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang) made speeches containing very little of substance. It is evident that the minister in charge of the Wheat Board is not ready to show his hand yet, so we are really debating a matter of speculation tonight. It is almost like debating with a ghost, because we do not know exactly what we are talking about.
I think we could spend our time in more constructive debate if the minister has kept his earlier promise and brought the amendments, if that is what they are to be, before the House so that they could be debated in a proper manner. At present it looks as if the changes will be brought in very shortly, before the end of the year. In all probability the House of Commons will not be sitting and there will be no chance for meaningful debate on this very important issue.
I should like to comment on two main points in the minister's speech: one is orderly marketing and the other the free movement of trade. In connection with orderly marketing, I remember that not so long ago in this House we in our party urged acceptance of a motion to increase

the initial price of grain, and in the motion criticized the Canadian Wheat Board to some extent for its unresponsive pricing policy. At that time we were soundly criticized by the government and the New Democratic Party for trying to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board.
If my memory serves me well, it was pointed out time and again in that debate that we in this party believe in the use and viability of the Canadian Wheat Board, but feel that changes could be made in the structure to make it more responsive and receptive to the needs of all parts of Canada. At that time the minister took a different line from the one he took tonight. He also mentioned the movement of free trade in Canada. I believe that was the term he used. I believe that all parties, with the possible exception of the NDP, are in agreement on free trade within Canada. I think this is an established fact, at least for this party. It was stated in our election campaign material of last fall that if we were elected we would move to establish the free movement of grain within the area of the Canadian Wheat Board with the eventual hope of making a reality the free movement of products right across the country. At that time the minister in charge of the Wheat Board said it could not be done, that there was no way it could be accomplished without some very drastic changes. Now he seems to be in a position of advocating something along the same line.
I think one of the predominant things from the point of view of the grain producer who is selling his product to the Canadian Wheat Board is that in the past few years the Wheat Board has drifted away from the original concept because of the policies of some ministers of agriculture. At times the Canadian Wheat Board appears to be an arm of the federal government rather than the kind of agency it was set up to be namely, predominantly a selling agency.
When we can look at the Canadian Wheat Board as selling agency for a product within our own borders, and certainly for export, as its main purpose-and not for the purpose of an income-supporting agency for producers- we will have moved a great distance toward solving the troubles of western farmers. Through at times pushing a product on instructions of the government I believe the Wheat Board has become an income-supporting agency for western farmers, or at times tries to assume this role. This should not fall to the agency; this kind of role should belong to the federal government. Without saying any more about the Canadian Wheat Board, it is possible that if we are still here in two weeks and the minister brings in his amendments we might be debating this subject again. What we are really debating now is speculation.
I should like to deal with the part of the resolution that deals with oilseeds. I believe the world is in a very serious situation as far as the supply of oilseeds and food products are concerned. The situation has come upon us very quickly and I believe it is far more serious than many people think. By this fall we will experience world food shortages. In fact, there is every indication that we will witness fairly widespread famine in many countries. In Canada I believe we will experience higher consumer prices, far higher than at the present time. One has to ask why this came about so quickly. I believe there are many reasons. One is that demand in many countries has outstripped
Feed Grains
supply because of poor crops in some areas. It has also happened because of inadequate government planning. We have talked countless times about the Operation Lift program, but programs such as that have been devised and implemented in other countries over the past few years.
The policy makers were caught short and, as there were poor crop yields in some countries, as the rice crop in other countries has not been as high as normal and as rising incomes in Japan and most of Europe have led to increasing demands for food, a tremendous demand was created for our agricultural products.
The United States only a few decades ago was one of the world's largest importers of soybeans, but now produces 75 per cent of the world's crop. That country finds its present domestic supplies inadequate and has imposed, as a consequence, embargoes on sales of soybeans. Canada has been forced to do the same.
What that action will mean for Canada may not be clear yet in the short term sense, but that there are high domestic food prices now is clear. I submit, however, that the message for agricultural long term planning in this country is completely clear and straightforward. I hope the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) will speak tonight and tell us what government policies there will be in future, as those policies will be very much needed.
Canada is 40 per cent self sufficient in soybean production. The remaining 60 per cent of our needs is imported from the United States. Rapeseed is western Canada's third most important cash crop, after wheat and barley, and Canada is the No. 1 rapeseed exporter in the world. We have reached this position over a short period of time, compared with the time we took to do that with other cereal grains. What we need now is clearcut direction. I am talking about long term direction, not the kind of direction that the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) have tried to give us over the past several months.
It is interesting to note that when farmers were asked how many acres they would plant to grain in western Canada, they gave a figure that is surprisingly low, particularly in view of unprecedented grain prices, prices which are higher than ever. There are two reasons for this. First, of course, one can point to the inclement weather experience in western Canada; second, the main reason for this low acreage is that farmers are not accepting government advice as readily as they might have a few years ago, because government experts have been proved wrong. There is a saying in western Canada, and possibly in Ontario too, to the effect that if the government tells you to grow something, you should grow something else or do the opposite and you will probably come out all right. Events have demonstrated the wisdom of this action.
The government must tell its experts to think more and plan more before making predictions. It should not tell farmers what grain to grow, or to plant one more field, as farmers are much too sophisticated to listen to that kind of advice.
The message is clear. Tied in one package, the message is that the politics and policies of agriculture that brought Canada through the last 75 years are not going to take her

July 16, 1973
Feed Grains
through the next 75, perhaps not even through the next five years. Our policies must be flexibly shaped to meet new demands, the new diversities and the increasing world food shortage. They must be tied to farm economics, transportation, and the manufacture of farm products. That is a comprehensive job that must be undertaken.
We have debated feed grains in Canada. The truth is that there is a world food shortage, and this situation is not peculiar to Canada. I think that the government should at this time, and as early as possible, take the opportunity to tell farmers and consumers alike of the direction it will take in the next few months as we are heading into what could be a very, very precarious situation.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with bated breath for some new ideas, new suggestions, for some revolutionary thoughts to come from hon. members opposite which would show that what we were doing was not right. So far I have not heard anything tonight which leads me to think that there are revolutionary thinkers on the other side of the House. If the farmers of Canada had refused to accept any change, we would still be farming with oxen and horses and hauling grain in high walled wagons. Hon. members opposite have not put forward revolutionary ideas which would apply to farmers anywhere in the world. That is the first point I want to make, and I shall emphasize some other things, too. All my life I have been a farmer, and I have recognized the need for change. I should like members of parliament who are taking part in this debate to put forward their ideas for changes.
Tonight we are talking about proteins and feed grains. The first point I want to emphasize in my statement tonight is that there is enough protein supplement in Canada to look after the needs of Canadian livestock and poultry producers until the new crop is available. Indications so far point to a record harvest of soybeans in the United States this year. The government has taken prompt and effective action to make sure that we will have enough protein supplement in Canada without scuttling the market of our grain and protein growers. We are keeping constant watch on the situation, and we are developing contingency plans for any trade or supply problems that might arise.
Based on current evaluations, we have enough protein supply in Canada for home use, although we may have some regional problems of distribution and we may perhaps need some adjustments in composition and level of protein formula feeds.
The half-informed statements, Mr. Speaker, about shortages and embargoes that have been bandied about the country sure haven't helped. They have only served to add fuel to the fire. In my view, some people are acting in a totally irresponsible manner, starting and repeating rumours for their own personal gain. These people seem to think that they will gain brownie points with public opinion by crying wolf. But it is the farmers and consumers who are paying through the nose every time these rumours encourage prices to rise.
Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, that this is an international situation, and the entire international market is full

of doubt and speculation. It is a situation where any fuel added to the fire only serves to encourage those people who own protein supplements to hoard their supplies and force prices even higher, as international commodity speculators shift their speculation from gold to agricultural products.
Food, as the world is realizing today, is the primary source of human energy. You could eat all the gold there is, but it would not do you one bit of good; you could die of starvation. You must have food. More and more the world is realizing that food is the most important commodity. We value our export markets and our customers that have been built up over a period of years. Because we value them, we have taken the action that we took. We want to supply those people in an orderly fashion, and the Johnny-come-lately speculators should only be considered after these people have been taken care of.
Let me review the situation as it applies here in Canada. We have been keeping a close watch on protein prices, a watch that started long before the recent price increases. As soon as soybean prices started to increase, we stepped up our background work and calculated the amount of protein we would need in Canada for normal feeding patterns as well as rations based on minimum protein use.
Our background work started long before the United States placed a temporary embargo on the export of a limited list of commodities on June 28. When the United States took that action, we moved immediately through an interdepartmental group set up to assess the Canadian situation. We held extensive consultation with the trade, we computed our estimated requirements and took into account the possibility of substitution.
On July 5 the United States extended the restrictions to a further 41 items. The very next day I spoke to the annual convention of the Canadian Feed Manufacturers' Association at Winnipeg. I was able to discuss the situation with suppliers and users and get their assessment.
On July 11 meetings were held with representatives of the crushers and exporters, with representatives of the feed manufacturing and distribution trade, and then with the two groups jointly in order to make a final evaluation. Based on this evaluation, applicants for export licenses were informed that no exports of soybeans or soybean meals have been authorized. At the same time, we are moving into the final stages of the development of a new national feed grains policy for Canada.
Before going any further I want to say one more thing about protein. We depend on protein being imported into this country without control of any kind. We would not have that source of protein if we were only an avenue for some export speculators. I would defend our action at any time, any place, with anyone, as I have done several times already.
As we move into the final stages of the development of a new national feed grains policy we are at the same time confronted with a protein scarcity. This new policy, therefore, will be just as important, in fact more important, to the future of Canadian agriculture as the short-term situation we are now experiencing.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It really depends on what it is.
July 16, 1973


Eugene Whelan: I listened to the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). I heard his worldly suggestions. He has had long experience in this House, but I must say he did not add very much.
The rumours, charges and counter-charges that are flooding the news media every day are not helping the situation one bit. In fact, I had to send a telegram to the 10 provincial ministers of agriculture to reassure them that no announcement would be made until we had another chance to discuss the feed grains situation together in Charlottetown on July 24.
There has never been anything that has been discussed so much by so many people in Canada, recognizing there are problems with the feed grains policy, without reaching any conclusion. My colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) pointed out what Ted Boden and other farm leaders in Canada have stated. I think this is the feeling of a great many farm people who have not been quoted publicly.
We also hear about grain production. We did tell the farmers to produce more grain. I think hon. members are under-estimating, even those from the west who spoke about grain production. More fertilizer has been used in the west than in any other time in the history of Canada. This can only add to production. Unless there is some catastrophe between now and harvest time, one of the biggest crops in history should be harvested in western Canada.
There has been a lot of talk about orderly marketing for feed grains on the Prairies, and a few spokesmen have said that the Wheat Board should keep its present position in the market so we will have orderly marketing. Let me point out just exactly what is that position. In 1969-70 the Wheat Board had absolutely no control over the marketing of 55 per cent of the barley that was produced. Fifty-five per cent of the crop moved from farm to farm, from farms to feedlots, from farms to feed mills, or was used right on the farm where it was produced. The barriers preventing sales from province to province meant that 55 per cent of the barley produced that year was sold in the pressure-cooker chaos of a small, local market. I cannot understand how anyone can call that orderly marketing. Somebody, somewhere, has their facts terribly mixed up. If they have the facts in front of them, they are certainly not releasing them but hiding them so they can mislead the farmers of Canada.
In 1969-70 farmers on the prairies sold 186 million bushels of barley on their own, without any cash advances, price guarantees or quota, on artificially restricted market outside the power of the Wheat Board, compared with 40 million bushels sold in the east and British Columbia. In 1970-71 189 million bushels, or 48 per cent of the total prairie barley crop, faced the irregular demand of local needs only. In 1971-72 212 million bushels of barley stayed within the prairie provinces out of a production of 570 million bushels. This grain is being sold and used completely outside of the Wheat Board marketing system, completely outside of quotas or price guarantees, and with access to a nation-wide market restricted.
This is a fact that has been overlooked and neglected in all of the heat and emotion that is arising over this issue today. Let me assure hon. members that this is a fact that we are taking into account in the development of our new 26446-68
Feed Grains
national feed grains policy. Notice I said "our" and "national".
Let me assure hon. members that we intend to bring orderly marketing into this very important sector of our national feed grains industry. We are going to develop a national feed grains policy that will be fair and equitable right across this country, from the Pacific to the Atlantic and for all sectors of our agriculture industry. It would be interesting for hon. members, especially those from Saskatchewan, to read what the Saskatchewan minister of agriculture suggested for a feed grains policy. Of course, the premier slapped him on the fingers for what he said, but that was his honest opinion on what a feed grains policy should be. We are considering all suggestions made to the government. We even considered the suggestion of the Saskatchewan minister of agriculture, for whom I have a very high regard.
I promised my provincial colleagues I would discuss our thinking on a new national feed grains policy before any announcement is made. I intend to keep that promise. If any feed grains policy this government should adopt is proven not better than the one we have now for both producers and consumers, I will be the first to recommend that we change it and change it quickly.
I will be like the farmers across this land. When new productive ways are suggested to them, they are quicker to grasp them than farmers in any other part of the world. When new ways of farming are presented to them, thay are quicker to grasp them than when anything new is offered to any other part of society. Farmers will recognize this. If it is no good, they will be the first to tell me. That is the approach I, as Minister of Agriculture, will follow on a feed grains policy for this nation.


Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) announce today he will have a national feed grains policy that will be satisfactory to all interests in Canada. The minister has been very adept at travelling around the country making speeches. In fact, he has been making speeches and not doing much else. We look forward with anticipation to some action by the Minister of Agriculture.
I was amused to hear the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board denigrate the Conservative party over the fact they are good predictors after the event. However, I remind the minister that a few years ago we had a small problem called Lower Inventory For Tomorrow, the dubious program called Operation Lift. The minister responsible for the Wheat Board predicted there would be a foreseeble surplus of wheat for world markets for quite a number of years. Within a year or two a wheat shortage developed. Wheat is in short supply in this country and there is not enough available to meet all our overseas markets.
I was glad to hear the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) say the Wheat Board must be strengthened, though he did not explain how. I should like to hear him tell us in greater detail what he had in mind. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) talked about the free movement of grain in Canada. He did not say what he

July 16, 1973
Feed Grains
meant by the free movement of grain. I shall try to explain the position of our party on this whole matter. Part of what I say will be old and part of it new.


Gerald William Baldwin: Some borrowed, some blue.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: I am glad to take part in this debate on feed grains and feed grain policy in Canada. We all realize that the federal government has been floating trial balloons all over Ottawa. If this is not the case, where did all those newspaper reports come from? They did not come from me or my hon. friends. They were to the effect that the government intends to divest the Canadian Wheat Board of its authority to control the interprovincial movement of feed grains, including wheat, and permit the unrestricted movement of feed grains in a so-called free market.
First, I want to point out that the ordinary marketing of feed grains is sacred to the western farmer and that as such it should remain under the control of the Canadian Wheat Board or be subject to some other system of orderly marketing. Any change of policy permitting the free movement of feed grains in Canada without Wheat Board control would prove disastrous in the short run to livestock feeders in both western and eastern Canada, and in the long run it would be injurious to all grain growers. What is at stake is the future of orderly grain marketing in Canada.
I realize that support for removing from the Wheat Board its authority over feed grains is centred in Quebec where the feed grain trade and the feeders themselves claim they have been paying much higher prices than their counterparts in western Canada. We recognize there is some legitimacy attached to this claim. However, we must call attention to the following points:
1.	The Wheat Board is responsible for getting the best price it can for the grain it markets on behalf of producers. As far as sales under its control are concerned, it has been doing this, particularly when the government does not interfere with its functioning, as the government has been prone to do from time to time.
2.	Grain sold and consumed in the west is sold in the so-called free market at a lower price to the producers, thus supporting our claim that orderly marketing benefits farmers. It should be remembered that these transactions do not come under the authority of the Wheat Board and that the Wheat Board is therefore not to blame for the price discrepancy. The blame rests upon federal policy. The minister responsible for the Wheat Board could remove these inequities by providing for orderly marketing not only between provinces but within provinces as well. The government, along with the Conservative government in 1960 and 1961, must share responsibility for complicity in creating the unsatisfactory situation which has existed in connection with the marketing of grains used for feed within the provinces of the west since feed mills were exempted from the controls imposed in connection with the Wheat Board marketing quota and pricing regulations. This was brought about through instructions to the trade, Nos. 41 and 43, imposed in the 1960-61 crop year by a Conservative government. As a result of that move, farmers several years ago were obtained 35 cents for a bushel of barley and perhaps 40 cents for a bushel of
[Mr. Nesdoly ,J
wheat sold to cattle feeders in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba.
At that time farmers had huge stockpiles of grain on hand; they needed cash to meet their operating expenses and maintain their credit accounts. They were desperate and sold their grain at almost any price. So in that instance, farmers were being exploited in consequence of a regulation passed eleven or twelve years ago. At the present time, of course, the shoe is on the other foot. Farmers receive something like 73 cents for a bushel or barley in the elevator, and I understand that feeders in the west are presently paying close to $1.35 a bushel for barley because of the short supply. So in this particular instance the feeder is paying a good deal more than he would perhaps be paying if the operation were controlled by the Canadian Wheat Board. Orderly marketing of Canadian feed grains would simply ensure that farmers receive a price which balanced out over a period of years. They will tend to get a lower price in periods of over-supply and a higher price in periods of short crop.
3.	The reaction of Quebec farm organizations is shortsighted. It would not get rid of the inequity in prices for feed grains they now experience. It would place the grain traders in the position to control the purchasing, movement and sale of feed grains as between grower and user. They would be able to play off farmer against farmer, to manipulate supplies and prices at will to their own advantage, and to make sure that whatever profitability exists in both the grains and the livestock industry is diverted to them. We in Saskatchewan would like to feed all our grain to our cattle. We would like to finish off the product in Saskatchewan and establish a big meat-packing industry. But, certainly, if there is a surplus of feed grain we would like to share it with other parts of Canada on a fair basis.
I wonder what is going on in the rapeseed market and the flax market at the present time. I have received some juicy letters in the last little while.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: I do not intend to read them out, but they are uncomplimentary to a lot of people in this House. Farmers today are getting well over $6 a bushel for rape-seed at a time when very few of them have stocks of rapeseed on hand. It seems to me that somebody is making a tremendous profit on the marketing of rapeseed and it is certainly not the farmers because, as I say, very few of them have any left. Certainly we do not want to go back to the days of the open market when prices went up and down like a yo-yo and the only people who profited were those connected with the Winnipeg Grain Exchange.
With respect to feed grains, the situation is ludicrous, what with the two-price system for wheat under which the millers are getting wheat at $1.95 a bushel while the price in the world market, I understand, is $3.24 a bushel. I found it very humorous, while I was home this weekend, to hear that a hog farmer in Saskatchewan lately bought two carloads of whole wheat flour to feed to his pigs because it was cheaper than the feed he could otherwise buy. Here he was, getting hog feed which was subsidized by the government supposedly to help consumers. Therefore this whole matter of feed grains has to be looked at closely. The two-price system for wheat has to be exam-
July 16, 1973

ined closely. Perhaps this should be in the form of a subsidy to the farmer rather than the consumer.
What is needed in Canada is a policy that would give jurisdiction to the Canadian Wheat Board over all grains marketed in western Canada, no matter where they are sold, and extending this jurisdiction to all grains including rapeseed, flax and rye, and perhaps in addition eastern Canadian grain. This would cover grains sold on the export market as well as the domestic market, interpro-vincially as well as intraprovincially. Such a policy would provide for a balance between livestock and grain producers in all regions of Canada. A fair price would be determined that would balance the needs of eastern grain growers and eastern feeders with their western counterparts. I suggest this is the only solution to the problem. The status quo is no longer suitable.
We realize there must be an over-all national policy in respect of grain. We must move into a new era that will be fair to all Canadian farmers no matter where they live, and which will balance the needs of grain and livestock producers. The only workable alternative is one that will place our grains under Canadian Wheat Board control. If we revert back to more of an open market system, or the so-called free trade market system, it could mean chaos and financial ruin for Canadian farmers at the hands of manipulators. Furthermore, there is some concern in western Canada about the attempt by certain interests to get rid of the Crowsnest Pass rates. At a meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture when it heard representatives of the Canadian Grains Council on Tuesday, July 10, 1973, Dr. Dever stated in respect of Crowsnest rates:
At the same time, because these rates may be uneconomic, we have trouble getting-
The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) interjected as follows:
Excuse me, which rates are uneconomic?
Doctor Dever indicated he was referring to the Crowsnest Pass rates and said they were uneconomic because of the cost figures provided for them under the National Transportation Act. So it seems to me that there is a movement afoot at the present time to get rid of the Crowsnest pass rates. I feel also that this is another sacred principle that has to be adhered to and these rates must be maintained. We must remember, going back in history, that the railroad companies of Canada received extensive concessions from the federal government in the form of land and mineral rights in certain locations of the country. Even though reference is made to the unprofitability of the railroads, the profits these other endeavours make must be included before any determination is made as to whether or not the operations of the railroads are profitable.
I suggest, therefore, that a feed grains policy must be produced within the context of a national grains policy and such a national grains policy must adopt certain principles or ideas as follows. There should be a price for the product which will return to the producer the cost of production plus a reasonable profit on his investment, management and labour. For too many years farmers have been working by the sweat of their brow without reasonable return. We must have efficient and low-cost service in
Feed Grains
the production and handling of farm products. Such a policy must adopt selective price controls on the inputs of grain production in order that increased cash flow is not unjustly siphoned off by rapidly escalating input costs imposed by agribusiness firms as they administer managed prices, as evidenced by the cost of fertilizer this spring.
There must be stability of price and maximum market opportunities through the functioning of a sympathetic and orderly marketing system. Incidentally, one farmer told me that the fuel bill on his farm operation rose by at least $400 this spring because of the increase in the price of diesel fuel and gasoline. We must have a rail transportation system with the capability of delivering a growing volume of grain domestically or to export positions on an uninterrupted basis at the least cost to the farmer. We must adopt a grain handling system which has the capability of servicing the farm at the least cost yet meet the increasing volume of throughput required to service modern transportation facilities in both country elevator systems and at coast port or lake terminals. I have in mind facilities at Prince Rupert and Churchill.
I am told I have only one minute left, so I shall try to conclude my remarks. We must have a policy that provides adequate levels of inventory on a continuously expanding basis to meet domestic, human, livestock and poultry requirements in keeping with constant growth requirements everywhere in Canada from Bonavista to Vancouver Island. We must also have a policy which will allow Canadian farmers access to world markets in spite of artificial barriers created by other exporting countries-I have in mind tariffs, domestic or export subsidies and import levies-while at the same time returning to the Canadian grain grower adequate prices and income for his production.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdoly) has made some excellent suggestions which embody fine principles. However, we are faced with the problem of how to implement them. We must decide upon the machinery to implement some of his more reasonable suggestions in a program or legislative context. I must say that there is a degree of hypocrisy in this motion in that the NDP has moved the motion under Standing Order 26, knowing full well it will not come to a vote and that it has no legal sanction so far as the government is concerned. This government is in power today because hon. members to my left have kept it in power. Anything this government does which is inequitable and does not meet the situation is done because the government has been kept in power by those hon. members. They cannot deny that fact.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who supported the corporate tax cuts?


Gerald William Baldwin: While we have heard some reasonable comments from hon. members in that area of the House, there is a certain degree of hypocrisy about this motion. At least hon. members in the Social Credit party have on occasion had enough gumption to vote against the government, and for that reason they are entitled to be heard. I suggest they speak with a great deal more credibility than hon. members in the social NDP. Those hon. members to
26446-68i

July 16, 1973
Feed Grains
my left are like the 12 Bengal tigers in Quebec who surrendered recently.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) made a great speech a few minutes ago in which he blamed most of our problems on the international situation. He adopted a defeatist attitude and said there was not much we could do about the situation. What is an international situation other than a series of national situations? International situations are solved by national governments which have some gumption. This is what we expect this government to have, but it is incapable of action. The Minister of Agriculture, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) suggest that all our problems result from the international situation. That is the only reaction we can get from this government.
Let me refer to one part of this motion, that part which refers to oilseeds. This has been the subject of great deal of discussion since the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) imposed export controls. I wish to refer to a comment which appeared in the Montreal Star of July 7, this year. The Star is not notorious in its hostility to the government. It is quite friendly with the government. This is what the article says in speaking of the proposal put forward by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
The bulletin-
A paper put out by the Department of Agriculture.
-also predicted declining prices for oilseeds in future months.
It can be argued, therefore, that by imposing oilseed export restrictions the government has merely denied holders of oilseeds an opportunity to cash in on top prices.
The threatened limitation on oilseed exports was, then, little more than highway robbery, without benefit of a mask.
I do not think the government should forget those facts. As a matter of fact, in talking about oilseeds, I was interested to hear the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) speak about rapeseed being the third largest cash crop of this country and Canada being the largest exporter in the world. My mind goes back some 12 or 13 years, or a little more than that, when the situation in respect of rapeseed was indeed very dismal. Production had dwindled to a trickle. During world war II rapeseed became an important crop. The Wheat Board, urged by the government with a guaranteed price of six cents a pound, urged farmers to produce rapeseed in order to meet certain shortages which had developed in the world because of the war situation. The farmers responded. In the northern part of Saskatchewan and Alberta, in certain parts of Manitoba as well as in the Peace River country they responded magnificently and produced large crops of rapeseed.
When the war was over the situation changed. The Liberal government, as well as most other Liberal governments, did nothing at all about it. They sat back and allowed the production of rapeseed to go down to virtually nothing. Nothing was done until the Conservatives came to power.
I shall be honest and say that the government did not act first. The first action was taken by a dozen Conservative members from northern Alberta, northern Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) was one of that group. The late Reynold Rapp,

who was the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale, was another. We took the case before the Board of Transport Commissioners. Then Conservative members of parliament were called to testify in order to have rapeseed declared a grain product within the provisions of the Crowsnest pass rates which were applicable to other grains. The decision went against us, but because of the fact that those members made such a tremendous case, buttressed by facts and economics as well as knowledge of what was happening in the country, the Conservative government took hold of the situation, amended the Railway Act, and rapeseed was declared a grain. The Department of Agriculture was inspired to take steps in respect of testing and facilitating the introduction of strains which would be more attractive. Rapeseed has never looked back since that time. It took the Conservative government to accomplish this. There was not a single Liberal member of the House who did one thing to facilitate the action taken to have rapeseed become the third largest cash crop of this country. There was no help from the NDP. It was the Conservative members of parliament who took the action which resulted in rapeseed becoming the crop it is today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gerald William Baldwin: The record will show that this is the case. The NDP, which is a real old line party, never offered assistance in that respect. There is a story about the NDP which I would like to tell. It is a story about a farmer who went into a bar in northern Saskatchewan and ordered a bottle of beer. He took the bottle of beer, looked at it for a while, took it into the bathroom and poured it down the toilet. He went back and ordered another bottle of beer. He put it on the table, he did not drink it. He went into the bathroom again and poured it down the toilet. He did this four or five times. The bartender said that it was none of his business, but why was he doing this? The farmer said it was very simple. He said he belonged to the NDP and that he was trying to eliminate the middleman.
The hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdoly) said something about a trial balloon. I agree with him on that. It is all very well for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) to come here and blandly deny the news story which we heard. I remember when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) released his great policy in respect of energy. There was a secret document leaked at that time, about a month ago. It concerned a program showing how it should be done, where the minister should be seen, how the press should be invited to parties and so on. That is how they operate.
When we learn of these stories and of how the government is proposing to operate with regard to feed grain policy, let not the minister plead innocence. They were generated as propaganda from him and his party friends. I agree with the hon. member for Meadow Lake and accept his statement in this regard.
I see my time is passing and I do not have too much time in which to deal with the second part of the proposal. I wish, however, to bring to the attention of hon. members a serious situation which exists in the Peace River country, a situation which perhaps developed because of the stupidity and incapacity to act of the government in respect
July 16, 1973

of feed grains. Several years ago there was an excellent barley crop in the Peace River country. As a result of the same kind of rumour produced by the government, the farmers believed that there would be an exceedingly high price for barley. Therefore, the farmers, under the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, obtained advances representing large sums of money in the belief, prompted by reports emanating from the Department of Agriculture, and the situation existing in the department of the Minister of Justice, that they would receive prices which would justify their taking these advances. Of course, this did not happen. Prices went down and many of these farmers had to get rid of their grain at a disadvantage. Since that time there have been three crops which have not been good because of inclement weather.
Last week while attending a farmers meeting in the Peace River country I was handed by one of my farmer friends a statement of claim issued by Her Majesty in the name of Canada. That statement of claim involved an amount of $1,800 which was the balance owing on a $2,500 advance under that act. An amount of $700 had been paid on account. Because of the fact that this farmer had had two bad crops he was now being sued. Here is the statement of claim wiith the Great Seal appearing on it. The Wheat Board sent out a bailiff to serve this document. There is probably mileage involved so possibly the cost will amount to $150 or $200, even more if the case goes to judgment.
That is not all. I had occasion to telephone the sheriff on the judicial district of Peace River and the sheriff of the judicial district of Grand Prairie. Almost 400 farmers have been sued during the past few months, most of them during June, at a time when it is notorious that farmers do not have the money to pay these bills. And this despite the fact that they have a good crop year coming up. As I say, they have been sued: these documents have been sent out. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) talks about not wanting to send police from farm to farm. He and the Canadian Wheat Board are sending bailiffs from farm to farm, at very high mileage costs, to serve these papers on the farmers. I am not making any threats, Mr. Speaker, but I suggest that the minister get in touch with the Wheat Board and tell it to suspend further action in these cases which now number some 400.
These are good farmers. The amounts owned total some $600,000. I am not acting as a lawyer but as an ombudsman, as a member of parliament representing these people, in the same capacity as I am sure hon. members to my left would act. From my experience as a lawyer I would say that the costs involved are $75,000 to $80,000. I say that is a shameful, shocking action on the part of the Wheat Board. If the minister does not know about it, he should acquaint himself with the situation.


Otto Emil Lang: Do you condone failing to pay debts?


Gerald William Baldwin: It is not a question of failing to pay debts. If the Minister of Justice thinks this is the way to treat good, honest farmers, it is about time he left his job as a minister and as a member of parliament.
Feed Grains


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: They promised to have the grain.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this evening, but I am quite surprised to see that it is an emergency debate, especially when considering the conditions since the creation of the Canadian Wheat Board. While examining the motion of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), I realize that he is sounding himself, that he is concerned and that he is asking the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) to state before Parliament the new policy which the government intends to develop for the sale and pricing of feed grain.
First I must congratulate the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board for its excellent work during the last two years. I have attended the sittings of the Standing Committee on Agriculture since my election in 1968 and I have noted Mr. Speaker, the efforts of the officials of the Canadian Wheat Board to sensitize all countries and act as dealers trying to capture part of the market for the marketing of western grain. Considering the outcome of these trade missions, I would be ashamed to be a member of the opposition and to call the minister the names we have heard in this House last year and even this year. I am wondering if these members are talking in the name of grain producers or if they represent the interests of some other people.
We have seen, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) filibustering during two years the proposal in respect of the farm products marketing national policy. We have seen the same member for Crowfoot, when amendments to the wheat board were brought forward concerning grain standards, and again in 1969, he did filibustering at the time of the development of the new grain policy. We wondered if he was representing the producers or the interests of elevator owners. Once again this evening, when time comes to discuss the adoption of a modern policy, a policy designed to meet a need, the same member for Crowfoot makes himself the spokesman for the opposition.
Mr. Speaker, let me summarize the history of the Canadian Wheat Board to reach my conclusion: that board has been the topic of considerable discussion in this House. When we study the powers it was granted, it seems empowered to control all movements of cereals for export between the western provinces and the rest of Canada. It has the power to control the imports of feed grains except for feed corn.
However, Mr. Speaker-and I speak now as a member representing all of Canada and not only the province of Quebec-we accept that the Canadian Wheat Board should protect the interests of western producers as well, when need be, that it should fight for the western producers that they might get a decent price for their produce, and find markets for them.
We have accepted that situation; however, Mr. Speaker, in the east we have but one power, that of trying to intervene when the need arises, when prices are set by the board, above all to serve the interests of western farmers. But there is no agency, in the east, to represent us ade-

July 16, 1973
Feed Grains
quately, that there might be some form of equity between the west and the east.
That policy has had disastrous results, Mr. Speaker. It jeopardized the ultimate factor of growth of agriculture in eastern provinces and in particular in the province of Quebec, where we depend upon the purchase of western grains for more than 60 per cent.
Therefore, it is extremely important to review the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board, and this is so true that when I was member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, we dealt with the problem of grains because there had been a surplus in 1969-70; as a matter of fact, the committee members went to the western provinces, and eastern members maintained good relationship with their colleagues from the Prairie. We visited western farms, we understood the problem and tried to bring about a solution. One of these was to try to be a little more competitive on the export market. We were asked as well to set up a two price policy for wheat. I would have thought that tonight someone would be tactful enough to state that the liberal government had established this policy for western grain. I also thought that they were going to speak about the 2,000 hoppers cars that were bought to facilitate grain movement. Those are changes that we introduced.
But when it comes to improving the feed grain policy for eastern producers, our colleagues from the west stand up with panic, ask themselves questions, and are worried about the decision to come. We were not worried, but pleased to hear that the Liberal government had set up the two price system for western grains. We were pleased and proud to be Canadians and to contribute to this assistance to western producers.
Mr. Speaker, a moment ago, I heard the previous speaker praise up the Progressive Conservative party. On our way back from a trip of the Standing Committee on Agriculture in the western provinces, we had stopped in Toronto, on January 25, 1971, and I asked the Ontario minister of Agriculture, Mr. Stewart, a question regarding a policy known as the balkanization policy between provinces: it was that of chicken and eggs. I was just mentioning this balkanization policy of broilers between Quebec and Ontario, and I was explaining our disappointment regarding that balkanization policy. The Ontario Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Stewart, replied to me, as stated in Issue No. 14 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Agriculture of January 25, and I quote:
-the balkanization of Canada started in 1935 with the implementation of the Wheat Act-
That was the Ontario Minister of Agriculture's reply. He was just telling me that the first balkanization policy had started with the Conservative party in 1935, by the implementation of such a policy. In 1973, Mr. Speaker, we are trying to streamline a little this policy as we have been able to find out tonight.
Mr. Speaker, all hon. members from the east have drawn the attention of the ministers concerning this situation which cannot last anymore. And the proof, Mr. Speaker, is that I have before me a report released by the Canadian Livestock Feed Board concerning the comparison between

the feed costs for hogs in the eastern and western provinces, and I quote:
Referring to the table, it can be seen that the advantage of feed cost for the Prairie hog breeders (compared with those of the province of Quebec) has gone from $2.94 per hog in December 1967 to more than $8 per hog for several months during 1970 and 1971.
Mr. Speaker, in a booklet of the Canadian Wheat Board you can read the following:
We could refer this difference in food prices to the cost of transportation of $4 per carcass of hog between the Prairies and Montreal.
Thus, there is an untenable situation according to which the eastern producers, especially in Quebec, must buy feed in the west. The province of Quebec is a customer buying 60 million bushels of grain and we do not want to take this advantage away from western producers, but we want to establish equity between western and eastern producers; I referred, a while ago, to the brief of the Canadian Wheat Board where it is indicated there was a difference of up to $8 per hog in 1971 and this does not concern equity between east and west. We want the same price as western producers, but what worries us more on top of the price gap, Mr. Speaker, is this: an article has been published in the January 24 issue of Agriweek stating that an organization wants to go and establish itself in Alberta. It is the North American Food Processors Ltd. which wants to produce 640,000 hogs a year because in Alberta it is possible to buy feed grain at better prices than in the east.
Mr. Speaker, in view of all these facts, the producers are worried and, once again, we are not asking for preference, but for equal benefits. We estimate that the eastern market for finished products is better than in the west. We are ready to suffer a differential between east and west in this field, but we will not accept the continued implementation of such a policy.
This is so true that if a market exists in the eastern provinces and if we do not want to meet this market those provinces will have no choice but to buy grain at competitive prices. This situation does not prevail now because there is a world shortage of grains and I hope that the solution we will reach will not reflect the current situation but what we have seen during the past years.
This problem is most complex. We must maintain our western market, our eastern consumption market and save our exports market. This problem is most complex but I would tell the minister that Quebec, as the Maritimes, but in a more special way, will not be able to accept a compromise. If we happen to chose a sale price for grains, and if we subsidize the transportation of a finished product, this will be a compromise which shall not be accepted. We want a fair arrangement for east and west but we shall not accept half solutions.
I would have appreciated hearing the member for Crowfoot making suggestions in connection with improving the feed grain situation. I would have liked to hear the member for Crowfoot tell us which role will be played by the provincial marketing agencies in the field of grains. What would be the role and the objectives of such organizations, in Alberta, for instance, with regard to grain marketing? I wish the hon. member had spoken about this, but he made no suggestions; he limited himself merely to criticizing.
July 16, 1973

Mr. Speaker, I close-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret very much interrupting the hon. member, but the time by special order made earlier today has expired. The hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier).


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I must first of all congratulate the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) for presenting his motion and giving his colleagues the opportunity to speak on a most timely topic for farmers of both eastern and western Canada, with a view to asking the government to announce its real policy on feed grains.
After having heard the minister in charge of the Canadian Livestock Feed Board and the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) this evening, I gather that we will get no further information, as he has postponed a statement to a later date. But still, this has given us the opportunity of finding out something about the opinion of the people of western and eastern Canada and, this evening, we get the impression that the western farmers are fighting very hard to save the Canadian Wheat Board.
One would think that the eastern farmers are out to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board. That is not the point at all! Eastern farmers merely want the government to intervene in this discussion and reach a fair decision.
We consider that the Canadian Wheat Board, which is the major pool for all western grain producers, has always done a good job. The farmers must keep on getting the support of their board, as we, in the east, have the support of the UP A, which looks after the interests of farmers. No one can stop us from siding with the UPA and asking it to protect farmers.
Nevertheless, the Wheat Board should not become the private preserve of the west, against which the government would be powerless. That is why I say tonight that the Wheat Board, like the UPA, is certainly not above the Feed Board? It is a private organization, and agency of western producers, as the UPA is the organization of the Eastern producers, and, according to me, the Feed Board, which is primarily a government agency, must have priority over the Wheat Board. In recent years, successive governments have left to much freedom in trade matters to the Wheat Board. This is why it feels today that it can do anything and even control the government. We do not agree with and we urge the government and the minister to intervene and settle once and for all this famous problem of the Feed Board to the interests of our western farmers surely, unlike protective the rights of our eastern producers as well.
The minister said a moment ago that thanks to the policy adopted, meat and milk production in Canada is gradually increasing. Well, I wish I could congratulate him, but it is not the general feeling, in our region at least, for production is gradually decreasing; over 30 to 35 per cent of our dairy herds have been destroyed because producers could no longer live on their farms.
Feed Grains
The meat problem is almost as bad as the wheat problem. A member from the New Democratic Party was speaking earlier about the wheat problem and saying that next year there will be a wheat shortage. I am inclined to believe him, in view of the policy of uncertainty and the doubtful programs now in existence.
Mr. Speaker, some members from the New Democratic Party went as far as to claim that Quebec farmers paid their wheat cheaper than westerners. Some have eveb been heard to say: In the west, we pay more than one dollar for a bushel of wheat. To give an example relating to Quebec, here are some figures which have just been published by the producers, and I quote an editorial from "Le Cooperateur agricole":
More about feed grains-Disastrous costs
At the time we write these lines, the price of soya meal 49 per cent in bulk on rail in Montreal is $472 a ton compared to $125.25 at the same date last year, June 12, 1972. For barley, the price is $4,3614 per hundredweight at the Lakehead, compared to 2.35 per hundredweight on June 18, 1972, while the same prices for wheat are respectively $5.32 compared to $2.6114 .
This gives my dear western friends an idea of the price easterners pay in Quebec; the figures I have quoted have just been published and those are official prices. I think they are not quite aware of the excessive prices our farmers pay for feed grains. That is why we want to call their attention to the role of the Wheat Board. They only have to study the statistics and try to find out the parity between the two. I think that this will give them a guideline and make them see the discrimination eastern producers are complaining about.
Talking of discrimination, the Conservatives like the members of the New Democratic Party must have received the report submitted to the caucus of the various parties by the Quebec Millers Association, and if I had time to read this report, I think I would throw some light on many cases tonight. Speaking of equity can we say that it is possible between the east and the west?
In the report they submitted us, it should be noted that the organizations warned the Wheat Board, with regard to the settlement of the problem, and I quote:
How can we explain that westerners are appointed to find a solution to the problem, when the problem was raised by eastern farmers and governments. We can wonder if we are thus not running the risk of imposing on the eastern people a political solution which is beneficial to the west. Such a procedure, by the way, would only aggravate the condition.
No matter how Quebec considers the grain problem, it is a basic element for the development of the Quebec agriculture. The previous data show that at the present time, Quebec is largely dependent on grain supplies from the west. The previous data have shown us also that breedings which must rely thereon are a valid enough direct or indirect contributors to the economic development of Quebec for the latter to be interested in those breedings-
The Quebec breeders are convinced that lately the price of grain feeds, apart from marketing costs, have not been the same for Quebec and Prairie breeders.
One consequence of that condition, among others, was to disrupt the balance which must exist between the price of grain and that of cattle.

July 16, 1973
Feed Grains
Then, they refer to differences in prices for grains between western and eastern breeders, still in the same report. The New Democrats and the Progressive Conservatives must have read it; I am surprised to find out tonight that, really, the western members do not realize better the problems of Quebec after reading such a report. On page 5, one can read the following:
The powers of the Canadian Wheat Board enable it to control any grain movement for export or even between the western provinces and the remainder of the country. It is authorized to control the import of feed grains from other countries, except corn grain. Moreover, as regards this grain, the board, through pressures, changes its entry into the country.
There is the problem and I think that it is time for this government to act and express itself frankly on this matter. And this is why they say: Can you make any concrete proposals? Upon reading this report, we find out that eastern farmers are making concrete proposals to the government.
Here are the first proposals:
1.	The Canadian Wheat Board will be the feed grain selling agency on the domestic market outside the designated area.
2.	The assistance to feed grain transportation is part and parcel of Canada's feed marketing system.
3.	The price of feed grain on Canada's interprovincial market should be determined on the basis of the FAIR formula ... providing all Canada's grain producers are on equal terms.
4.	Feed grain marketing committees and board in the different provinces, in agreement with the Canadian Wheat Board as well as the Canadian Feed Board should compile and publish weekly statistics concerning outside-of-the-board grain prices and trends.
5.	Initial prices ... in the case of wheat, barley and oats should reflect the cost of production.
6.	Any policy intended to improve grain prices in a reasonable way in the Prairie provinces will be accepted by Quebec providing eastern growers are always on equal terms.
7.	The right to grant feed importation permits should be shifted from the Canadian Wheat Board to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
8.	Encouragement to any process that would minimize Prairie feed transportation costs to the consumer's areas.
9.	A study should be undertaken on the future role of the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange.
Such are the proposals from eastern farmers.
Yesterday I received a letter. Mr. Speaker, if I have enough time left, I should like to read it into the record to be published in Hansard so that the ministers can read it. It is dated July 13, 1973 and reads as follows:
Dear Sir:
The annual convention of the UPA Federation of Saguenay-Lae-Saint-Jean set up as priority for 1972-73 the solution of the problem dealing with the cost of feed grains for producers from eastern Canada.
The same priority was given to the provincial UPA by the Quebec producers at the general annual UPA convention.
The UPA was asking for a fair policy regarding the price of feed grains paid by eastern producers and the one paid by western producers. It also recognized that such fair play could be possible by paying a differential for the transportation and handling of grain purchased in the east but coming from the west, in balance with the transportation and handling of stock shipped from western to eastern provinces.
Of course, the UPA asked that the grain freight assistance policy be maintained.

This policy is favoured by all producers of the province and particularly by the producers of our region, where the imbalances of grain prices is felt more due to the natural limitations of the Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean to produce its own grains and especially certain classes of grain. The producer of the region is thus doubly preoccupied by this question of grain prices, and particularly those who have specialized themselves in certain types of production.
The board of directors of the UPA of the Saguenay I.ac-St Jean, aware that a decision will shortly be taken by the federal government on a grain policy for eastern Canada, urges you to support the policy of the UPA concerning this question, expecting that you shall use all your influence so that this policy be adopted.
The question of grain prices in eastern Canada has been raised for a number of years and it must be solved shortly in terms of the future of agriculture in eastern Canada and our region in particular. The UPA of Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean is therefore expecting that you shall support it as best you can and assures you of its consideration.
That, Mr. Speaker, is what the people of my region want and what the farmers and producers of the province of Quebec want. They do not ask that people in western Canada be not guaranteed a certain income; they want a fair market, they want to see the same protection given to the people in the west also given to those in the east, and we must admit that it is only fair and reasonable.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, this debate will not defeat any Liberals nor will it gain any Liberal seats in the province of Quebec. However, it is a very important debate. It is time the Liberal Party looked at what is happening in Quebec and Ontario, particularly northern Ontario, with regard to feed grains. Most members believe in the Wheat Board operating as an agency to sell western grain both domestically and internationally. With few exceptions most people in this country agree with that. The reason for the exceptions is that we have as poor a minister as possible administering the act. This is because of his lack of knowledge on agriculture.
The Wheat Board has done a very good job of stabilizing prices for western farmers and providing equality, which is probably more important than prices. We all know the difficulties that have occurred in the past few years. Farmers in western Canada had to sell to the former premier of Saskatchewan wheat and furniture, which he in turn traded in for other goods. We all remember what took place. The Liberals are not above making a few bucks on that type of operation. If the present Premier of Saskatchewan asked the minister responsible for the Wheat Board to delay making any kind of statement until they had an opportunity to get some input, he would be wrong and would be doing a disservice to Canada and to the Wheat Board.
There is going to be a change in the operation of the feed grain agency in eastern Canada. The agency will have to play a new role. I hope it will provide enough feed grain in eastern Canada to meet the need, at a price that is fair and reasonable to Canadian farmers. I do not suggest that the agency do anything but buy in western Canada from the Wheat Board, the same as other agencies, on the grain exchange. The price the eastern feed grain agency pays should be exactly the same as that paid by other customers buying from the Wheat Board, whether it be on the international market, the domestic market in general or the eastern feed grain market. Who is screwing the farmer in
July 16, 1973

eastern Canada? It is the co-ops and the feed grain agencies. They are buying from brokers on the Winnipeg Grain Exchange and are hosing the hell out of eastern Canada farmers. Everyone knows that. The co-ops are as bad as everyone else. They buy from the brokers and sell for all the market will bear.
There is another problem that has to be solved. If the minister is the least bit interested in the Wheat Board, he will do something about it.


An hon. Member:: He has gone home.


William Arnold Peters: He might as well go home. He cannot lose his seat, because he cannot go back to the university. His law is as bad as his knowledge of agriculture, so there is no use talking to him.


An hon. Member:: The union will protect him.


William Arnold Peters: I hope so, because he may need it. When the Conservative government gave to the feed mills and large feed lots in western Canada they also sabotaged the Wheat Board. They protested to the Wheat Board about purchases they made on the same basis as anyone else. I am not referring to the small farmer who takes a three-ton load to his neighbour who has a few steers. I am not interested in that. However, as long as stories come out of western Canada about farmers being able to buy grain at 50 cents a bushel because they need their money to buy a new cow or a television set, and therefore operate in their own area on a barter system, it will destroy the support to which the Wheat Board is entitled in both eastern and western Canada.
As far as I am concerned, all agencies, including the feed grain agencies in western Canada, the large feed lots and the eastern feed grain agencies, should be dealing with the Wheat Board. The co-op, or whoever else wants to, can buy from the brokers operating under the Wheat Board. They will be buying under an arrangement which will give them the benefit of a forward price, and the grain can be put into place in eastern Canada.
One major difficulty, of course, is that for six or seven months of the year the St. Lawrence is closed to shipping as far as transportation of feed grains to the east is concerned. The only possibility of using the seaway is confined to a month or so before the freeze-up when buyers are now entitled by law to put into the elevators at Baie Comeau, Prescott and a number of other places a supply which will enable them to guarantee delivery without having to ship by rail to eastern Canada. They are now able to do this. But who are they doing it for? They are doing it for the Co-ops Federees, for the Ontario United Co-ops, for Northern Star, the company which started the feed grain agency. This was the agency, in Arnprior, which doubled or tripled the price of feed grains a few years ago, resulting in the study which finally led to the setting up of the feed grain agency in eastern Canada.
It is important that the minister be fair and, much more important-because I have no faith in him-it is important that the three premiers of the western provinces be fair. There are 20 or 30 members from Ontario and 50 or 60 members from Quebec who are directly involved in this issue. If they do not wish to see the members who are
Feed Grains
interested in buying feed grain from western Canada destroy the Wheat Board, if they are not prepared to face this possibility, then they should provide the eastern feed grains board with sufficient power to buy grain so that it can, in turn, store the grain and sell it as required to feeders at reasonable price.
Mr. Speaker, when we are held up in eastern Canada, we cannot help noting the prices which the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) quoted-prices which eastern farmers have to pay. But these are not the prices the Wheat Board received. They are not the prices the broker paid when he bought at the wheat exchange. The price the farmers had to pay was as much as the feed grain business in eastern Canada felt it could squeeze out of them, and this has been going on for a long time. I suggest to members who represent users of feed grain that they should be particularly interested in seeing that agency buy the grain in western Canada at a fair price, the market price. They should expect a subsidy on storage, which they are now getting. They can expect a subsidy on transportation, which they are now getting. They are also entitled to be assured supplies the price of which does not increase as the season advances. The only alternative is to buy by carload lots, or part carload lots, from the head of the lake, though the cost of transportation is so high that it is not possible to meet competition by this means.
Westerners will also have to consider the needs of eastern Canada. It is my honest opinion that we in eastern Canada can easily be self-sufficient if the need arises. We produce a surplus of corn, and I am sure that if the need becomes great enough, and if the price cannot be sufficiently stabilized, we shall produce sufficient grain for our domestic needs. It is a fact that Ontario presently exports wheat as well as most other cereal crops. Those representing western Canada must see that an agency is established in eastern Canada which will allow for forward purchase and a forward pricing mechanism to provide what we all consider to be a reasonable differential between eastern and western prices and to ensure that we in eastern Canada feel we are getting a reasonable deal and that farmers in western Canada, on the other hand, get the maximum they can for the product they are growing.
I do not think any member from eastern Canada wants to see a war in the feed grain industry, one which would inevitably raise the price, not lower it, and make it much more difficult for orderly marketing to be established. I hope the three premiers in western Canada will bear in mind during the discussions on the Wheat Board that the board may be in serious difficulties, because 70 or 75 members here from eastern Canada are damned interested in western feed grain and at any time we can upset the balance in western Canada. I hope the western premiers will not consider putting us in that position. All we want is equality. All we want is a forward price we can live with, and that is the price which is paid on the grain exchanges in western Canada, the price any other purchaser would pay. But we shall be obliged to demand that our agency has the right to buy, the right to put that grain into storage and the right to exercise some supervision over the colossal profits being made by certain feed companies in eastern Canada.

July 16, 1973
Feed Grains
We also demand that something be done about the feed grain mess in western Canada which means that feed grain mills are allowed to buy outside the quota structure. The result is that in years when things are tough and quotas are small, farmers sell to the feed mills out of desperation, at bankruptcy prices-and the mills hose the hell out of everybody else. I do not know exactly what should be done about the feed lots, but some feed lots which are doing heavy buying locally should also be issued with permits as agents of the Wheat Board.
So there are these two problems. The first concerns the eastern feed agency and its inability to buy on the market in western Canada and deliver that grain in eastern Canada at a price which will remain uniform during the six or seven months in which supplies are not available. The second concerns the feed mills and the stories which come to eastern Canada that barley is fetching 50 cents a bushel, wheat can be bought for 65 cents a bushel and oats for 30 cents a bushel. Unless we can get rid of that situation, a lot of flak will be coming from eastern Canada, and rightly so.
I do not want to see trucks going out west to buy from the farmer. I do not think that is the way to carry on orderly marketing. I want to see equality between eastern and western Canada. Western Canada has the advantage of stocks of grain to feed the cows, but we have the advantage of the cows being near the market if we feed them here. In all circumstances, we should try to maintain the reasonable balance which has made agriculture an industry supported by both easterners and westerners. Let this minister not divide the country to the point at which the Wheat Board will be the question at issue.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, this has been an interesting debate. We have listened to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) being virtually contradicted by the last speaker. We have listened to the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board being chastised by the speaker who sits two seats behind him, the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy); we have listened to the eastern position put forward very creditably by other members of the House; and we have heard the statement of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board that agricultural organizations have met and have failed to come up with a policy to satisfy Canada.
All these contradictions of positions within parties would indicate there is still only one party in Canada which is national in nature and which has some hope of resolving this problem for the east and west. I suggest that in the caucus of the Conservative party hon. members are able to sit down, talk over problems and resolve them.


An hon. Member:: What have you got in New
Brunswick?


Fred Alward McCain: We are a little bit better off in New Brunswick than you are. This is a very serious situation in which we find ourselves. The agricultural organizations could not get together because there is no existing government or Wheat Board policy which would make it possible for eastern feeders in Quebec, or for feeders in any other part of Canada, to be assured that their livestock produce

is in a competitive position with that of the western producer. This was the item lacking in government policy which made it impossible for agricultural organizations to unify and propose to the government what they wanted.
Lacking government policy in respect of equal opportunity for livestock production on a national basis, agricultural organizations are helpless when meeting to discuss this subject, and they will continue to be so as long as we have a "nothing" policy on agriculture.
It is interesting to hear the government being criticized by those hon. gentlemen to my extreme left in this House who voted in support of the government on every vote of confidence. They have been particularly critical in respect of agricultural policies. When their votes and their words are reconciled those speakers will become more credible.
There is an aspect of this motion which has not been discussed extensively tonight. I refer to the food industry and the critical shortage of vegetable oils in Canada so vital to the food processing industry. A lack of food commodities on the shelves in this country will result if this oil situation is not resolved.
There is another facet of the problem which has not been discussed, and that is the fact that certain protein producers in Canada are geared exclusively to the export market, primarily exports to the United States. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) said no concrete solutions had been put forward, but I should like to make one or two now.
The government of Canada should immediately undertake to negotiate with the United States the exchange of protein products on a pound-per-pound or unit-per-unit basis. One producer of soybean meal is going to shut down and others may follow because traditional markets have been removed by government action. It should not be very difficult to negotiate an exchange of units of protein with our neighbour to the south.
What is going to happen if this is not done? In my constituency there is an industry producing fish meal with a very high protein content. This is known as herring meal. This meal has not been purchased on the Canadian market but has been traditionally sold on the U.S. market. There has not been a tendency on the part of Canadian food manufacturers to transfer to fish meal. This could be done with a reasonable return to the manufacturer. If by chance this trend continues, this will mean the end of the fishing industry in the Bay of Fundy and will have a serious effect on the economy of that area in the very near future. There is no way the fish meal operators are going to pile up product which is not saleable in Canada at profitable prices, and fishermen will go out of business.
Let us carry this a little bit further. In processing certain foods in Canada we are accustomed to using soybean oil. In Canada we have traditionally imported that oil from south of the border. Is there no way we can negotiate with our friends to the south to keep these vital food industries in operation? Are the fishing people in the Bay of Fundy to be asked to go home to sit and wait while this no-policy government plays a game with rules it does not understand, accomplishing nothing?
We are going to find ourselves with an inadequate supply of margarine as a result of not being able to import

edible oils. It has been suggested that substitutions can be made. It is extremely difficult to have a saleable substitute product, but with the present non-policy we are going to find ourselves in trouble. The consumer in Canada will unquestionably find a shortage of margarine if government policy is not changed.
I suggest there will be a growing shortage of margarine which, in turn, will increase the demand for dairy products, and production in this regard has been no more than adequate under past marketing conditions. We know from past history that this government has no consideration for the farmer, and we know from past history that this government is not going to be concerned with the future problems of the farmer. This was illustrated by the Minister of Agriculture when he spoke tonight.
These problems have to be resolved. We have to keep our protein processing industry going. In order to do so we may have to exchange protein units with our neighbour to the south. If we are to have certain food products on our shelves at reasonable prices to consumers we must guarantee a supply of edible oils for the manufacture and processing of food.
Members of the government have telegrams on their desks today from various people in the edible oil and protein industries. These people are complaining about the situation which now exists. There has been no mention of these complaints by a government member during this debate, but these complaints do exist. In spite of the fact the government has stated we have plenty of protein in Canada today, and much of this is not marketable, some users of protein are stating unequivocably there is not enough protein in animal foods in Canada to last until September 30, which is the earliest possible date on which quotas from the United States can be lifted. We must also negotiate with the United States in respect of the quotas which were imposed when the United States put on controls. We must negotiate in respect of controls on protein or edible oils imported from the United States.
The government has asked for suggestions as to what can be done. Let me refer to three things that must be attempted forthwith. There must be margarine on our shelves, we must have oil to process fish, and we must have oil for french fries, potato chips and other like items. If not, we will be faced with a reduction in the income of our fishermen, farmers and labourers in the food processing industry across this country. We must act in this regard very quickly.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I regret the fact that I am keeping the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) in charge of the Wheat Board from his beauty sleep. He obviously is one Liberal who needs his beauty sleep more than anybody else. Nevertheless, I was very interested in the fact that they had a general conference in Vancouver featuring the remaining survivors of his party. They wanted to revive their legions in western Canada. They spent the weekend philosophizing in front of television cameras. What they came up with in western Canada was a separate culture.


An hon. Member:: Biological.
Feed Grains


Mark Willson Rose: Biologically it is a separate culture. Liberalism is no longer indigenous to western Canada. As a matter of fact instead of it being a story of how the west was won, I think it scattered everybody in sight including their own members.
I noted, with a little regret, that both the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), who just spoke, suggested that members of our party seem to be in bed with the government. I think the term they used, which is most unparliamentary, was "hypocrites". I really do not know the definition of a hypocrite, not being a student of the Bible as is my colleague the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson) who is not here tonight to speak on behalf of the many feeders in his riding. I think they should examine where the Conservative Party were, in opposition to the Olympics, and where they were when we were having a look at the corporate rip-off, if they wish to bring down the government and have another election. If they felt that strongly about it, it seems we could have had an election at that time. But when it really came to the crunch, where were they?
The hon. member for Peace River suggested that the NDP were against the middleman. I can well recall a story told by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) about the middleman. However, one of the problems in respect of the Conservative Party is that its members are not middlemen at all, but they are muddled men. They really do not know which way they are supposed to move at any particular time. In spite of keeping the minister up so late, I regret that up to this point he has been reluctant to spell out the kind of policy he anticipates for the people who purchase feed grain in this country, if there is any policy.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) spoke a few moments ago. It seems like a few moments, ago, because whenever he speaks time just flits by since usually there is a vacuous kind of statement from him. He said he would support the policy if he thought it was right, and if not he would speak out against it. I feel the same way. But my problem is that I do not know what the policy is, and neither do any of the feeders in Canada. The minister is flying these barrage balloons, or blimps, all across Canada and nobody knows what the policy is. He might be prepared to defend it to the end, but what he is saying is that he wants to drop it at the western premiers' conference next week. He will drop a blimp at the western premiers' conference. I will feel sorry if he does that.
In the meantime, the purchasers of feed grains in our country spend their time agonizing. I do not say that lightly because they are agonizing. A month ago I attended a meeting, at Carleton Towers, of the National Broilers Association. A resolution was passed at that meeting pleading with the minister to assure the feeders that there would be adequate food grains in Canada. Many of them happen to live in my riding, but they represent feeders all across Canada in the broiler industry. They wished to be assured of an adequate supply at a reasonable price. In spite of this very genuine plea, to my knowledge they have not received a reply. I have not heard a word that would reassure them. I have not even heard a monosyllable. I would prefer monosyllables to the kind of utterances we

July 16, 1973
Feed Grains
usually receive from the minister in charge of the Wheat Board.


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


Mark Willson Rose: Certainly.


Otto Emil Lang: I wonder whether the hon. member has the support of his colleagues from the farming communities of Saskatchewan and Manitoba who sit in this House with him when he suggests low prices and controls in respect of feed grains for animals. He is now asking for low prices. I wonder whether they support him.


Mark Willson Rose: I am pleased the minister said that because it indicates the level of his comprehension in response to anyone who speaks. I said that the broiler people who represent all feeders in that industry across the country wish to be assured of adequate feed grains for their industry at reasonable prices. They did not ask for a low price.


Otto Emil Lang: What is a reasonable price?


Mark Willson Rose: The minister asks what price is reasonable. Walter Reuther was asked a question like that by a group of industrialists. He was asked, what is a fair wage? He thought for a long while and said that it depends on whether you are getting it or paying it. That seems to be one of the problems. The problem is that one farmer is not getting it and the other farmer is paying it. If we can sort out that problem, I think we are well on the way to solving this crisis. We will not solve it by the kind of bland reassurance which we receive from the minister. All he has done is frighten the hell out of everybody in the country.
The Liberals should not think they can solve this problem by holding a conference of this kind at the Vancouver Hotel concerning national security. I suggest that their priorities are misplaced. My concern is for all feeders as well as the feeders in my province. However, dealing with the people in the interior of my province for a moment, they are concerned about an adequate supply. I do not know whether the minister knows about this. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture has some inkling of the problem.
The red meat producers in British Columbia have lost their industry. There is not a reasonably sized active packing house in my province any more. The feeders in the interior of my province want to be assured of decent supplies because they do not get any feed freight assistance, yet within 200 miles they have to compete with non-board grain in years of over supply, which is sold at a reasonable price. Consequently they are severely disadvantaged in terms of marketing their own cattle. They have to ship to Edmonton and Calgary. However, I am not concerned about that too much. I think British Columbia is fairly well endowed. Alberta, on the other hand, sends a preponderance of Conservatives here to Ottawa, and obviously any province like that needs some help. We have lost our red meat industry in the lower Fraser valley. If we do not find some solution to the feed grains problem we will also lose our broiler industry and our hog industry.

When the Liberals were out in Vancouver recently they said they were concerned about the west. Why are you concerned? It is because you've got no members, and you won't get any members if you carry on like that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Even if it is late the hon. member should respect some of the basic requirements of debate in the House of Commons, and one of them is to address the Chair.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I got carried away. As a matter of fact, some people insist that I should be carried away. With all respect, I suggest that I do respect some of the debating points in the House of Commons, and I regret you had to chide me for speaking directly to the minister rather than through the Chair. I accept your guidance and am grateful for it.
I don't know whether the minister cares or not, but this afternoon I took the trouble to phone some of the co-ops operating in my riding. The lower Fraser Valley is a declining agricultural area. I would like to put the blame on the minister for that, but I cannot. It is declining for a number of reasons, the major one because it is peripheral to a large urban area and so it suffers a kind of urban intrusion. At any rate there are some large co-ops operating within it. One is the Surrey Co-op. It has 6,000 or 8,000 members. I have a membership in one called the Otter Co-op, and my number is 5955. I asked them about this policy. They asked me what policy, and I replied the policy that I think we are going to get. I asked them, "What kind of policy do you want?"
The people I talked to are worried that feed grains may be taken out of the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board, and following upon that they are worried about what will happen to the Feed Freight Assistance Act. We have seen its provisions scaled down even since I have been a member of the House of Commons. That does not reassure anyone.
These people are waiting for a policy. In B.C. we should have an opportunity to get non-board grain. We have some, but we are in competition with the feeders in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. These people would like to have the export rate, as applied to feed grain, applied to domestic grain. They feel that if we can ship it out west under the Crowsnest Pass rates and export it, feeders in my riding should be given an equal opportunity. They do not feel that the present situation is fair. They want the price to be equal across Canada so that all feeders and producers will have equal opportunities to produce at an efficient level of productivity.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this feed grains debate tonight because it is easily the most important agricultural issue in Canada today. I wish to confine my remarks to the connection that the livestock industry, particularly the cattle industry, has with the feed grains industry. The beef cattle industry is easily the biggest commodity group in Canadian agriculture today.
Over the last three years we have seen this feed grains issue rage back and forth. The situation has gone from one extreme of over supply of wheat and feed grains to the
July 16, 1973

present situation of tight supply of both wheat and feed grains.
I would like to point out that our Canadian livestock industry continues to buy and utilize feed grains in almost record quantities. The livestock feeders are not complaining today about the high prices of the feed grains. This is somewhat in contrast to some grain producers who recently were complaining about fire sale prices.
Let us take a look at what we are talking about in terms of quantities of feed grains in Canada today. Here are some figures for the last two years, supplied by Statistics Canada. In 1971 we had total feed grains production of
1.210.097.000	bushels, comprising barley, oats, corn, mixed grain and rye. In that same year we produced about 530 million bushels of wheat. The next year, 1972, we had total feed grains production of 1,041,027,000 bushels, and in the same year we produced 533 'A million bushels of wheat. We should note particularly the very large proportion that feed grains made up of total production, 70 per cent of the total in 1971 and 66 per cent of the total in 1972. This gives some idea of the importance of the feed grains industry.
Of our total feed grain production, approximately 80 per cent is used in our domestic feeding industry for cattle, hogs and poultry, with cattle the largest user. One of the most serious problems associated with Canada's growing feeding industry, especially in the west, is the uncertainty of barley production and pricing.
This feeding industry has grown very dramatically in recent years, perhaps with a decided push from the aftermath of the Lift program. However, if long range continuity and stability are to become a reality in our feeding industry, a more equitable pricing and marketing mechanism has to be introduced for our domestic feed grain supplies in Canada. This, of course, is the reason feed grains constitute the most important agricultural issue in the country today. It is also the reason there is so much anticipation with respect to the new feed grains policy that is about to be announced.
I suggest that the current world shortfall of meat and meat products has caught Canada unprepared to seize the opportunity to increase our agricultural production and processing. I also suggest that our beef industry is really well prepared to exploit new opportunities. For example, over the last four years our national beef breeding herd has increased by around 40 per cent. On the other hand, our feed grain producers, through no fault of their own, due to out-dated grain marketing and pricing policies, have been caught unprepared with existing policies that do not permit maximum utilization of feed grain productions in Canada. Instead our attention has been focussed on our export of feed grains in the raw state. We should remind ourselves that every bushel of feed grains exported could have been creating jobs and opportunities for Canadians in producing meat for the growing world and our domestic markets.
Let us be more specific. From January 1 of this year to date we have exported, mostly from western Canada,
80.000	feeder cattle. In the same period last year, approximately 5,000 were exported. This represents about 7 per
Feed Grains
cent of our Canadian beef supplies. I am referring to supply when the cattle are ready for slaughter. Since our fat cattle market is approximately the same in Canada and the United States-that is, the North American market-it is fair to ask how the United States feeder cattle buyers pay more for cattle on their market than on our market.
The competition between United States and Canadian cattlemen for the same market is somewhat more favourable to United States producers or they would not be able to do this. There are some obvious reasons for this. The United States fat steer market may rise about $4 above ours but never drop any lower, transportation costs considered, due to the recent one way tariff between our two countries.
Starting in 1972 our basic herd provision was removed in the new tax laws, whereas United States cattlemen have had liberal provisions for treating breeding herds as capital assets for some time now. Late in 1972, and early this year, United States feeders had a distinct advantage due to the imbalance in DES regulations between the two countries. United States cattle breeders enjoy a distinct advantage in machinery and equipment costs as well.
Finally, there is the extreme shortage and uncertainty of high protein feeds. This is making our Canadian feed lot buyers back away from some of these feeder cattle and allowing the Americans to buy the 80,000 head that have gone across this year.
I suggest that those who wish to retain the present restrictive system of marketing feed grains are really advocating a foreshortening of Canada's potentialities in a world of new food opportunities, and this is doing a disservice to both the grain and livestock producers.
I should like to read from a recent press release put out on July 12 by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association which is appropriate to the debate tonight. The article is headed "Cattlemen Insist on National Solutions" and reads:
In a brief submitted to Prime Minister Trudeau prior to the upcoming Western Economic Opportunities Conference in Calgary the Canadian Cattlemen's Association emphasized the national nature of Canada's beef industry and insisted that cattlemen are opposed to the increasing regionalism of agricultural policies in Canada.
The cattlemen also pointed out to the Prime Minister that the production of beef is one of Canada's largest industries, accounting for 8 per cent of all economic activity in Canada, and that it is the largest creator of jobs and income in Canada. They say that this fact does not appear to have been fully realized by either the federal or provincial governments. The brief deals with a wide range of subjects but in particular deals with the livestock feed grains sector and the tremendous opportunities that Canada has in developing world markets for livestock and livestock products. However they point out that if this is to happen, feed grains and livestock must be dealt with under common policies, and feed grains must be able to move freely in Canada. They suggest that the present division of policy for feed grains and livestock production between two federal ministers does not recognize the interdependence of the two areas and ask that this division be discontinued.
On the question of international trade the cattlemen call upon the government to realize that in respect of livestock by far the most important trade relationship is that with the U.S. The C.C.A. asks that studies be conducted to determine the competitive position of Canadian beef producers with their U.S. counterparts and that in future all government policies should be aimed at improving our position. They point out that this has not always been the case in the past.

July 16, 1973
Feed Grains
I just want to say a brief word or two about the protein feed situation. Although there have been recent restrictions in both the United States and Canada, it seems to me that there were very obvious signs last fall of this serious impending protein shortage. The excessive rain, snow, mud and mild winter conditions made it very obvious that there would be a crop failure of soybeans in both countries. Steps could have been and should have been taken in the late fall of last year to protect our supplies and sources of supply for high protein feeds. In particular, Canada should have taken very special steps to safeguard our soybean supplies through some form of preferred agreement with the United States. Canada should also have taken steps, when these bad harvest conditions were known, to encourage and increase our own protein meal production all across the country.
Until the formal policy on feed grains is announced, it is very difficult to be more specific as to details in this important debate. However, before concluding these remarks let me remind all hon. members in this House of this very important fact of farm life: in terms of dollars, farmers in Canada sell nearly three times as much in the form of livestock products as they do in the form of grain. Put another way, the feeder industry in Canada, of which the beef cattle industry is easily the largest, about $1.2 billion at the farm gate per year, represents the largest customer by far of Canada's total feed grain production, including our export market.
As the largest customer, our Canadian cattle industry is vitally concerned in this issue. We fully expect and indeed feel that it is reasonable to demand full involvement in the ultimate resolution of this feed grains issue.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would remind this House that the Canadian Cattlemen's Association-and I believe all livestock producers in general-want to see the continuation of the Canadian Wheat Board as the principal export agency for wheat and all feed grains that are surplus to our domestic requirements. Our domestic feed grain production and marketing is easily the most important part of our Canadian cereal-cropping industry today, and the future of our domestic feed grains industry rests with Canada's livestock industry, especially cattle.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to add a few comments to this debate because it is important to people right across this country. No individual member who has any rural part of Canada in his riding can feel otherwise.
The minister in charge of the Wheat Board cannot understand why the fear, why the rumours, why the uneasiness about the issue of feed grains and orderly marketing and the problems we are facing with protein imports and domestic protein supplies. There are a number of reasons for this, Mr. Speaker, not the least of which is the fact that the record of the minister over the last several years causes farmers to be fearful. The minister still has not learned and cannot understand why farmers are uneasy and fearful about the health and welfare of the Canadian Wheat Board and orderly marketing in general since he has been around.
I can illustrate why they continue to have their fear from something the minister said in Winnipeg about three

Fridays ago. Talking about his infamous stabilization bill, he said:
[DOT] (Midnight)
I was practically forced to drop the Stabilization Bill, not through the honest disagreement from farm organizations, but through the mischievous actions of opposition politicians.
The minister said two things: first, that there was no honest disagreement from farm organizations, which I submit is not correct; secondly, that there were mischievous actions on the part of opposition politicians.
The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Alberta Wheat Pool, Manitoba Wheat Pool, the United Grain Growers, the three provincial Federations of Agriculture, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, even the Palliser Wheat Growers and the three prairie governments, were all united in opposing the grain stabilization bill. When the minister makes a statement like that one can only assume that he has not learned, that he has not listened to those farm organizations, and they know it. Until those farm organizations see action on the part of the government to convince them otherwise, they will remain fearful and uneasy, especially as the people in the minister's department, and in the Department of Agriculture, keep flying trial balloons to see what kind of reaction there will be in the country to a policy of removing feed grains from the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board, domestically or otherwise.
The other thing that makes them uneasy and fearful is this marvellous ability of the Liberal party to be so disorganized as to have two ministers doing the same thing at opposite ends of the country. Each minister seems to pretend that he is the one who ought to make the important announcements. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), who has not found it convenient to remain for this part of the debate, has wired the ministers of agriculture of the provinces across Canada telling them not to worry and that he will discuss feed grain policies with them in Charlottetown on July 24; and, by golly, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board has told the four western ministers of agriculture and the four western premiers not to worry. He sent a telegram saying, "We will discuss this with you in Calgary on July 24."
What is he discussing, with whom, and who is to do what to whom, either in Charlottetown or Calgary? Really, somebody ought to tell the Minister of Agriculture that perhaps he had better cancel the Charlottetown meeting of July 24, because I know of at least one minister of agriculture who is not going to be there, and I would not be a bit surprised if at least four ministers of agriculture are not in Charlottetown on July 24.


Otto Emil Lang: Why not?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Because there is a meeting in Calgary on July 24, that is why. I would be surprised if the four western ministers of agriculture show up at Charlottetown. There seems to be evidence of true organizational confusion, as the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and the Minister of Agriculture are to have meetings on the same date 3,000 miles apart.
One of the subjects for discussion is to be agriculture and feed grains. This is amazing. Who is kidding whom?

No wonder we are fearful and uneasy about what is to happen to orderly marketing and to the Wheat Board, as long as those two aspects of agriculture are at the tender mercies of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang).
I should like to refer to the telegram that the Minister of Justice sent to the four western premiers. Oh, he said some nice things about the government of Canada not accepting policies which will be destructive of orderly marketing. Our problem is knowing what his version of orderly marketing is as compared with that adopted by other organizations, because there seems to be quite a difference in interpretation. In his telegram he said:
Any national policy on feed grains must preserve effective authority and control by the Canadian Wheat Board over exports of feed grains and the over-all supervision by it of the interprovincial movement of feed grains.
The minister was waffling in that paragraph. He wants the Wheat Board to have the effective authority and control over exports of feed grains, but only supervision over the interprovincial movement of feed grains. That means that the Wheat Board will make sure that the grain is delivered, that there are boxcars and ships to take the grain, but that the dealers and speculators will continue to have a hey-day at the expense of the producers of feed grains, and at the expense of higher costs to people who need to buy those feed grains. People have sent telegrams and letters to all of us over the past weeks; they must be concerned, uneasy and fearful. I do not think they got that way by working their fear up in the middle of the night. They must have cause to be concerned. Judging from the telegrams and letters farmers have sent to me-and I am sure this has happened to members of the House of all parties-our people have reason to be fearful.
The minister talked about the free movement of grain in the west, and so help me if the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) did not also talk about the free movement of grain in the west. They say that in one breath, and in the next talk about orderly marketing. Orderly for whom? What do they mean by orderly marketing?


Mr. Horner (Battleford-Kindersley):: What do you mean?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am glad the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley asked that and I will be happy to tell him what the NDP means. We mean that all feed grains should be completely under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, or, to use the minister's own words, that the effective authority and control with regard to feed grains should be vested in the Wheat Board. Let us call it the Canadian grain board. We would not stop there. Flax, rye and rapeseed would also come under the authority and control of the Canadian Wheat Board.
I do not see why the Canadian Wheat Board, which could be called the Canadian grains board, should not have effective authority and control from the Atlantic to the Pacific in the setting of price. To be fair, feed mills, and feed lots of a significant size, say those with over 200 head of cattle in the western provinces, should be licensed agents of the Canadian Wheat Board, in the same way as elevators are agents. Farmers on the Prairies would be paid the same price as they are paid at the country eleva-
Feed Grains
tors. Feed grains would be sold at the same price on the prairies and at Quebec, and even in the Maritimes, subject only to differences in cost arising out of transportation and handling. It would be quite appropriate to include in such policy a program of feed freight assistance to the Maritimes. That may sound like an oversimplification. We do not see why the Wheat Board cannot be given those powers, and why its authority cannot be increased.
A number of members of this house attended at the National Farmers Union regional convention in Regina on Friday and Saturday. I wish the minister could have been there; he would have found it much more edifying than his sojourn in Vancouver.


An hon. Member:: And more delegates, too.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, and more delegates, who are indigent-indigenous to the area. Some of them are indigent, too. At least, they were indigenous to Saskatchewan, which was not the case in British Columbia. At that convention some members of parliament were asked to state their position.
The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton) stated his, and I give him full marks for being consistent. He said he was all for orderly marketing and, like the rest of his Tory and Liberal counterparts, did not approve of the Canadian Wheat Board having any jurisdiction over feed grains in the Wheat Board territory. Mr. Speaker, that is where we part company from both the Conservatives and Liberals. We say the Canadian Wheat Board should have sole jurisdiction over feed grains in western Canada and eastern Canada. If people want to use the Feed Grain Board in eastern Canada to work with the Canadian Wheat Board in purchasing supplies or negotiating price, fair enough. Personally, I would prefer the Canadian Wheat Board to have jurisdiction right across the country. However, when the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Lisgar start using phrases like "free movement", I get frightened about the future aspects of orderly marketing. I worry about the health, welfare and good order of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Liberals and Conservatives from the Prairies regularly talk about being in favour of orderly marketing; but, when you nail them down, they also talk about free movement. I wonder if that is not the kind of movement that is brought on by a good dose of Epsom salts.
If the minister really wants to do something about feed grains and make them available in sufficient quantities and at a fair price to the feeders of eastern and western Canada, he should put them under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board. If the minister wants to assist in terms of freight and handling cost for purchases ranging from the maritimes to British Columbia and back to Quebec, that is up to the government. Put them all under the Canadian Wheat Board. Let's quit this lip service that is paid by the old line parties to a principle for which farmers have fought for over 70 years, to an organization that is continually placed in jeopardy by those who would like to get rid of it. Let's get rid of the "drag yourself up by your bootstraps", philosophy and mentality of the Winnipeg grain exchange. There should be no question about it: orderly marketing means feed grain under the Canadian Wheat Board for both western and eastern Canada. It is

July 16, 1973
Feed Grains
the only way we can arrive at an equitable policy on price and supplies for farmers in both western and eastern Canada.
I urge that upon the members of the Creditiste party from la belle province. It is the only solution. If they will get behind this kind of support for a Canadian grains board an expanded Canadian Wheat Board, I am certain the producers of western and eastern Canada will arrive at something meaningful. I would even support adding representation from Quebec and the Maritimes to the Canadian Wheat Board advisory board so they will have some input into what the price and supply situation will be. Surely this is the way to develop a fair feed gains policy.


Norval Alic Horner: Mr. Speaker, I want to deal first with the United States limit on the export of oilseed products and protein minerals for feeders. I was alarmed to learn in my constituency that a lot of people are cutting back on production because of the high cost of feed supplements. I am also alarmed that with the world food shortage, producers in the United States are killing their chickens, drowning baby chicks, slaughtering sows and cutting down on food production.
In the United States broiler supplies will be down 10 per cent. Prices are expected to increase. Egg production is expected to decrease by 6 per cent. Prices will remain firm. Milk production will be down. Prices will certainly stay steady. All of this results from the high cost of protein supplements.
With regard to feeder production in the United States, there are 12 to 14 per cent less feeders going into the feed lot. That is an indication the price and demand will be strong in the future. The soybean supply will probably level off if the present crop comes up and fishmeal supplies are adequate.
I read with interest an article in the July 16 edition of U.S. News and World Report. It points out we run the risk of empty meat counters and black markets for meat. These are some of the alarming predictions for the future. This bill will have implications not only on wheat production but on all food production in Canada.
An authority on United States and world food production, Lester R. Brown, was asked about President Nixon's limits on U.S. exports. He was asked whether he thought this was a good idea. He replied, and I quote:
No, it is a serious mistake. It will clearly aggravate this country's balance-of-payments deficit-further weakening the dollar.
We must recognize that agriculture is one of the few areas where we have a strong competitive advantage. U.S. exports of agricultural commodities have shot up from 6 billion dollars five years ago to an estimated 11 billion dollars in the calendar year 1973.
He was further asked, and I quote:
What is the alternative to a limit on exports of farm products food rationing?
He replied:
That might be necessary in one form or another. You see, what we are facing here is a trade-off: We can't hold down farm exports

without endangering the dollar or triggering serious energy shortages.
It is interesting to note that the production of agriculture is that serious in the United States some people at least are concerned that a cut-back on exports would affect the energy crisis in that country.
According to the article, world grain reserves are at the lowest level in 20 years. At the same time world consumption of grain has increased 60 per cent in the past 20 years. There are other factors that affect the consumption of grain in the developing countries. It is estimated that each person will consume about 400 pounds of grain per year, either directly or through meat products. In a country such as Canada, we require about 2,000 pounds of grain per person. As incomes rise in the countries in between, their consumption of grain or grain products will increase. This has rather serious implications for our future plans in Canada.
The minister in charge of the Wheat Board has been making plans on how to handle a lot of wheat. In the United States one acre out of every seven is being used to grow soybeans in 1973. A few years ago very little of that crop was being grown. My point is that the tendency of world supplies changes very rapidly. The minister should think it over very carefully before serious plans are made with regard to our transportation system.
Why do we have a shortage of protein meal? As the previous speaker mentioned, there were warnings there would be a shortage. These were apparently neglected. Russia and China together bought 54 million bushels of soybeans from the United States. Perhaps they sold at too low a price. It is similar to the situation we are experiencing in this country today when we sell our wheat at a very low price.
Last year Russia purchased 28 million tons of food, the largest purchase of food by any country in the history of the world. This perhaps explains the sudden food shortage on the North American continent. Both countries sold food products at too low a price and now face shortages and very high prices for food products.
The other reason for this debate is the referred to rumor. Where did it start? Was it leaked intentionally? Was it accidental? It goes back to an article in the June 29 edition of the Globe and Mail. The rumour was that a cabinet committee recommended that feed grain be taken out of the control of the Canadian Wheat Board. This recommendation was on its way to the cabinet from the cabinet committee on feed grains.
Several weeks ago I heard the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) on a radio talk show in Regina. He stated there would be no need to discuss this matter at the Calgary conference. He knew the position of the premiers and the provincial governments and he was not going to change his mind. This brings us to some of the questions asked tonight by those on the government side. They want the opinions of the opposition parties and want to know what we would do. They come to us at the eleventh hour and ask for our advice all tied up in a neat package.
Why are they now asking us for advice? This policy has been under review for two years. The Standing Committee on Agriculture should have studied it. As a new member of
July 16, 1973

the agriculture committee, I was naive enough to actually believe this was the way policy was decided. I actually believed the parties sat down and tried to come to some solutions to the problems of the country. The decision has been made. It is all tied up in a neat package. The minister responsible for the Wheat Board asks what we would do. He wants information and ideas. At the eleventh hour, he will go to the conference in Calgary with the same request. When the ministers of agriculture meet in Charlottetown, they will be asked the same thing. The minister knows full well all the decisions were made a long time ago.
I received a telegram tonight from the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool which purchases and handles two-thirds of the wheat in the Province of Saskatchewan and which is very concerned about the situation. A board meeting was held, and the telegram I received measures probably 30 inches in length. It is the longest telegram I have ever received and I am sure it is an indication of the concern the people of western Canada and particularly of that province feel about the rumour.
I was talking on the telephone to someone from Saskatchewan today. I questioned my caller as to whether he was serious. I assured him no one would try to take feed grains out of the control of the Wheat Board. He said "Yeah, that's what we thought when they talked about Lift too. I was in Ottawa when they talked about Lift and we all laughed about it. Several months later we found out it was true." The people in Saskatchewan are understandably just a bit touchy when they hear these rumours, regardless of how ridiculous they may appear to be. They are not about to take them lightly after the experience they have had.
I would now like to read a portion of the telegram from the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool to which I have referred.
The Board noted rumours that complete jurisdiction over grain used for feed-oats, barley and wheat-may no longer rest with the Canadian Wheat Board. They said discussions with people throughout the province have indicated that western farmers will not stand for any action that substantially changes the Wheat Board's function.
The Board claimed Hon. Otto Lang, minister responsible for the Board and the Hon. Eugene Whelan, Minister of Agriculture, have had chances to lay to rest fears about the feed grain question, but have not done so. They have given assurances that any new system for feed grains would not harm the west, but on the specific issue of Wheat Board control there has been no meaningful comment.
In Canada, the Board of Directors said, a systems approach for grain handling has been developed built around a strong central marketing authority, the Canadian Wheat Board. The Board administers quotas, co-ordinates transportation, acts as a central selling agency, and through the pool principle assures producers a stable price for their product.
The telegram closes with the following statement:
If the federal government policy on feed grains to be announced later this month does not meet western farmers' wishes, Mr. Lang and Mr. Whelan should be called before the biggest crowd of farm people ever assembled in the history of the province to explain their actions, the Board stated.
Mr. Speaker, those are fairly strong terms from a very large group of western grain producers. I hope the minister in charge of the Wheat Board will take note of their feelings.
Feed Grains
I wish now to comment on some of the remarks made by the member of the New Democratic Party. It is strange, but if the removal of feed grains from the control of the Wheat Board does take place, one thing is certain: the N.D.P. will vote with the government because they know my party will vote against it. One of the members of that party referred to the return of farm to farm or farm to feed lot sales under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board. Since a Conservative government allowed grain to be sold to feed lots we have seen a multi-million dollar business arise in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta.
I can remember the time when all calves were shipped to Ontario. I do not blame Ontario members of the NDP for wanting farm to farm sales to remain under the control of the Wheat Board so they can get all the business back into the province of Ontario. Hundreds of jobs were created by the rise of feed lots in Saskatchewan and Alberta. The meat processing plants which are now coming into being in western Canada are a tremendous thing and might never have come about if sales of grain had not been allowed directly to feed lots.
I could never understand, and I still cannot understand, why if I take a load of barley to the elevator today and try to buy it back tomorrow, it has almost doubled in price. It is completely ridiculous, in my opinion. I discussed this matter with the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. The NDP says that to move grain around a province is okay, but if you move it from province to province, well, that's a different country. It is ridiculous is no reason you should not move grain through the growing areas of Saskatchewan and Alberta, and it is has nothing to do with the control or regulations of the Wheat Board whatsoever. We agree that the Wheat Board should retain control, and cannot understand why, if we want to improve something, somebody has immediately to jump up and down and accuse us of trying to destroy it.
I think there could be a little more producer representation on the Wheat Board. I do not think this proposal should alarm anyone. Surely if a producer is selected by other producers to represent them, the Wheat Board should have nothing to fear. I rode in an airplane last Friday with the manager of agro-rapeseed processors of Nipiwan. I was astounded at some of the stories he related to me of ships from England having to turn around at Montreal and return empty, and producers having to buy rapeseed oil on the European market to meet commitments because of Wheat Board regulations which did not even allow them to sit down with the board and come to some sort of reasonable agreement as to quotas which would allow them to process rapeseed oil. He told me a story of how one level of government or another is always saying we are going to get processing industries into the Prairies and then, on the other, refuses to allow them to operate. Those things can be worked out, surely, by the Wheat Board. It is my suggestion that they get down to see these things are worked out so as to create more jobs the Prairies. Surely no one should accuse me of trying to destroy the Wheat Board because I am in favour of these things. People should have more sense than that.
The policy which is needed is not so difficult to understand. There is a producer, a feeder and a consumer. What does the producer want? He wants a fair return-the cost

July 16, 1973
Feed Grains
of his production returned to him so he can continue to farm. That is not too much to expect. We need a storage policy and a method by which to eliminate the bootlegging which has gone one. We have heard members from the government side talk about the bootleggging of feed grains. Well, they were in power. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) bragged about the government taking the grain industry out of the worst mess it has ever been in. The Liberal government has been in power for ten years. Now the minister claims they took the grain industry out of its mess in 1971 or 1972. Well, who got it into that mess? They get the industry into a mess, they get it out of the mess, and then they want credit for doing so. What does the feeder want? The feeder does not want two-bit barley, or 35-cent barley-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.
[ Translation]


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy to have the opportunity of saying a few words about this motion but, frankly, the problems concerning the production and the transportation as well as the sale of grain are always with us. While the problems always seem to be the same from year to year, we can frankly deal with them by referring to new facts, as the lawyers would say. We simply have to question the farmers who are becoming increasingly annoyed in the west, as well as in the east. They are annoyed in the west by the small amount they receive for their crops, and in the east by the exorbitant prices they are forced to pay for the feed which is essential to raise fowl, hogs or dairy or meat cattle. It is true that the Canadian Wheat Board has been operating in the west for many years. The board, whose purpose is the sale of the Canadian grain production, seems to get out from under by selling at higher prices to eastern farmers than on foreign markets. This board has also succeeded in disposing or our production in various countries through credits made available to these countries by the Canadian government. In fact, after receiving credits granted by our country, foreign countries have shown themselves good customers. Obviously, it is easy to do business under such conditions and, in my opinion, this way of doing business needs no comments.
However, the real problem, as I see it, is not located at that level and, if the problem persists, Mr. Speaker, I think that it simply amounts to the fact that the commissions are duplicating. Two commissions under the same government, under the same minister, must contradict themselves. In fact, the Canadian Wheat Board was created for the purpose of selling Canadian grain at the highest possible price and, sometime later, the same government created the Canadian Livestock Feed Board whose purpose was, in 1966, sales at the lowest prices. Then, since those boards controlled by the same authorities have opposing aims, what was to happen did happen and a board is now in an intolerable situation. It is as if two government agencies were fighting one another. Since they are not of the same importance, the stronger won and we know the results.
From 1966, when the livestock feedboard was established, until now in 1973, that is during a period of seven

years only, we have seen an increase in grain prices from 75 per cent, meaning that what we now pay $140 a ton, cost $80 a ton seven years ago, for the same quality, same weight and same percentage of proteins.
Then, Mr. Speaker, for a board having all powers, one cannot really say it is a success and in spite of its powers it is evident that the board has played a poor commercial role like, for example, little girls who play with dolls and say they are pregnant although they never bear children. The board has boasted about all kinds of things, without giving any results.
I think that at the time the board was established the bill was very clear. And, for the information of hon. members, I would like to quote a rather simple paragraph which is found in Hansard for October 7, 1966. It reads thus: The Board could
-when authorized by the Governor in Council, enter into direct marketing operations in feed grain.
And in clause 5 of the bill, one could read this:
Objects, powers and duties.
The objects of the Board are to ensure
(a)	the availability of feed grain to meet the needs of livestock feeders;
(b)	the availability of adequate storage space in Eastern Canada for feed grain to meet the needs of livestock feeders;
(c)	reasonable stability in the price of feed grain in Eastern Canada and in British Columbia and
(d)	fair equalization of feed grain prices in Eastern Canada and in British Columbia.
In clause 6:
The Board may, in furtherance of its objects, (a) make
(i) payments related to the cost of geed grain storage in Eastern Canada-
I wonder whether the Governor-in-Council has been ill-advised or whether the commissioners have simply lacked boldness. If this is a lack of boldness, Good Lord, there is only one thing to do.
In my opinion, the problem is simply of correcting the situation by appointing new commissioners. Besides, information is lacking and we should find people in a position to inform us. We should go through the recommendations formulated by the UPA and the Quebec flour mills. I am alluding to a rather old brief which dates back to 1971. I said this to point out that we have reports and recommendations made several years ago. It is truly to be regretted that the minister be so reluctant and that the current government waits for I do not know what before acting. Let me refer to this brief. For example, page 3 reads as follows, and I quote:
1. Importance of cereals purchased out of Quebec in Quebec agricultural development.
Quebec is producing about 85 per cent of its pork requirements; 85 per cent of its poultry requirements; finally, 60 per cent of its egg requirements. It is estimated that those productions are largely depending on our cereal imports from western Canada and on American corn. In recent years, Quebec has imported over 1 million tons of cereals a year from western Canada (45,000,000 bushels) and about 300,000 tons of American corn. These supplies are most important for Quebec since they stand for 45 per cent of its cattle feed grain requirements. If you add to this the indirect effects of those productions on Quebec's economy, you will have a
July 16, 1973

more complete picture of the importance of those imports. For instance, the feed grain and meat production industries alone are contributing for over $100,000,000 to the Quebec economy.
The same ideas are to be found throughout this brief. I will not inconvenience the House by reading the other paragraphs but I would like, for instance, to read paragraph 3, page 4:
Importance of reestablishing, for the sale of cereal, market conditions similar to those prevailing for the sale of meats.
The setting up of marketing agencies both at the provincial and federal level are aimed, among other things, at better balancing offer and demand for farm products. That balance between supply and demand cannot be achieved with some control over the production of several food products-
... It would be illusory, for instance, at a time when attempts are being made to impose quotas on the production of pork in Quebec, to stabilize the volume of production, for other marketing agencies to have at the same time, power to exercise control over the movement and prices of cereals. It is quite obvious that if the mobility of pork meat is ensured while being co-ordinated, restrictions on the movement of cereals must be avoided at the same time.
In short, obviously if the meat market is to be competitive within Canada, the grain market must also be.
Mr. Speaker, remember, this brief goes back to 1971. Its recommendations were prepared by the interested parties, people who know what they are talking about; to date, to remedy the situation, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has merely promised that he will announce a policy in the near future. Even though I am anxious to learn about this policy, I think it proper to suggest that it is a little late. Finally, from 1962 on, the government was strong enough and had enough experts to advise it.
But, I wonder why wait for failure or still the disappearance of one third of farmers? Be that as it may, with all the farmers still on the farm, I expect with some impatience something concrete and I urge the minister to act as soon as possible.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word or two at this late hour. This debate comes at an entirely different time from previous years. We had a great deal of grain, and prices were low. The possibility of establishing a fair feed grains policy for the pricing and handling of feed in eastern Canada has evoked a great deal of rhetoric and discussion about the best methods of handling the situation.
Whatever the solution may be to this difficult problem, I think it would be wise to maintain a reasonable attitude and to realize that the amount of grain involved, in relation to the total western grain production, is not large and policies should not be embarked upon that would destroy or fundamentally change the marketing system which has evolved. This does not mean to say changes should not be made if conditions warrant change, but with the high cost of feed for the eastern feeder, highlighted by the action of the United States and Canadian governments in restricting exports of animal protein, the real solution must be postponed until United States crops are harvested. Forecasts are for substantially higher yields, but we still require a great deal in the way of United States and Canadian crops to meet demands.
Feed Grains
It is forecast that in the United States there will be higher price increases for fresh fruits and vegetables, and that there will be a shortage of fruits, vegetable oils, shortening, beef, pork and chicken in the next few weeks. The U.S. freeze on food may well be disastrous in the long run because it is reducing the incentive to the farmer to produce food. Asked before a House judiciary committee studying the increase in food prices in the United States, a witness stated, when asked who was making money out of the high prices, "It is the farmer, but over the last ten years he has lost money, so he is not getting richer".
Turning to the report of Statistics Canada, it shows that western Canadian farmers did not respond this spring to instructions to grow more grain as barley, flax and rape-seed are all down, with a whopping 25,500,000 acres in summerfallow. Even with the best growing weather, western Canada this year will not be producing as large a crop as it might have. It is perhaps difficult to know why this less than expected acreage was seeded in western Canada but it is not surprising considering the long years of low returns and the fact that the farm population is perhaps not large enough to grow the required amount of food. In the United States and Canadian experience lies a lesson. Price controls and freezes, So far as food is concerned, mean a reduction in the production of food. Because our economies are so tightly interwoven, it is important for both countries that we export from this continent as much food as possible to preserve our balance of payments position. And the production of food is one of the few areas in which North America is competitive throughout the world.
In the matter of a feed grains policy, which really means a pricing policy for the feeders of eastern Canada, it seems significant that out of 400 million bushels of barley grown in western Canada, only 60 to 80 million bushels are involved in the movement to the east. As 200 million bushels stay on the farms of western Canada and the balance of over 100 million is exported, it is important that measures not be taken that would reduce the production of barley in western Canada. Yet I believe this may well come about if we are not careful. If the feed grain sold to eastern feeders is much reduced in price over the world market so that in the pool barley prices are forced down, or if restrictions are placed on the export of barley in order to keep down the price in eastern Canada, then almost certainly there will be a reduction in barley acreage. Whatever the final pricing arrangement is for the eastern feeder, for the western grower it must reflect the export price.
The Wheat Board has been the sole marketing agency for feed grains across interprovincial boundaries out of the designated areas. So long as the Wheat Board is selling grain on the overseas market, everyone in Canada is happy to see the board sell to its best advantage because of the benefit to Canada. But when the board is required to establish a price on feed grain on the domestic market it becomes much more difficult. Does the board establish a price in favour of the western producer, or one in favour of the eastern feeder? Naturally, both want the best for farmers and herein lies the dilemma. In the proposed feed grains policy it seems to me most important that the price

July 16, 1973
Feed Grains
charged to the eastern feeder should reflect the export price. Any reduction in price on the barley pool will cause a reduction in the growing of feed grains in the west.
If there is to be assistance to the eastern feeder-there already is the feed freight assistance of $22 million which, certainly in times of high prices, assists the eastern feeder-the price of barley to the western farmer should not be reduced below the export price, because the producer would suffer. There have been some suggestions by various farm organizations. One is that the Wheat Board would offer all producers suitable amounts of feed grain on the open market so that the eastern feeder would have ample opportunity to buy western grain.
There is another solution. At present in British Columbia, out of the Peace River block, feed grain is supplied to the lower mainland by companies which buy grain direct from the farmer and sell to the domestic feeders in the lower mainland. The price received reflects the selling price that the Wheat Board has posted in the feeding area.
The Wheat Board would remain in control of quotas and shipping arrangements. There are those who fear that any lessening of the Wheat Board's authority would undermine its effectiveness to deal with the marketing of wheat, oats and barley. But opinions vary considerably among the farming communities. It seems that whatever the policies are, they will probably not be suitable or acceptable to all people. We are dealing with the situation of a limited quantity of grain, and the simple fact is that if the prices go down this will only cause a reduction in the quantity grown.
I should like to turn to the heart of the resolution, dealing with rapeseed. There are some questions which have not been answered by the government. What is happening to the pricing mechanism in respect of rapeseed and flax, with the export controls? On what basis are rapeseed and flax permitted for export? Generally, we assume that the protein supplements are interchangeable such as in rapeseed or flaxseed meal. However, they are of only limited value in respect of replacing each other. It is important to recognize this. We also must recognize that only a small quantity of the total amount of rapeseed and flax grown in this country can be crushed in the facilities available in Canada.
I think it is important that our overseas markets be not jeopardized by panic restrictions on the export of rapeseed and flax. In effect, we have only limited ability to produce this protein for animal consumption. The government has not indicated how it is coping with this problem. Also, it seems most important that producers not be obligated to take reduced prices in order to protect the market. Surely at this time, when the prices of rapeseed and flax have been low for many years, it should not be the producers who suffer.


Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, the hour is late and I do not propose to speak for very long. I think it is somewhat silly to be debating such a subject when we do not really know what government policy will be. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Big-gar (Mr. Gleave) said that surely we are not going back to primitive measures. I suspect he is referring to the primi-

tive measures adopted by our great neighbour to the south, the United States of America.
I wonder if hon. members to my left have any idea what United States' farmers who are harvesting in Texas and Kansas are receiving for a bushel of wheat. For their information, they receive about $2.35 for a bushel of wheat. These are the same people who voted against our proposal to increase the price of wheat by some 30 cents a bushel; they are the same people who voted for Operation Lift.
The hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdoly) talked about the orderly marketing of feed grains being sacred to western Canada. Well, if you consider thousands of court cases and the establishment of provincial grain commissions being orderly marketing, I suppose that is where we are at right now.
He also said that it was a Conservative government that loosened up on the feed grain regulations 10 or 12 years ago. That is absolutely correct, and the one province in the west that did not have an NDP government took advantage of it. This led to the establishment of feed mills, feed lots and packing plants in the province of Alberta. We used to export, before that, some 500,000 head of cattle a year from western Canada to the United States. This year we exported 80,000 head of cattle from western Canada to the United States, and only 5,000 head of cattle last year. In effect this is the sort of secondary industry we need in western Canada.
The minister talked about the failure of farm groups to arrive at a decision. The only trouble there was that the minister listened to the wrong advice. It is up to the minister and the government to set the policy.
Once again it was interesting to listen to the minister taking credit for natural disasters around the world. Since 1952 the average build up of Canadian exports has been less than 2 per cent a year. There has been no need for the panic and the confusion that the minister created in the minds of farmers about the grains industry in western Canada.
The government has really done nothing to encourage the establishment of secondary industries in western Canada. I am thinking of industries processing our oil seeds. Government policy, through the Canadian Wheat Board, has hindered the establishment of a crushing industry in western Canada.
Tonight we have a motion before us dealing with the threat to the Canadian feed grain market by U.S. controls. Here I am going to use the expression that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) likes to use-ludicrous. I would say that the control placed on rapeseed is nothing short of ludicrous. This is the Cinderella crop of western Canada. The U.S. does not export one single bushel of rapeseed. For this government to place export controls, or even to threaten controls, on rapeseed once again is nothing short of ludicrous.
The present government has never been able to separate grain policy from agricultural policy. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is a very clear distinction in the minds of western producers. Grain policy is very simple-grow
July 16, 1973

it, and sell the stuff. If that does not keep the farms viable, it becomes necessary for agricultural policy to do so.
There is a lot of talk about increased income in the calendar year 1972. In western Canada this increase in income was due solely to a reduction in inventories. I think that if the true picture were laid out one would see that the situation is still very serious there.
The provinces in western Canada certainly should have more input to the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian Wheat Board is so important to the well being of Saskatchewan that the provincial government certainly should name someone to the commission or to the advisory board.
On Saturday, along with my colleague to my left, I attended the National Farmers Union meeting in Regina and listened to the minister of agriculture for the province of Saskatchewan say he found it impossible to deal with the federal government on agricultural matters. I think this is tragic for the farmers of western Canada. What we need is a guaranteed purchase program. We need an international grains agreement. We need an income stabilization plan, and we need a national grain bank.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to bring to a conclusion this debate on one of the most fundamental questions facing western Canada today in terms of agricultural policy. This debate was initiated by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) in order to bring about a clear statement of where the Conservative and Liberal parties stand on the question of the orderly marketing of western feed grains under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. I am afraid that the farmers in no way, in no shape or form, have been satisfied, or assured, or given the confidence of either major party in this House.
Where does all this problem begin? It begins with the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board making a statement, in a telegram to the western premiers, with respect to a feed grains policy and saying he will not announce the new policy until the western economic opportunities conference is held.
In this telegram does he give any real assurance about the role of the Canadian Wheat Board in this whole operation? No, Mr. Speaker. Does the agricultural critic for the Conservative party reassure the western farmers that the marketing of feed grains will stay under the Canadian Wheat Board? In no way, Mr. Speaker. In no way in this debate have we once had a guarantee from the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton), from the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave), or from the minister in charge of the Wheat Board that the marketing of western feed grains will remain under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.
This so-called Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board has been flying balloons on this issue, or blimps as my colleague from Fraser Valley wants to call them. But he has been telling the people of western Canada what is the government's policy on feed grains.
This is summed up in his telegram to the western premiers, and it has upset every person who sits on a wheat pool committee in this country, every person who is a
Feed Grains
member of the National Farmers Union, every person who is interested in the national orderly marketing of grains under the Wheat Board. In his telegram he stated:
Any national policy on feed grains must preserve effective authority and control by the Canadian Wheat Board over exports of feed grains and the over-all supervision by it of the interprovincial movement of feed grains.
This is something which the Tory party agrees with, which we agree with, and I think Social Credit too. That's export marketing. He talks about "over-all supervision by it of the interprovincial movement of feed grains." I say balderdash, Mr. Speaker. All that means is that there is to be the removal of the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board over the movement of feed grains in Canada, and neither the Liberal party nor the Conservative party have told us anything different.
Where does this kind of stuff come from? Does it come from the western premiers? Does it come from the Minister of Justice himself? No, it comes from that grand economist who never saw a farm until they drew up their task force report on agriculture, where at page 131 the following appeared:
New Marketing Guidelines for Coarse Grains-That the Canadian Wheat Board continue to be responsible for all commercial purchases of barley and oats from the primary producer but that:
(a) each purchase by the Wheat Board should be hedged in futures market at the time of the purchase or as an alternative, provision should be made by the Board to hedge daily a certain quantity of coarse grains in the futures market.
And furthermore, it carried on to the point that all the Canadian Wheat Board is set up for in terms of marketing of feed grains is what we hear from the minister-not in the balloon statement reported by the Globe and Mail but in the telegram sent by this minister to western premiers on this issue respecting the question of supervision. The fact of the matter is that in this whole matter the control, power and jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board is being lessened and taken away. That is the policy, not a balloon as some people have said.
May I take the opportunity of referring to somebody who has been ignored in this debate-the Chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board. I want to point out to the minister and to the loyal opposition-who are being so loyal to the government today-that the Chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board made the following remarks, remarks that no westerner should ever forget:
Appearing before the Standing Committee on Agriculture on May 8, 1973, he said at page 5:17:
Remember our job as the Canadian Wheat Board-and I make no apologies for it because you understand it fully-is to do the best job possible for the western Canadian farmer. Under that premise, we feel justified that it was fair to do what we did this crop year. I may also point out that it was only because there was a Wheat Board customer marketing that it was possible to protect supplies quantitatively for the domestic market.
He then went on to say-and maybe once in a while the man who is handling the Wheat Board ought to be listened to by the minister:
Under a free market system you easily could have found the Canadian feeder in eastern Canada in a position where Canada had been denuded of supplies. The United States came very close

July 16, 1973
Feed Grains
to this point of danger last summer under their system when massive purchases were being made and Washington had no idea how large they were.
That is the kind of situation the producers of the east are going to face if the Canadian Wheat Board loses its jurisdiction over the operation of feed grains in western Canada.
Let me say one thing more. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) got up in this House of Commons-and it is referred to in this resolution-and moved for export control. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton) pointed out-and I commend him for it-that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce stood up in the House of Commons and moved export controls on rye, rapeseed and flaxseed going into the world market. The hon. member found that ludicrous, and I found it ludicrous, but we found it ludicrous for different reasons. I know the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek is not going to support putting flaxseed, rapeseed and rye under the Canadian Wheat Board so that they know what they have under domestic control and what goes to the export market.
The same problem arises in the marketing of feed grains. You have to know your supplies and have orderly marketing in terms of that supply. You cannot talk about supervision on the part of the Canadian Wheat Board; you cannot talk about supervision by that board of flaxseed, rapeseed and rye and the free movement of grain in Canada under the protection of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. If that is not calling for doing away with the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, I will never know what is.
You cannot talk out of both sides of your mouth at the same time. If the Conservatives cannot play the game together, it is going to catch up to them. Some Conservative indicated that at some future date such and such is going to happen. When this minister makes his announcement on policy I am waiting with as eager anticipation for the reaction of the loyal opposition as I am for the announcement. This minister has got himself in a situation like Neville Chamberlain when he went to Munich and signed the Munich agreement.


An hon. Member:: He was a Tory!


William George Knight: He went to Munich and said "Peace in our time". We know what happened. This minister said "Orderly marketing in our time," and if he goes through with what he has been suggesting we will have the furthest thing from it that we could possibly have.
This is the situation which has developed and this is why we have had this debate tonight. To the Conservatives and Liberals who say they do not know why they are debating, I say that is why. This House knows where this party stands.
. Mr. Bell: Move a motion and we will vote on it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Pursuant to section 13 of Standing Order 26, I am satisfied that the debate has been concluded. I therefore declare the motion carried.
This House, accordingly stands adjourned until this afternoon at two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 1.08 a.m. the House adjourned, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, July 17, 1973