1974-10-31

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Last night, Mr. Speaker, Canadians were shocked to see on the national television news the wanton and wasteful slaughter of hundreds of calves. This bloody waste of high protein food comes at a time when Canadians are paying record high prices for beef which are not reflected in returns to producers. We saw, on the same television program, the suffering, death and human misery on the Indian subcontinent arising out of famine and drought.
I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That the government give immediate consideration to taking whatever steps are necessary to put an end to this wasteful slaughter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the motion. As it is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43, it can be debated only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, it cannot be debated.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43 for the usual logical reasons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Marshall: Present unemployment insurance regulations discriminate against fishermen's wives who are engaged in work related to fish processing in that they are
being denied unemployment insurance benefits. This situation conflicts with the government's stated intention to implement equality of status for women. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter):
That the matter of the entitlement of fishermen's wives to UIC benefits be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43. It cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House under Standing Order 43 to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the manufacturers of fertilizers are not in a position to ensure a normal supply to farmers for this fall and next spring, and in view of the fact that they anticipate a price increase of about $50 a ton, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That this House instruct a special committee to fully investigate the causes of this disorder in the fertilizer trade and report to the House before the Christmas recess.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion which, under Standing Order 43, requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There being no unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put at this time.
902

October 31, 1974
Native Land Claims


SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENT IN PROGRAM TO CONTROL BRUCELLOSIS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the increasing incidents of brucellosis among dairy herds in Canada, particularly in eastern Ontario, which has resulted in the withdrawal of farmers from needed milk production, I rise to seek leave of the House to propose a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 on this matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise):
That the Minister of Agriculture be instructed to improve immediately vaccination and inspection procedures to deal with the serious outbreaks of brucellosis throughout Canada and particularly in eastern Ontario, that he give serious consideration to increasing compensation for herds already affected by the disease and further that the minister's programs with respect thereto be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture for reassessment and review.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43. It cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the recent statement by Lloyd Barber, Indian Claims Commissioner for Canada, that the failure of the federal government to satisfactorily settle the outstanding problems of land claims has created an emergency situation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That the whole issue of native land claims be referred immediately to Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43. It cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be debated at this time.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. I am aware of Your Honour's concern about these motions being of a serious nature. In view of the publication on Saturday, October 26, of the results of a Gallup poll to the effect that 62 per cent of those Canadians surveyed state that the decision to have an abortion should be a matter solely between a woman and her doctor; in view of the fact that of those who initially disagreed with the above, 81 per cent would permit abortion if the woman's physical and mental health were endangered, and in view of the pressure applied by the Minister of Justice having resulted in very few hospitals establishing therapeutic abortion committees, I ask consent to move, seconded by my hon. friend from Sault Ste. Marie:
That this House request the Minister of Justice at the earliest possible date to bring in amendments removing abortion from the Criminal Code thereby allowing a full and important debate on this subject which would ensure the right of women in many parts of Canada to receive the medical attention which they need and which is their right.


Some hon. Members:: No!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have some doubt that the existence of an opinion poll in the country somehow changes the issue from one of general and continuing concern into one which could be classified as of urgent and pressing necessity within the terms of Standing Order 43. This, notwithstanding the fact that Standing Order 43 has to be liberally interpreted, in view of the requirements of unanimous consent. I cannot see that the existence of the opinion poll is a very significant factor in bringing the general subject under the terms of the standing order. However, with this caveat, I shall resolve the doubt in favour of the proponent. Does the House give unanimous consent to the motion being put?


Some hon. Members:: No!


Mr. Speaker:: Since there is not unanimity, the motion cannot be put forward.


REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants) moved: concurrence in the first report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments presented to the House on Tuesday, October 29.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
October 31, 1974

Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the report of the Superintendent of Insurance on Co-operative Credit Societies for the year ended December 31, 1973.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Chapter III of the Statutes of Canada for 1974, the House must proceed to the consideration of the motion concerning the Veterans Land Act of which notice was given on October 17.1 suggest the House now order that this matter be taken up after orders of the day are called on Tuesday next and, if necessary, on Wednesday next, and that in order to give as many members as possible the opportunity to participate in the debate, which according to law cannot exceed two days, I suggest it be made part of the order that the hour for private members' business on Tuesday next be suspended.


Mr. Speaker:: The provisions of the statute pursuant to which the notice was filed with the Chair require that this matter be taken up and considered by the House within 15 days. Under at least one interpretation this involves calendar days and the period would expire tomorrow. Accordingly, the suggestion made by the President of the Privy Council is important in the sense that making an order rather than simply giving assent to an agreement at this time would constitute in the view of the Chair the taking up and considering of the item within the 15 day period. With these considerations in mind, I now ask whether the House agrees to an order being made in accordance with the terms outlined by the President of the Privy Council?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. By calling "Introduction of Bills" the opportunity for statements by the ministry has now passed for today. I should like to protest as strongly as I can as a member of this House- and I think this affects the privileges of all members of the House-the continual ignoring of the members of the House by not giving us information so that we can properly discuss the affairs of this nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Destruction of Calves


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Yesterday a very important meeting was called by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of this country, to which the premiers of the provinces in this country were invited, to deal with a very important matter, if not the most important matter affecting the economic history of this country to date. Today the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp) is present but he has not mentioned publicly one word about this meeting. One, if not two, members of the ministry who were also present at the meeting are here. I should like to protest as strongly and as loudly as I can this continual ignoring of the members of this House, which is the place where the affairs of this nation should properly be discussed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has in fact protested as loudly and as strongly as he possibly could. Unfortunately, this matter does not constitute a valid question of privilege. However, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) wishes to make some kind of announcement.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should perhaps explain to the House that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is not present today because he is continuing the very useful discussions that began yesterday with the prime ministers of the provinces. He is meeting today with members of the trade unions, I am sure the House will agree a very useful activity, very much in the public interest. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), who was present at the meeting, will be present to answer any questions he can about the proceedings.


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member a little later.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   AGRICULTURE DESTRUCTION OF CALVES AND HIGH RETAIL PRICE OF MEAT
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the crisis in the meat producing industry manifested by the destruction of calves in Quebec and the high prices being paid by consumers throughout Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has given the Chair notice as required within the terms of the Standing Order. He has therefore given the Chair the opportunity to
28305-58'/2

October 31, 1974
Destruction of Calves
consider the validity of the proposed motion pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 26.
The motion alludes to a somewhat general problem of rising food costs faced by consumers in Canada. In that respect it would appear to be dealing with a continuing or general type of problem as opposed to one which is envisaged by the terms of Standing Order 26 as constituting an emergency situation so that the business of the House ought to be set aside for its consideration.
However, the reference to the rather dramatic occurrence in the province of Quebec which was reported last evening brings the motion, in my view, into a different context in that that specific occurrence is of a sufficiently dramatic impact on the food situation, particularly the meat producing industry, in its relationship to consumer prices in Canada, to take the matter out of the realm of generality and to give it urgency which, at least on a prima facie basis, in the opinion of the Chair brings it within the provisions of the Standing Order.
I was, of course, further concerned that the demonstration referred to in the motion appeared to have been directed in whole or in part at the provincial minister or the provincial government involved. However, there can be no doubt from the numerous discussions which have taken place during the first weeks of this parliament and the questions that have been answered by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) that there is a very considerable federal involvement in the subject.
Furthermore, while there is some possibility of negotiating a solution to the problem, the fact remains that the very dramatic and tragic occurrence of yesterday in the province of Quebec referred to in the motion still remains of sufficient importance in the view of the Chair to qualify it as an emergency situation within the terms of the rules.
In addition, the Chair must direct its attention to whether there is likely to be a reasonable opportunity for this very important subject to be^discussed or considered by this Chamber within the time which would be appropriate for effective consideration vis-a-vis the emergency nature of the occurrence itself. I am satisfied that no such opportunity appears to present itself.
Accordingly, for those reasons, I have come to the conclusion that within the terms of sub-section(4) of Standing Order 26 the subject matter of the proposed motion is indeed a proper subject for discussion within the terms of this rule. If I may favour the House with a brief explanation of the procedure, in the circumstances the House may either give its consent that the matter be considered, in which case it will be considered this evening at eight o'clock, or, alternatively, if the House does not give its consent I will ask if those in favour of having it considered will rise, and if 20 or more members rise again it will be in order to consider it at eight o'clock this evening. Therefore, may I ask if the hon. member has leave to move the motion for the discussion of the subject stated in the proposed motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Accordingly the matter will be discussed this evening beginning at eight o'clock.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance relating to the often mentioned discussions heading hopefully to a consensus of the principal elements in our economy in respect of sharing the gross national product. Can the minister tell us anything further following those discussions yesterday with the provincial premiers? Will he tell the House what procedures the government will be following, or the form the discussions will take with the principal elements of the economy with a view to reaching such a consensus?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there will be an opportunity fot the House to go into that in more detail. I was invited to participate at the meeting yesterday between the Prime Minister and the premiers at two o'clock, and I understand that the particular subject to which the Leader of the Opposition referred was discussed at lunch.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance, who has a particular responsibility in this area of fighting inflation, and presumably a particular responsibility with regard to these discussions that have taken place, whether the Prime Minister has not seen fit to take him into his confidence on what he is up to regarding these discussions?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and I had a thorough conversation preceding the meeting yesterday. My only limitation in reporting to the House is that I was not present during this particular conversation at lunchtime. I am sure that in due course the Prime Minister will be glad to respond in more detail to the hon. member.


MEETING WITH PREMIERS OF PROVINCES-PROPOSAL OF MINISTER OF FINANCE ON WAGES, PRICES AND PROFITS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one put by my leader. I understand that the Minister of Finance has indicated he gave the Prime Minister a proposal or recommendation which would convey to the premiers a plan under which we could have a fair and reasonable balance between wages, prices and profits. I further understand that the minister has said the procedure was discussed with the premiers. Was this placed before the premiers and, if so, what was their reaction to the recommendation by the Minister of Finance?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I just arrived at coffee time and I did not hear that conversation.
October 31, 1974


MEETING WITH PREMIERS OF PROVINCES-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF RESULTS
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, we are now seeing the difficulty of having this discussion in the question period where we can obtain no answers or merely evasive answers. My question is directed to the ministry which means it does not have to be answered by the Prime Minister, but by someone who was there. We have a right to know what went on yesterday. Would somebody mind telling us.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear from the statements made by the other prime ministers who were present, the prime ministers of the provinces, that this was one of the most successful conferences ever convened.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the tragic slaughtering of cattle which has taken place, and which is continuing to take place in the province of Quebec, and considering that the minister said in the House last week that he would be announcing this week some program for the assistance of cow-calf operators, I wonder whether the minister has finally made up his mind about this important question and is in a position to inform the House what the government intends to do.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interfere with the rights of hon. members to present questions during the question period but it seems to me the hon. member is trying to have it both ways. He succeeded in having this very important subject matter set down for debate beginning at eight o'clock this evening. Under the circumstances, I can scarcely consider the questions involved in that same subject urgent enough to be considered during the question period.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS   MEETING WITH PREMIERS OF PROVINCES-PROPOSAL TO DEFER SPENDING ON SOME CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AND TRANSFER FUNDS TO HOUSING
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I shall defer to your judgment in respect of the fair-minded decision made earlier and shift my question to the Minister of Finance concerning the meeting which took place yesterday between the Prime Minister and the premiers. I should like to ask the minister whether the government is giving serious consideration to the proposal made by some of the premiers, which I understand gained
Oral Questions
wide acceptance, that the federal government defer spending on some of the construction projects which were planned, but which are not of immediate importance, such as office buildings, and that the federal government should transfer such funds to housing.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there was a general feeling on the part of the premiers that in some parts of the country where there was an overheating of the construction industry it would be in the interest of the government to postpone some of the non-residential construction in order to free up that industry for residential construction. There was a general feeling that that was the proper stance to take. What the stance of the federal government will be will depend upon the estimates and budgetary policy.


FINANCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. May I ask the Minister of Finance whether the government intends to increase the amount of funds going out to the provinces to be channelled back to the municipalities for capital expenditures in respect of sewers and other similar publicly needed facilities, in the context of dealing with the looming unemployment in the winter and spring months.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, announcements to that effect would be made in certain aspects by my colleague the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and in others, if there were an appropriate response, on budget night.


IMMIGRATION
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In view of the recent statements he made in this House to the effect that the government was eager to favour the coming to Canada of French-speaking immigrants and to deal in a humanitarian way with the victims of oppressions, does not the hon. Minister feel that both these aims will be thwarted by the deportation of several hundred Haitians from Canada, and more specifically from the Province of Quebec.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in announcing that intention of the government to promote Francophone immigration, it was indicated that such immigration should be under Canadian law and according to Canadian rules and regula-

October 31, 1974
Oral Questions
tions. In the case of the Haitians in Montreal, a matter of considerable debate, the problem is that many, if not most, of them came here illegally, are in Canada illegally, and are subject to Canadian immigration law. It has nothing to do with the fact that they are French-speaking or from what source they came.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS MEETING WITH PREMIERS OF PROVINCES-FEDERAL PROPOSALS TO CONTROL HEALTH CARE COSTS
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. With the spiralling increase in the cost of the multibillion dollar health care joint program with the provinces which is a leading inflationary matter in this country right now, with a 15 per cent annual increase, I should like to ask the minister if this important matter was brought up with the provinces yesterday in the discussions because, as the minister knows, the inflationary rate of the health care costs means that many of the services are ineffective or non-existent today.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with the premise advanced by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi. It was not discussed yesterday. It might well be a subject of conversation at the meeting of the ministers of finance of the provinces and the federal government on December 9 and 10. The hon. gentleman will recall that the federal government, under the leadership of the former Minister of National Health and Welfare, now Minister of Labour, by his successor, by the present minister and by myself, tried to devise with the provinces some formula to put some cap on the escalation of the health costs.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary. Yesterday I posed a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and he could not assure the House this subject was on the agenda for the health ministers in the future. My question to the Minister of Finance is: since this government imposed on the provinces the kind of medicare program we have today, what initiative does the federal government intend to take to clear up this matter and when will proposals be made so that these costs can be brought under control.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in the last two or three years to my direct knowledge within the responsibility of the portfolio I hold, the federal government came up with several proposals each of which were rejected by the various provinces. I agree that the subject is vital, is still worthwhile exploring, and we will continue to take initiatives.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Does the minister have any further information concerning the cause of the accident which occurred on Melville Island involving the serious crash of the PanArctic airliner.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: No, Mr. Speaker. At this moment I do not know anything more than the hon. gentleman knows through the newspapers. There are only two persons who survived. We have some people in Melville trying to find out exactly what happened, the cause of the accident.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the apparent disagreement and confrontation between the minister and his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who is now apparently supported by the Minister of National Health and Welfare regarding the introduction of all vegetable weiners and other simulated meat products, I wonder whether the Minister of Agriculture can now tell the House if this disagreement has been resolved or if he wishes to make his usual denial of disagreement will he tell us whether the introduction of these products is imminent?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, so far as I am concerned discussions are continuing between the departmental officials of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Department of Agriculture to ascertain whether they can come to any decision concerning the wording so that the consumer really understands what is being purchased and so that false names are not used in advertising it as a meat product. I do not think we have any objections. I have talked to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs about this to see whether some workable agreement can be made.


WHEAT AND BARLEY-POSSIBLE INCREASE IN INITIAL PRICES
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Having regard to the wide discrepancy between initial prices for wheat and barley delivered under the auspices of the Canadian Wheat Board and local feed prices within various areas of western Canada, as well as
i
October 31, 1974

the wide discrepancy between the initial price and the final price, all of which is having a very bad impact on deliveries to the elevator system, can the minister tell the House when we can expect an upward revision in the initial prices of wheat and barley? Will it be before the end of the year?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the timing of any change is under consideration. Differences of price are, of course, to be explored but any change of initial price would not alter the fact that there would be a distinct and different price for the off board market which would reflect the views of farmers on particular supplies and their judgment of the market for the year.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Having regard to the fact that this is under consideration could the minister give the House some idea of the range the upward revision might take?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. I think perhaps it would be better to await the formal decision.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS MEETING WITH PREMIERS OF PROVINCES-FEDERAL TAX ON PETROLEUM-POSSIBILITY OF AGREEMENT
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Crude petroleum is one of the commodities that brought about some degree of inflation because of our imports, so its supply is important. Was there discussion yesterday between the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and the premiers of the provinces with a view to reaching an agreement on the resources of the provinces, with particular reference to the federal surtax which is really a super tax on top of any initial price of crude petroleum per barrel and also royalties charged by the provinces. Was there any agreement in this regard?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the description of the federal position on that issue but the question of resource tax by provincial governments and the federal government was discussed yesterday.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question. Would the minister at least take the House into his confidence as he did the newspaper reporters in Edmonton? The Globe and Mail reported what was discussed. Will there be some compromise on the federal tax which the provinces, on the whole, object to because of the federal government's interference with the constitutional rights of the provinces?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman and I have had some discussion in this House on the interpretation he wishes to take from a reporter's judgment. I will say to him that in no way did I or the Prime Minister reveal what the budgetary response is going to be in this discussion. We did lay our cases as openly and frankly as we could to the provincial premiers and, in the later session, to Premier Lougheed.
Oral Questions


CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Finance concerns the price of insulin which has increased by about 20 per cent in the past year. In view of the fact that the price of insulin was held steady for years when Connaught Laboratories was under the aegis of the University of Toronto, can the Minister explain why insulin production was put on a profit-making basis when Connaught Laboratories became part of the Canada Development Corporation? Will the minister give direction to the Canada Development Corporation to ensure that Connaught Laboratories refrain from future price increases of insulin supplies to the 200,000 Canadian users?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I was given a report on that subject which I cannot find at the moment but I will give it in full detail to the hon. member.


ATHABASCA OIL SANDS-POSSIBILITY OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURCHASING INTEREST OF SHELL COMPANY IN UNITED STATES
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that Shell Canada Ltd. has indicated its intention to proceed with the construction of a $1 billion plant on the Athabasca oil sands despite the fact that its partner, Shell Explorer Ltd. of Houston, Texas is seeking to dispose of its 50 per cent equity, can the minister tell the House whether the federal government is prepared to enter into negotiations with Shell Canada Ltd. with a view to picking up the equity of its partner in order that the Canadian people may have some public participation in the development of the Athabasca oil sands?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, Shell Canada Ltd. has indicated its wish to go ahead and, with the assistance of its ex-partner, to try to find a replacement partner. As I mentioned the other day, it is conceivable that one or other of the public corporations now operative at the provincial level might wish to buy in. It is also conceivable that when Petro-Canada is formed it might like to participate. At this point we have not made any suggestion that we would take over the partnership interest.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. May I ask the minister if the federal government, either through the Canada Development Corporation or the Canada Petroleum Corporation, when it is formed, would be prepared to enter into negotiations with the governments involved for some

October 31, 1974
Oral Questions
public participation in the development of the oil sands of Alberta and the heavy oil of northern Saskatchewan?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I take it the hon. gentleman means public participation by somebody, but not necessarily by the federal sector. I would be prepared to canvass that question with them, and also would be prepared to canvass my colleagues on whether this is the way in which the federal government should become involved in the oil sands.


WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the decision to go to metric conversion, has any decision been made by the minister's department to compensate school divisions faced with a conversion cost of $4 per student in some cases and up to $50 for vocational students in the public system?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been made for compensation. The House will have an opportunity on an early occasion I hope to debate the whole metric conversion program through a resolution of the House of Commons.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. On Monday, October 28, in the absence of the minister I directed a question to the right hon. Prime Minister concerning the decline in housing starts which is bringing about a disastrous situation in our production of lumber, especially in Nova Scotia where Bowaters Mersey has announced the closing of its Bridgewater mill in December because they have absolutely no sales whatever for 1975. The Prime Minister said he would take the question as notice. I now ask the minister if he has taken any steps recently to improve our lumber markets within the European Common Market countries or Iran or the Republic of China on Taiwan where there is a market for Canadian products?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I gave an answer in the House early this week on that precise point.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question. If I remember, Mr. Speaker, the question was asked by a member from British Columbia and the minister stated that he had taken steps to improve markets in Japan and in the Middle East, but he said absolutely nothing about improving our markets for lumber in the European Common

Market or in Iran or the Republic of China on Taiwan. I would ask the minister now if he could give an explicit answer to my question?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I was of course referring to Iran when I referred to the Middle East. On the second point, we have taken a number of initiatives with respect to other markets. I mentioned Cuba and Iceland. I have taken initiatives as far as Europe is concerned and very recently we had a forestry mission from the Common Market that crossed the country to look at the Canadian situation. We have also taken a number of initiatives to develop the market in Japan. I will have to make inquiries as to the nature of initiatives taken in Taiwan.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Agriculture. The urgency of this question is the continuing high price of sugar. Can the minister give the House a report on the progress being made to re-establish the sugar beet industry in southwestern Ontario so that more of our sugar requirements can be produced in Canada or has the minister come to the conclusion that he will never be able to convince his cabinet colleagues that there would be any value in such an industry or a sugar policy for Canada?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I am divulging any great secret when I say that discussions concerning the sugar industry are going on right today. I hope to be able to present a report to parliament by the end of November.



Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
On October 3 last, the president of the Agricultural Producers' Union sent a letter to the minister seeking his assurance that Quebec producers would be provided with the necessary supply of grain to feed their herds during the coming winter.
Has the minister replied to this organization and can he tell the House the gist of his reply? Can this assurance be given? In the negative, can he advise the House today that Quebec producers can count on their necessary supply?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, members of the Canadian Livestock Feed Board were in my office the day I appeared before a certain committee and reported to me that they expect that the
October 31, 1974

need for feed in Quebec will be met and at the same price. I am very optimistic that all the feed needed in eastern Ontario will be taken care of before the shipping season closes. If not, arrangements are being made to transport it by rail.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. In light of the recent storm which struck the Mari-times on October 20 resulting in loss of lives and damage estimated in the millions of dollars in Cape Breton Island alone, and in view of the assertion that the Atmospheric Environment Service did not give due and timely notice of such an impending gale, will the minister cause an investigation to be carried out, to determine and correct the causes of this alleged shortcoming.


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, it is extremely difficult to make long term forecasts of the weather or even the beginnings of a storm. The matter is under continuous study. Even very recently a Canadian research vessel took part in climatic studies in the tropical area which will perhaps enable us to predict the weather and storms more than two days in advance. However, I can inquire whether any particular action might have been taken in the case mentioned by the hon. member.


INDUSTRY
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for South Shore and has to do with plywood. Is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce aware that American plywood is being dumped on the Canadian market at 15 per cent below the cost of manufacturing the same type of plywood in Canada. If not, why not?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, questions or representations with respect to dumping should be referred to the Minister of National Revenue.


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I directed a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I am not aware which minister looks after anti-dumping. The minister mentioned the Minister of National Revenue. May I direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is he aware, especially as he comes from Vancouver, that American
Oral Questions
plywood companies are dumping American plywood on the Canadian market at as much as 15 per cent below the cost of Canadian manufacture. In the minister's own area they cannot sell the stuff.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, my office has not received any complaints regarding anti-dumping, but I will check with the department and investigate the matter.


THE BUDGET
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Since he said several times in the House that the budget will be introduced early in November, is he prepared to give us the specific date for that long awaited event?


John Napier Turner: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that persons who live in homes located on Canadian Armed Forces bases are citizens with full voting rights, will the minister take steps to lift the ban against political canvassing so that all parties may present their message to the voters who live on the Canadian Armed Forces base in Rockcliffe in the current Carleton-East provincial by-election.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member implied in his question, there is a regulation in the Queen's Regulations and Orders, which prevents an officer from allowing a candidate, his agent or canvasser from going onto a base to campaign during an election campaign. That applies federally, provincially and municipally. If the PMQ's are off the base, then the personnel can be canvassed by the candidate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister. If it is a matter of regulation, does that not put it under the minister's control? Should not citizens in their homes, no matter where those homes are located, have the same political rights?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has a good point. I will be pleased to consider it.

October 31, 1974
Oral Questions


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
Last night, on a television news program, we were shown scenes of the slaughtering of animals that took place in Saint-Bruno in the Lac Saint-Jean area, in a civilized country, which shows that our revered economic system is provoking general indignation. To facilitate tonight's debate, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture, whether in his opinion-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I repeat the decision I have already rendered in that regard. Since we are going to discuss the problem tonight, it is not permitted to raise the subject now during the question period.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Can the minister advise the House whether the five inmates in whom he took such a special interest as to issue special instructions and who proceeded to escape were, in their short period at large, involved in gang land killings in Montreal, bank robberies and armed robberies involving a sizeable quantity of cigarettes?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that this morning three of those individuals were involved in a bank robbery. One of them, Mercier, was shot and is seriously injured. Frappier was shot and is in critical condition. One of the others escaped in the shoot-out. I am awaiting a further report.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say if he has determined who was negligent in the escape and has he taken action concerning this negligence?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am expecting a full report tomorrow.


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and/or his distinguished colleague next to him, the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It arises out of the conference last April at which 72 nations ratified or agreed in general to the principle of 40-40-20 with respect to the

shipment of goods and commodities in and out of various countries. Canada at that time abstained from voting on the resolution, which is now in the process of ratification. In the light of Canada's abstention and in the light of the tremendous advantage to Canada of raising its share with regard to Maritime borne traffic from one per cent to 40 per cent, will the minister indicate whether Canada intends to ratify this protocol or accord. If so, when may we expect an announcement from the minister?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the Department of External Affairs deals with these matters. I will be happy to give an answer tomorrow. Our people are involved in negotiations and tomorrow I will probably be in a position to tell the hon. member exactly where we stand.


INDUSTRY
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the recent announcement by Mr. Anthony Fredo, a spokesman for Ford of Canada Limited, to the effect that if sales of new cars continue to decline at the present rate, the Talbotville small car assembly plant will be forced to close the week of November 25, will the minister immediately communicate with officials in the automobile industry and his American counterparts in an effort to avoid this very serious situation from happening? I remind the minister that over 3,000 jobs are at stake.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the effects on the automobile industry of the downturn of consumption in the United States. I have on a fairly regular basis met with the presidents of Canadian automobile manufacturing companies. I will again be meeting with the president of one of the major companies within a day or two with regard to the specific situation to which the hon. member has referred. I have been informed that particular company is balancing its production and the difficulties in Canada should be of a short-term duration.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Have the minister's parliamentary or ministerial duties been extended to include deciding which government members of parliament will be permitted to contest the next election?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
October 31, 1974


NATIONAL PARKS
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the announcement in Winnipeg today that the minister's department is about to announce long-term plans for the development of Riding Mountain National Park, will the minister assure the House there will be no formalization of a master plan until such time as there has been a thorough and complete consultation with the people of Manitoba?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Can the minister also give assurance that the Supreme Court decision with regard to lease holdings will apply to Riding Mountain National Park.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, if it is the law of the land, it certainly applies to Riding Mountain National Park.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Considering the threat of unilateral action by United States congressmen and in view of the fact that presently the United States house of representatives is considering a bill to permit diversion of water from Lake Michigan, has the Canadian government been engaged in discussions with the United States regarding this matter? Also, recognizing Article IV of the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, why has the International Joint Commission not been actively involved in this dispute?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the government has made its position of opposition well known on the question of additional diversion of water at Chicago. These proposals have been made from time to time, especially during periods of high water. The government has just as consistently reiterated its objections to these proposals. No formal proposal has been made by the United States government to Canada in this regard.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Manpower and
Oral Questions
Immigration. I understand that the minister and his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, recently had a meeting with the high commissioners of four Caribbean commonwealth countries at which the subject of immigration was discussed. Was the published report correct which stated that the minister sternly rebuked the high commissioners for interfering with Canadian domestic affairs?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the report is not correct. It is not accurate. My colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I did meet four high commissioners from the Caribbean. We had a very constructive discussion about immigration. They expressed some concerns based on press allegations about the possibility of discrimination in the regulations which were subsequently announced. I was joined by my colleague in strongly refuting the allegations of such discrimination. Indeed, I think the high commissioners' satisfaction was set out in a statement which was released after that meeting. They said they had received this assurance of non-discrimination and were satisfied with the meeting. We deplore any suggestion of this nature which could possibly damage our very valued relations with those countries.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Considering that raging inflation affects most grievously many Canadians living at or below the poverty line, is the government giving serious consideration to the melding and rationalization of welfare and social service programs along the lines forecast by President Ford for his country by a guaranteed annual income or a similar consolidated approach? If so, when can we expect an announcement or some action?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will be aware that my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, has issued a paper dealing with this question. The matter is still under consideration at least as actively in this country as any other.


ALLEGATION OF PARTICIPATION IN NEWFOUNDLAND LEADERSHIP CONVENTION BY MEMBER OF PRIME MINISTER'S STAFF
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. What disciplinary action has been taken against the member of the Prime Minister's staff who participated in the Newfoundland leadership convention? My question arises out

October 31, 1974
Oral Questions
of charges appearing in the press which came from the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member I was not aware of these allegations. I am sure they will be investigated.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the hon. Minister of State for Urban Affairs, who is in charge of housing.
Since representations made to the central government up to now for funds to upgrade old housing have been unsuccessful, and in view of a statement of Mayor Dra-peau of Montreal concerning the federal position on urban renewal, would the Minister admit that the program standards of his ministry do not meet the social and family needs of large city dwellers, and is he determined to cooperate with the provincial government concerned to provide technical and financial assistance to municipal authorities of Montreal and other cities which are determined to emphasize urban renewal and specially the upgrading of old housing units?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted with the question. I welcome any initiatives on the part of the city of Montreal, through its provincial government, with whom I have the most cordial relationship, to participate in any way in which we can be supportive and helpful. I have affection for that great city and would be more than happy to be involved. Certainly, it is not my intention to intrude in the jurisdiction of the provincial government, but we are ready, willing and able to be responsive and supportive where we can.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns discrimination. I wonder whether it does not go beyond questions to the appropriate ministers. In the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I will direct a question to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the fact that wives of fishermen are being denied qualification for unemployment insurance benefits as a result of ambiguous legislation and conflicts with the thrust of the direction of the Departments of Fisheries, National Revenue and Manpower and Immigration, will the parliamentary secretary advise what consideration is being given to overcoming

this ambiguity in order to give equal status to women with regard to UIC benefits?


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given the department notice of this question. I am under the impression that it is being looked into.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Marshall: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact that certain wives of fishermen receiving unemployment insurance benefits were overruled by regulations of the minister's department, and in view of the fact this is discriminating, has the minister taken the representations he has received under advisement? Also, has the government decided whether it will uphold the claims of these wives of fishermen who are being denied unemployment insurance benefits?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member's question refers to a group of scallop shuckers from whom I received a representation this morning. My departmental officials are examining this today.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development with reference to the Tyendinaga Reserve in my constituency where Indians have indicated they intend to hold a special election by custom to overthrow the properly elected band council. Can the minister tell us whether such an election would be valid, and in what manner a properly elected band council member can be removed?


Mr. Speaker:: Despite the apparent urgency of the question, I have grave reservations as to whether this is a proper question for the question period involving the kind of answer it does. I wonder whether it ought not to be done by correspondence. However, if the minister feels he can give a brief answer to the question, he may do so.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, the legal bases by which a chief or a councillor may be removed from office are clearly set out in section 78 of the Indian Act. Until such time as I am provided with factual evidence that the chief or any individual councillor has violated the provisions of Section 78 of the Indian Act, I cannot recognize the validity of a special election. I intend to continue my support of the chief and councillors in their positions as the duly elected council of the band.
October 31, 1974


REDISTRIBUTION
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council, involving the redistribution of seats. In view of the fact that the terms of union under which British Columbia entered confederation guarantee that the province's representation in the House of Commons will be increased in accordance with the British North America Act, 1867, and not as subsequently amended, and a further guarantee that the BNA Act, 1867, is applicable to British Columbia in the same way and to the like extent that it applies to other provinces, will the President of the Privy Council tell the House whether the government has obtained the consent of the government of British Columbia to the breach of these guarantees by the reduction of the representation of British Columbia in comparison to the representation of Ontario and Quebec?


Mitchell William Sharp: I was not aware that any action of this kind had been taken.


John Douglas Reynolds: Can the hon. gentleman tell us, then, whether he intends to reintroduce the redistribution bill in the near future?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes. I hope we shall deal with this matter before the end of the year. Otherwise, we would have to extend the existing legislation unless we want to return to the distribution which has been criticized so strongly in all parts of the House.


AGRICULTURE
Walter David Baker: A question to the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the growing incidence of brucellosis is driving milk producers out of business, is the minister prepared to review his program for control? In particular, is he prepared to consider increasing the amount of compensation which is now paid? Knowing the minister's opinion that it is already generous, is he prepared to increase it further?


Eugene Whelan: First, I should make it clear that we are reviewing the control program-stepping up the number of inspections and so on. I am sure the hon. member is aware of this. I am sure he is aware, too, that we have raised levels of compensation twice already this year. At the present time we are reviewing these levels to determine whether they provide enough compensation to enable farmers who suffer losses to restock their herds when the time comes.
Oil and Petroleum BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


WEEKLY STATEMENT
Walter David Baker: May I inquire of the government House leader the business for today, tomorrow, and next week?


Mitchell William Sharp: Today the House will begin consideration of the motion for second reading of Bill C-32, the Petroleum Administration Act. This evening, of course, there will be discussion of the emergency motion which was agreed to earlier. The debate on second reading will continue, except for possible interruption to call the report stage of Bill C-22, the Canada Pension Plan amendments. After these bills have been disposed of, if this should happen before Tuesday when we will debate the VLA motion, we will take up Bill C-10, subject to revision should urgent items be returned from committee.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: that Bill C-32, to impose a charge on the export of crude oil and certain petroleum products, to provide compensation for certain petroleum costs and to regulate the price of Canadian crude oil and natural gas in interprovincial and export trade, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before I refer to the substance of the measure, I wonder whether, on a point of order, I might raise a question on the motion itself. As hon. members have just heard, the reference is to a committee of the whole House rather than to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works. The predecessor of the bill before us, Bill C-18, was referred, in the last parliament, to the standing committee where there was, of course, an opportunity to hear witnesses and to carry out an extensive examination. I wonder whether the House would agree, either now or at some later time, to the motion being amended so that the bill would go to the standing committee, rather than being dealt with on the floor of this chamber.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: In
response to the minister's suggestion, may I say we should like to hold the matter in abeyance and make a decision later.


Mr. Speaker:: This being one of the budget bills, unanimous consent would be required before the motion could be changed so that the bill might be sent to the standing committee. Perhaps that matter could also be considered.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, this bill, the successor to Bill C-18 in the last parliament, has been

October 31, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
brought before the House because of a significant change in the economic realities facing this country, a change brought about by forces external to Canada. The basis of the altered situation is, of course, the cohesive action of the OPEC countries in raising the international price of crude oil fourfold during the past year. By this series of acts, not only have the oil policies of the oil importing nations, including Canada, been changed but the economic base of the world's trading community has been seriously challenged.
In this crisis, Canada is therefore not alone. We have participated in a response at the international level, as is indicated by the agreement on an international energy program which recently has been receiving attention from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works. Because of its geographical and geological good fortune, Canada has been less seriously affected than a number of other countries. We are, nonetheless, affected by this change in the world situation and we wish to play a constructive role as a member of the international community while at the same time taking action to protect ourselves.
I have referred to the international action being taken. In the bill before us this afternoon we are dealing with domestic action contemplated to protect ourselves in this new situation. Bill C-32, the Petroleum Administration Act, is intended to provide the federal government with a statutory basis for the management, necessary in the interests of all Canadians, of important areas of international and interprovincial trade in petroleum and natural gas. Enactment of the legislation is essential if the government is to have the means to continue to guide the Canadian energy economy safely in the present turbulent global oil environment.
The bill before us is a lengthy one and is complex in parts. Hon. members will, however, be familiar with many of the aims and much of the content of the measure. The portions of the bill dealing with, first, petroleum export charges, second, domestic oil price restraint and, third, petroleum import cost compensation, are essentially unchanged from the corresponding sections contained in Bill C-18 which I introduced to the last parliament in April of this year.

When Parliament was dissolved, the government was forced to resort to devices to preserve two very important features of Bill C-18, namely the export tax on oil and the compensation of oil importers. Since the beginning of April, the oil industry has voluntarily agreed to collect and pay for export taxes pending this legislation. The compensation was paid to oil importers through special warrants of the governor general which were recently submitted to the House. When the House approved votes and 52a of Supplementary Estimates (A), it allowed for compensation to be paid to importers till the end of the year.
Those makeshift measures obviously do not provide for an adequate permanent base for government programs, less so with regard to those we are concerned with and which involve such great sums of money. The House will realize the importance of putting before Parliament as soon as possible the terms of adequate regulations.

I hope that the degree of familiarity which most members have with the background to and content of this bill from our previous lengthy hearings in the standing committee on Bill C-18, and from more recent committee discussion of the votes connected with oil import compensation, will enable the House to give these measures, speedy passage without a sense that the careful review which is equally necessary has been in any way foregone.
I would like now briefly to review the structure of Bill C-32 in relation to certain stated aims of the government's oil and gas policy. I should like to draw the attention of the House first to part II, the domestic oil price restraint. A central feature, perhaps the central feature, of our oil and energy policy relates to the pricing of domestic crude oil. The government's declared policy is that domestic oil prices should be high enough, but no higher than the level required to bring forward an adequate supply for Canadian requirements. This is a simple enough principle to express, but let me say that I am under no illusions as to the potential difficulty of its application. We recognize two main aspects of this supply price-a technical aspect and what I might call a social aspect.
As to the technical aspect, my department continues to refine and develop assessments of the net price necessary to attract the capital, trained manpower and technology which, applied to our resource base, will provide the supply we will need in the future. The social aspect consists primarily in finding a position of equity between the needs and interests of consuming and producing provinces in relation to the return which is necessary to justify the exploitation of this non-renewable resource.
We must recognize that this price is bound to change over time. For the moment, however, we have a price for crude oil of approximately $6.50 per barrel at the wellhead in Alberta which reflects consensus among the first ministers of Canada as being the appropriate price level to obtain for the period through to July 1, 1975. We do not pretend that this agreed price necessarily meets all the criteria of technical adequacy and social appropriateness by which it might be judged. I do believe, however, that it satisfactorily achieves for the moment a reasonable balance between the interests of consumers and producers in Canada, as well as protecting our national economy from the extraordinary surge of oil prices which took place in international markets during the past year.
The basic reference price of $6.50 which was achieved by consensus at the first minister's energy conference in March could readily have become the prescribed price referred to in part II, division I of the present bill. It would have been but a small step for the government of Canada and the governments of the producer provinces to enter into agreements to give the $6.50 price the character of a prescribed price according to this part.
While it is the government's earnest hope and desire that the price of oil from the producer provinces will always be determined at mutually-acceptable levels by agreement with those provinces, realistically it is prudent
October 31, 1974

that the federal authority, as the final arbiter of interprovincial interests, should equip itself with powers to provide for oil price restraint in situations where either such agreements cannot be reached or, having been reached, are terminated or are found not to be effective. These powers are embodied in division II of part II of the present bill.
The government is most hopeful that the exercise of such powers will not be required. However, the potential tensions between producer provinces and consuming provinces are such that the only wise course is for the federal authority to equip itself with this latent power. Moreover, it could be that agreement having been reached as to a prescribed price under division I of this part, the province or provinces concerned might find it legally unenforceable, in which case the procedure envisaged in division II would have to be applied.
The federal policy in respect of oil prices means that for the moment, and conceivably for some time to come, the price of Canadian oil will be significantly below the international level. The House is aware that, as a nation, we produce approximately the same volume of oil as we consume. However, we are, by the facts of geography, an important oil trader; about half of the oil we now produce is exported to the United States while about half of our consumption requirement is met by imports from overseas. Special measures are therefore needed if consumers across Canada are to benefit from a domestic oil price level below the international price.

Mr. Speaker, about Part IV of the bill which deals with the single price policy for oil, the second essential objective of the government policy is to set up a single price for oil in Canada taking into account, however, the differences in transportation costs and quality. Practically, this will mean that a refinery in Toronto will pay the same price for its crude as a refinery in Edmonton excluding, of course, the difference in transportation costs.
Still, under certain circumstances, with which I shall deal later, it may be necessary to alleviate some abnormally high transportation costs. Similarly, the same oil should be worth the same price at the Montreal and Halifax refineries, the only differences stemming from the cost of moving the oil from overseas suppliers to the refineries.
As far as the government policy is concerned, the problem is one of adjusting the price of the oil products of the Montreal refineries, which use very expensive foreign crude oil, to that of the Toronto refineries which use a far less costly crude oil for western Canada.
Division I of Part IV of the bill stipulates that part of the mechanism must serve to achieve uniform prices through the setting up of an importer compensation program, in fact this was done when Parliament voted certain sums to that effect.
Last January, when the ministers of Energy held their first conference, the "cushion" concept was studied and accepted with regard to international oil prices in those parts of Canada which rely on imported oil. Later, its implementation led to the achievement of our objective, that is the standardization of the cost of crude to Canadian refineries, due allowance being made for the differences in transportation costs and quality. As a result, we
Oil and Petroleum
saw, for the first time in many years, a remarkable uniformity in wholesale prices of petroleum products.
As an example, the cost of gas is now the same in Montreal as in Toronto. There is a difference of tenths of one cent in the cost of heating oil between those two cities. In Quebec City gas costs just over 1 cent a gallon more than in St. John, N.B. The difference in gas and heating oil prices in the Prairies and Central Canada merely reflects the differences in transportation costs of the crude oil to refineries; it also shows how keen the competition is in Alberta as far as natural gas is concerned. Therefore, we have already succeeded in applying efficiently throughout Canada the single price policy for oil, in spite of geographical characteristics that mark the oil sector of our economy. The House is now asked to establish a permanent regulation for this important aspect of our oil policy.
The government attaches great importance to the single price policy for oil across Canada. Without this legislation, the import-dependent areas would be subject to fluctuations of world prices controlled by OPEC and would actually have to pay oil over $4 or $5 a barrel more than areas supplied with Canadian crude products. That would create an intolerable situation and would bring about tremendous differences between oil-consuming areas and industries. It is almost impossible to imagine the consequences that could result to our way of life and our commercial activities.
The statements made by the Provincial Premiers left no doubt about how important they consider the upholding of price controls, and showed they recognize the marked cost factor of oil in our national economy.
In circumstances where overseas oil supplies are readily available, as they presently are, albeit at high and fluctuating price levels, the single oil price policy can be implemented by means of the import compensation program. However, overseas oil supply could again be subject to disruption as it was last fall and winter. The government is acting vigorously to plan for such emergencies. Earlier this year, the Energy Supplies Emergency Act created an allocation board which is now developing plans to deal with internal aspects of supply stringency. On the international front, Canada has been closely associated with the development of the international energy program which has as its central feature a system of international oil allocation.
Given the size of our domestic oil producing and refining industry, there is much which Canada can do to help itself in circumstances of stringency in overseas supply, but at a cost. Because of the great distances in our country, such help by way of transfers of oil between regions is very expensive. The large-scale shipment of western Canadian crude oil, first by the Seaway and then via Vancouver and the Panama Canal, a distance of some 8,000 miles, was probably the single most important factor enabling the oil industry adequately to maintain product supplies in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces last winter.
The additional cost of the Panama movement could be great, possibly amounting to some $2 per barrel, or about four times the cost of moving oil from Edmonton to

October 31, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
Toronto by pipeline. Shipments of residual fuel oil from eastern Canada, which usefully supplemented the supply of industrial fuel to British Columbia, were made at a similar extra shipment cost.
In a possible future emergency, such extraordinary movements could only take place, on any realistic basis, either if the companies effecting them could recover the additional costs from the market or if those companies were to receive compensation from government for those costs. Market cost-recovery would necessarily involve a breach of the single oil price policy, which the government is not prepared to countenance. Apart from the question of principle, the difficulties of allocating increased transportation costs between regions will be obvious.
The government, therefore, proposes that provision should be made for compensation to be paid by government for abnormal transportation cost incurred in the emergency delivery of petroleum into any areas of Canada experiencing a shortage in supply. Powers to extend such compensation have been incorporated in division II of part IV of Bill C-32. The triggering mechanism is a recommendation of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to the governor in council, which in turn directs the Energy Supplies Allocation Board to implement division II. These powers will be used only where an emergency situation exists.
I should point out that this could be an emergency different from, and perhaps occurring prior to, the declaration of a state of emergency so grave as to bring into play the allocation mechanisms under the Energy Supplies Emergency Act. Indeed, action by the oil industry to transfer supplies on the basis of compensation to be provided under this part of the act could well remove an existing shortage of supply without further moves by the government. We would hope in this way to be able to forestall the development of circumstances in which the full allocation procedures of the Energy Supplies Emergency Act would have to be called into play.
In short, the House should look on this provision as an instrument complementary to the powers under the Energy Supplies Emergency Act and to the steps being taken in relation to the international energy program. The intention is to safeguard Canadian oil and energy supplies in an emergency, without impairing continued implementation, in those circumstances, of the essential principle of a single oil price across the country.
A necessary corollary of a domestic oil price level below the international market is some provision to ensure that Canada retains the higher value available from sales of domestic oil in international markets. Parliament already recognized this when it passed the Oil Export Tax Act in January of this year, with its provisions for the levying of flat rate export taxes, on crude oil only, in the period from October 1, 1973, through April 1, 1974. Part I of Bill C-32 provides for a "tariff of charges" on the exportation of oil, including oil products.
As I remarked earlier, export charges have been paid by industry on a voluntary basis since the beginning of April, and the provision in part I is needed to supply an ongoing legislative basis for the export charge. Determination of the amount of the charge is linked to the National Energy Board's assessment of the just and reasonable price for

Canadian oil in the export market. In setting this price in relation to section 83 of its act, the board takes into account the general public interest.
The proceeds of the oil export charge represent an important contribution to the consolidated revenue fund. Similarly, the costs of oil import compensation are a significant charge on the fund. Estimation of the respective financial magnitudes is a matter which must interest this House greatly, but which entails great uncertainties. For example, overseas oil supplying countries have shown themselves capable of implementing retroactive tax adjustments, and in many cases contractual supply arrangements can be such that the retroactivity has to be accepted by importing companies as a contingent liability. However, our export charge per unit is assessed each month on what is intended to be a firm basis. We therefore have a "once for all" export charge on the revenue side, but face an import compensation liability which may be subject to some retroactive change at the instance of a foreign government.
Another problem area is the estimation of the aggregate volumes which will bear the export charge and which will be liable for import compensation. For example, our rates of export are dependent in part on market conditions in the United States-which are difficult to predict-as well as on the National Energy Board's determination of quantities surplus to Canadian needs. The volumes of imports qualifying for compensation, that is, the net amount of eastern Canadian consumption supplied from foreign oil, are difficult to assess on the basis of past experience.
However, assuming an average export charge in the present fiscal year of slightly less than $5 a barrel, an average import compensation of $4.50 a barrel, average exports of crude oil and products of some 860,000 barrels a day, and average compensable imports of some 790,000 barrels a day, we arrive at a compensation liability of approximately $1.3 billion and an export revenue arising of approximately $1.5 billion. I must stress that these are "order of magnitude" estimates and not precise forecasts. I put them forward, not without hesitation, because I believe the House would wish to have some guidance in this area. However, I must stress that the estimates are only as good as the assumptions which they embody, and some of these could quite well be invalidated before the end of the fiscal year.
As to unit amounts of export and import compensation, it is my general expectation that the average per barrel export charge would somewhat exceed the average per barrel import compensation, largely because of quality: the oil that we export is generally of a lighter grade and of a lower sulphur content than the oil we import. As to the aggregate volumes of exports and imports, in making this estimate it has been assumed that in the balance of the fiscal year no significant reduction will take place in export rates. As the House knows, this is a question upon which the National Energy Board has held extensive hearings.
Concerning the succeeding fiscal year, I think I would be committing a hostage to fortune if I were to produce at this time an estimate of the balance of revenues and
October 31, 1974

expenditures. Suffice it to say that this matter is under constant review in my department.
Part III deals with domestic gas price restraint. A most important and necessary new element of the bill respecting the Petroleum Administration Act is part III, which deals with the pricing of natural gas primarily in interprovincial trade, and incidentally in extraprovincial trade as gas moves toward the international boundary and is destined for the export market.
Natural gas is an extremely valuable energy resource. However, as a result of historical circumstances and the particular commercial relationships and regulatory procedures existing in the gas industry, it is a resource which is presently seriously undervalued in Canada in relation to competing energy resources. This is an unhealthy situation leading to distortions within the energy economy and as between consumers of different fuels. It is resulting in wasteful use in some instances of a precious resource.
To avoid distortions both in the supply and in the consumption of competing fuels, an integrated and consistent approach to pricing is required. I think that all of the participants in our energy economy would assent to this principle. The problem is to achieve this consistency in a manner which strikes a balance between the interests of consumers and the ambitions of producers.
This question of finding an appropriate pricing mechanism for natural gas has been the subject of intensive discussion with the producing interest, represented by Alberta, and the consuming interest, represented chiefly by Ontario. We have seen, over the past few years, the tension between these two interests marked by lawsuits, by threats to withhold gas and by threats to challenge provincial legislation. In a series of discussions we have had with the two governments, both together and on other occasions individually, we have proposed a phasing to commodity value, which would yield increasing returns to the producing region, but over stages that would cushion the impact on consuming regions.
In the past several months we have indicated that while we would hope to arrive at a compromise, federal authority of the kind sought in the bill would be necessary in order to carry out any agreement. We have advised the provinces of our intention to exercise our jurisdictional responsibility in this area.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask a question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Certainly.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The way the minister put that, he suggested that the power would not be used to impose agreement, but to implement one. Is that what he meant?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I shall be dealing with that point in my next two passages. If I do not answer the question satisfactorily, I shall be glad to receive a question at the end. At the moment, gas prices for domestic consumption are being shaped principally by arbitration proceedings taking place under the Alberta Arbitration Act, which specifies the criteria for determination of the value of natural gas in terms of its commodity value in markets served. By "commodity value" under that act is meant the thermal value of natural gas determined in relation to the
Oil and Petroleum
price of substitutable energy competing with gas and after allowance for the premium value of gas as a fuel.
The federal government is not opposed to this pricing principle. However, the extent of the gas price increase needed to achieve commodity value is now such that an abrupt rise to this level could prove very disruptive. For example, there may be situations in which industrial consumers of gas will have to switch to alternative fuels upon gas being priced at commodity value. In these circumstances, it would be reasonable to provide a transition period. If this transition is to be accomplished without confrontation between producing and consuming interests, a federal presence in the gas transacting area of our energy economy is required.

Such is the purpose of Part III of the bill. It is intended to regulate the gas trade and it sets goals similar to those of the oil policy. It is also meant to maintain balance between prices of alternative fuels in Canada.
This approach compares to the one explained in Part II of this bill and Parts II and III of Bill C-18 of the previous Parliament concerning oil. It is provided that the federal government and producing provinces, and this refers to the question of the Opposition Leader (Mr. Stanfield), will determine the price of gas by agreement. In case such agreements are not reached, or if they are but are not put into effect for any reason or if they are declared ultra vires by a provincial government, as is the case for oil, it is provided that the federal government will give itself increased powers. While the goals for gas are similar to those set for oil, differences in the principles of transactions of these two products give, in Part III, a more simple situation for gas than the one for oil described in Part II. For example, it is not necessary to put up a system of licences to regulate the interprovincial movement of gas at preset prices.

To sum up, if I might, for a moment on the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), in the discussions, primarily with the two provinces affected, in this regard we have suggested the general principle of phasing to commodity value with regard to petroleum or petroleum products, and have suggested a timetable of five years of appropriate steps that might be taken. This is, I think, a question very much in negotiation and we hope the negotiation will be successful.
With respect to the public statements of the various ministers, I think I would be correct in saying that in the statement of the Ontario minister of energy there is acceptance of the principle of a higher price, and in the statement of the Alberta minister there is acceptance of phasing. I would hope these two positions can mature into an agreement. But an agreement, for legal reasons, would have to be enshrined in action taken at the federal level with regard to the interprovincial price of gas.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If there is no agreement, what is the stance of the federal government?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In respect of petrol and crude oil, if there is no agreement between the parties or if, for example, agreement should fail perhaps in respect of

October 31, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
natural gas because of the long-term contracts, the federal government would have to take action pursuant to the regulations to stipulate what the price level would be. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, Part V, the next one, is entitled: "General".
Part V confers on the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources the necessary administrative powers to prevent infractions to this Act. These powers include the right to demand information and examine files on the premises, whenever there are reasons to believe that this act has been contravened. In case he is refused, a judge could issue an order to confirm these rights. On the other hand, citizens are entitled to a certain degree of protection against administrative abuses.
Moreover, if requested by the Minister, the Energy Supplies Allocation Board may also review the prices at which domestic oil, foreign oil, oil products and gas are being sold in Canada, and may also submit reports and recommendations to the Minister.
Finally, under Part V, the Minister must submit to Parliament, following each fiscal year, a report on the amount of revenue from the charge imposed pursuant to Part I, and on the aggregate amount of compensation paid out pursuant to Part IV.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I commend Bill C-32 to the House for its careful consideration and prompt passage. The objectives which it seeks to achieve are for the most part familiar to members as being now well-established components of an integrated national energy policy. The provisions for export charge, import compensation and oil price restraint are essentially as they were in Bill C-18 of the last parliament. Where changes have been made, they reflect experience and knowledge accumulated in the intervening months.
The measures for gas price restraint represent a logical step to deal with the uncertainties of the present gas pricing situation. The provision in part IV, division II for compensation to be paid for emergency movements of oil between Canadian destinations is, I suggest, a prudent provision in the present circumstances of instability affecting the supply of world oil and a necessary complement to measures already taken or contemplated.
Important elements of our oil and energy policy have been endorsed by the consensus of first ministers, although it cannot be fairly represented-and I make the point specifically now-that Alberta agrees with us in the matter of gas pricing. The Alberta ministers indicated that they would, of course, oppose that particular approach. I believe that the direction of our policies has widespread public acceptance. This consensus has in large part been implemented by informal or temporary measures. It is now the responsibility of parliament to give formal expression to its will in these matters as incorporated in Bill C-32 which is the focus for this debate and decision of this question.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Madam Speaker, this is the second time the principle of

this bill has been discussed in the House. When the bill was introduced in the last parliament as Bill C-18, we thought it was just to put into legislative form the agreement that the 11 governments made on March 27 last year. Today the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) indicated that some changes had been made in light of the experience of the last four or five months. That means we are into an entirely new ball game, Madam Speaker. What makes it different and new is that what we thought was a temporary measure turns out to be permanent. We thought the previous legislation was just a temporary means of carrying out an agreement reached by the 11 governments, but from the minister's speech today it is obvious that he looks upon this as permanent legislation to control prices on a permanent basis.
It is clear that this permanent measure refers to all products made out of crude oil, out of the tar sands and out of natural gas. The minister kept referring to the fact that this is part of an integrated energy policy, so we must assume that next it will refer to hydro power and after that nuclear power, and so on. So we are dealing with a new situation entirely, Madam Speaker; not the one we thought we were dealing with last spring.
The debate on second reading lasted two days last spring. The seven speakers who participated for the official opposition mentioned the dangers they saw in moving into the very sensitive area of federal-provincial relations, and they put forward ideas for strengthening and improving the bill. In committee, we were intent upon being provident housekeepers, looking at the terms of the bill and the auditing conditions. Witnesses such as officials of Imperial Oil of Canada and the attorney general of Alberta were called. We found out from the latter gentleman that although much of this bill is according to the understanding between the 11 governments, part III was not part of that understanding.
Part III shows us that when dealing with matters of federal and provincial jurisdiction we need all the help and competence of the people in our system of communications and consultation. The attorney general of Alberta said in very clear terms that part III was not only part of the understanding arrived at by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the ten premiers, but that Alberta could not agree to it. This bill is simply a flat, brutal statement, in the name of bureaucratic efficiency, that if there is no agreement the federal government has the power-and intends to use it-to impose unilaterally a price control system in Canada. I suggest that the question of price controls, as evidenced by court decisions over generations, is purely in the provincial field.
We had an election last summer. I got the impression at that time that the government was opposed to wage and price controls and other parties were also. But one of the first acts of the government in this new parliament is to bring in a bill-not just a housekeeping bill to get us by for a year or so and to adjust to the new situation of petroleum in the world, but permanent legislation to control prices. This first step in the area of control will lead to the control of other products, Madam Speaker, and eventually to wage control. That point should be kept in mind during this debate. Although this government campaigned against wage and price controls, it is now using the excuse


October 31, 1974

of the difficulties of last fall in the oil market to bring in legislation such as this on a permanent basis.
Madam Speaker, at this point, regardless of the feelings of some of my colleagues and some provincial cabinet ministers, I should like to compliment the minister on the way he has handled and has learned one of the most involved and complicated subjects in the world today, that is, energy in the form of oil and gas. Speaking as one who has spent his life looking at the economics of the oil, gas and related energy industries, I recognize the work the minister has done and yield to no one in paying him a compliment. On the reverse side of the coin, it must be said that some members on my side of the House and, I hope, members on his side, have grave reservations about the government's moving so rapidly and, if I may say so, in a blundering way in the direction of price and wage controls, which is the ultimate thrust of this bill. So in discussing this bill I will put forward some of its principles upon which we all agree.
All parties in this House hope that, with God's grace, we will have energy available for many decades to come and that we will be advantageously placed in this competitive world to provide energy at lower prices for all Canadians. Not only must prices be lower for the benefit of consumers and industry, but they must be lower to attract investment to this country: it will come because we have cheaper energy resources on which to build secondary and tertiary industries. All parties support that principle. This bill will make it possible; we do not dispute that.
I was interested to note that the minister has changed his position with regard to the price level of oil. Most of us think that if the system is to work, the single lower price for all Canadians would need to be increased, over a phased period, to a level within shooting distance of the world price, otherwise intolerable stresses will be built up in the industry. Now the minister says that the price is to be significantly lower. All consumers in Canada back him on that statement. However, he also said that the price must be high enough to attract sufficient investment to this country to ensure a continued supply of oil, gas and other energy resources. That is where the wisdom of Solomon is required.
I hesitate to say flatly that on the basis of evidence available to those representing oil and gas producing areas, the price of $6.50 will not provide oil and gas in future decades and will enable us to meet the needs of our consumers and industrial concerns. I know that when the minister first entered this ball game he spoke of world prices and prices available at Montreal. Now he suggests that the price is to be significantly lower, which will make every consumer in Canada happy. Yet he says that he hopes the price will be high enough to encourage further production. I do not think any person in this House can pretend to know what that price will be eventually. I am sure the minister feels, as most of us do, that the price of oil will bear some relation to the price of the volume of gas required to provide an equivalent amount of thermal power. The same principle applies to other fuels.
The government and the official opposition have agreed on the principle of bringing in increases by stages so that
Oil and Petroleum
our people will not suffer the shock of going from $3 per barrel-the price at which we have been stealing it from the Arabs for 50 years-up to $11 per barrel. We all agree that the price should go up, but that there should be a differential between the world price and the Canadian price. It is possible, under this legislation, for that increased price to be reached in stages. This must be done through constant consultation between producing and consuming provinces on a daily or weekly basis, because conditions are changing rapidly.
We also agree on another principle. In this adjustment period when we are moving from $3 per barrel to whatever the final price will be-it will be related to the energy commodity price level, no doubt-we must provide a cushion for consumers who would otherwise suffer the impact of a sudden increase in offshore oil prices. It has been said in this House that Canadians owe a great debt to the people of Alberta and Saskatchewan who agreed voluntarily to provide the bulk of the oil needed to provide this cushion. You do not read in the newspapers of Quebec, Ontario and the maritime provinces that Alberta and Saskatchewan-have-not provinces only a few short years ago-are subsidizing Canadian consumers of oil, no matter whether they are driving their cars or heating their homes.
These two provinces are subsidizing consumers east of the Ottawa Valley at the rate of $1,300 million a year. As well, the people of these two western provinces are subsidizing the rest of the people of Canada. The owners of this resource have also subsidized the people of Ontario and those of other consuming provinces. That Canadians are willing to take on the responsibility of subsidizing Canadian consumers of oil, whether they are heating their homes, driving their cars or using it in manufacturing, speaks well of the common bond which hold this nation together.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Although the western provinces have accepted the tremendous burden of subsidizing Canadian consumers of oil to the tune of between $2.5 billion and $3 billion a year, this bill does not specify how long the people of those two western provinces must, with their depleting capital resource which is disappearing by the hour, maintain this subsidy. This brings me to my fourth principle, on which I think all parties agree. When we discussed a similar bill last spring, it was suggested that there should be a quid pro quo for the provinces which produce oil. The bill of last spring did not mention such a quid pro quo. In this new bill, despite all our talk of producing oil from the oil sands and producing natural gas, there is no mention of a quid pro quo for the producing provinces.
I know at the meeting of first ministers it was arranged to give back $100 million to Saskatchewan and a different amount to Alberta. However, by no stretch of the imagination does that meet the full measure of the burden these two provinces are carrying in the interest of national unity.
Last spring the minister heard in committee about amendments that were proposed. They were not laid on


Mr. Saltsman:: Compensation implies that there is no agreement.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I hear a voice-


An hon. Member:: In the wilderness.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -which received a call from the voices at Ottawa last August, who said, "The Prime Minister wants a policy to keep prices from rising." This voice heard the call and said, "The way to do it is to put controls ovc oil and impose an export
October 31, 1974

tax." So the father of this legislation does not sit on that side of the House, but is the voice I just heard.


Max Saltsman: Just call me papa.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I want to give an opportunity to the former leader of the New Democratic Party to take part in the debate before five o'clock, so I will bring my remarks to a close. The point I want to make is that the budget of May 6, 1974, was an attack on all the provinces and not just on the "Arab" provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: When you say to all the provinces, "If you are taxing your resources at 50 per cent, the federal government will turn round and take that 50 per cent", it is no longer a battle between Alberta or Saskatchewan and the federal government: every province is under attack, whether it be British Columbia with its forests, or Ontario and Quebec with their mines, or Newfoundland with its hydro power. Every province which contains a resource is under attack. Even the land taxes imposed by Ontario are vulnerable. If provinces wish to retain the point of view that under the constitution certain powers are given to the federal government while certain other powers are retained, they should recognize that the budget of May 6 was nothing less than a declaration of war.
If we look at tax decisions arrived at by the courts over the decades we find that over and over again, when a province levies a tax which it has a right to levy under the constitution, and when that tax interferes with a tax already put in place by the federal government, the courts overrule the province. Likewise, when the federal government, acting within its jurisdiction, seeks to impose a tax which has the effect of sterilizing or nullifying a tax imposed by a province, the courts hold that the first authority to impose the tax, when it has the right to do so, is the one whose position must be upheld.
This is a matter which will be dealt with later by members of my party who are better versed than I am in questions of constitutional law. However, I know enough about history to assure hon. members that there is a considerable body of opinion upon this subject. I will put just one quotation on the record as an illustration. The author has the name Laskin, and the subject of the book from which I intend to quote is Canadian constitutional law. In this passage, the author confirms what I have just said:
The respective taxing powers of dominion and provinces may not be used by either of them to sterilize powers conferred by the other upon its functionaries or substantially to impair their status.
This means that neither jurisdiction acting within the constitution can do anything to impair or sterilize the other jurisdiction acting within the constitution in the exercise of its powers. One government cannot negate what the other is doing. But this is what happened in the budget. I know, and Canadians know, that what we are witnessing in this budget is a fight for power between greedy governments, and I cannot see much difference between the provinces and the federal government in this fight. I have brought along, for the edification of some of
Oil and Petroleum
my innocent colleagues, a statement made by a cabinet minister in this imperialist regime. He was speaking in Estevan during an election campaign. This minister- everyone knows who he was-said, "Claiming royalties was allowed in the past because it was a relatively insignificant amount. Now it is a major provincial tax, that is wrong."
In other words, a long as you are doing it under the constitution and only taking a little bite in the form of royalties, the federal government will not interfere, but if, though still following the terms of the constitution, you take more, it is a sin. That is a new principle of justice. A second statement by the same minister was, "The provinces are getting an unfair share of our revenues and the budget cannot allow this to happen."
Those passages are from the minister's speech. If the provincial royalties were allowed, the minister claimed, provinces would be encouraged to make royalties as high as possible. Imagine that! As a partner in a property, you have been content with one-eighth, then the value rises so high that you ask for a half and get it. It is all right to take one-eighth, but it is wrong to take a half. That is what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) said. Imagine the provinces, asking for more money! That is a terrible thing. To be quite frank, I think they asked for a little too much, but the fact is that the federal government went in and started grabbing, too.


An hon. Member:: To the benefit of the majority of the Canadian people.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Another statement from the Minister of Justice was, "Canadian tax revenue from oil should be the same irrespective of where the wells are located." He did not like different rates being imposed. But what is wrong about there being a different rate in each province? I will say no more about the Minister of Justice.
This legislation started out with a temporary bill; now it is to become permanent. It will affect oil sands, natural gas and the development of hydro power, including the James Bay development. That is bound to make Mr. Bou-rassa happy. It will affect the Labrador development. Mr. Moores will be up here immediately. It will have a bearing upon the Columbia River development. That playboy will really be down here giving press conferences. When they begin developing Fundy power, I can see the premier of Nova Soctia coming here on the next train, or maybe flying his plane. Hydro power must be included, if everything is to be brought under control. Ontario is building four big nuclear power plants. They will have to be brought under the control of the federal government. The same applies to all other sectors of provincial resource development.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the principle of staging is not fully dealt with in this bill. There is no principle of quid pro quo in the bill; neither is there any clause providing for consultation. I point out that this is part of a pattern that is developing. As I see it, it is part of a pattern to move centralized power to the bureaucrats here in Ottawa. At the same time, the government is

October 31, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
willing, where there is a power position in the provinces, to destroy the resource companies through this innocent kind of ping-pong game. I say flatly, Mr. Speaker, that the minute you move the government into a position where it will control prices and wages, the consumer is the one who is going to get hurt.
Secondly, Canada's great opportunities which stem from our resources, particularly of energy and water, are being checked the minute government controls are put into place. We know that the government has alientated the west and is trying to take us back to colonial days, days we have just left.
Finally, the bill does not entrench or enshrine the principle of consultation. We do not have time to go through all these slow steps required to put things in statutes, as we used to 35 to 40 years ago. However, if the bill contained a clause providing that the government must consult, and that orders in council are accepted as statutory legalization of their action, then I think we could go along with it. I submit that the bill should be sent back for rewriting before asking the House of Commons to accept such a major change in the constitutional practices of this country.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-32, which will be known as the Petroleum Administration Act, has some features which the members of the New Democratic Party support and which we were the first to propose in this House. The bill also has some features about which we have decided reservations.
Let me deal first with the aspects of the bill of which we approve. The bill puts into legislation two policies which the New Democratic Party have been urging upon the government for at least two years. The first is a two-price system for oil, which would keep prices in Canada lower than the world price, and imposing an export tax or tariff charge so that the difference between the domestic price and the world price will accrue to the public treasury. In our opinion, this money could be used to compensate for the higher prices for imported oil which must be paid by people in Canada east of the Ottawa Valley, and I hope some of the money would also be used by the federal government and the governments of the producing provinces to develop, through some kind of joint arrangement, new sources of oil under public ownership.
The second feature of which we approve is that the bill seeks to establish a single price for oil plus, of course, transportation and handling charges, so that all Canadians will benefit equally from our petroleum resources. We in this party welcome these provisions, but we have serious misgivings about the method of compensation payments to the oil cartel and the increased prices which the minister has intimated will be paid to the gas companies in the future.
The details of these questions we can discuss more fully when the bill goes, as I hope it will, to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, as well as when the bill is reported back to the House at the report stage, and at third reading. However, it seems to me that this bill requires us to look at the much larger ques-

tion of a national oil policy as part of an over-all energy policy for Canada.
It should not be necessary to remind the members of this House of our dependence on energy for our future development and survival. Napoleon is quoted as having said that an army marches on its stomach. There can be no doubt that every industrial nation's progress or deterioration is in proportion to the availability of its energy supplies. Without adequate energy supplies, living standards in Canada could revert to those of the last century. So we have to ask ourselves: Do we have a national energy policy? Do we have a national oil and gas policy? If so, what are these policies? I suggest that we do not have a national oil policy for the Canadian people. What we have is an oil policy which has been foisted upon successive Canadian governments by the major oil companies, most of whom have their head offices in the United States.
I was very interested in the speech which was made to the Sierra Club of Ontario by Mr. Robert Macaulay, a former Ontario cabinet minister who represented the Ontario government before the National Energy Board and who served as counsel to the Ontario Energy Board. In the course of his speech, Mr. Macaulay said:
Canadians face a serious energy problem-a life and death energy problem. North America has lived in a fool's paradise. The national government of Canada for the past 10 to 20 years has drifted leaderless in the field of energy.
It has been lulled to sleep by the energy cartel of North America. Industry dominance of government policy amid public indifference is an open book and is beyond dispute.
That is a very strong indictment from a man who is knowledgeable about the energy situation in this country and who is fully aware of the operations of the oil cartel. I submit that the government ought to tell the people of Canada frankly that we are rapidly running out of oil and gas supplies. It is estimated that we have about nine years' supply of oil at our present rate of increased consumption. Conventional oil fields in western Canada have already passed their peak, and we can expect a continued decline. Unless we either curtail consumption or radically reduce our exports, we could be one million barrels a day short of meeting our requirements within the next five or six years.
We ought to ask ourselves: How did we get into this position? We got into this position because the government and the National Energy Board have for years accepted the figures of our available supplies of oil and gas from the oil industry. The people of this country have been lied to about the amount of oil and gas that we still have available to meet our needs. The United States oil companies operating in this country blandly assured successive governments that there were adequate reserves of oil and gas. As a result, they were able to obtain permits to export to the United States far larger quantities of fossil fuels, which Canada could ill-afford to lose.
It is significant that we are still waiting for the availability report of the National Energy Board to tell us what our inventory is of hydrocarbons in this country. If one wants to see the absurdity of our oil policy, one has only to look at the government's own figures put before the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public
October 31, 1974

Works the other day. These figures are for the 12-month period ending June 30, 1974. Our production in that period is estimated at an average of 2,008,000 barrels per day, and we exported in that period 1,206,000 barrels per day. We consumed, in Canada, 1,751,000 barrels per day. To meet the deficit as a result of these large exports, we imported
949,000	barrels per day. If you look at these figures it is apparent that in the 12-month period ending June 30, 1974, Canada exported 60 per cent of its production. We shipped out of this country 30 per cent more than we brought in. If some person came from another planet he would not believe that intelligent people would allow their rapidly dwindling resources to be shipped out of the country without a word, and knowing at the same time that their supplies were close to exhaustion.
To crown this indignity, the government is getting ready to sign an international agreement which, in an emergency, will require Canadians to reduce their consumption of petroleum products in Canada while at the same time maintaining our normal exports of oil to the United States. I say to the government that it would be well to think very carefully before signing that agreement. The government's excuse for this deplorable situation is that we must export our western oil because there is no way in which we can ship it to the area east of the Ottawa Valley. This merely proves the contention that our oil policy has been industry-dominated rather than people-oriented.
Interprovincial Pipe Line has never wanted to build a pipeline from western Canada to Quebec and the Atlantic provinces because its parent company, Exxon, controls the Venezuelan oil fields and has always wanted a captive market in eastern Canada for oil which has a high sulphur content and is difficult to dispose of elsewhere. The result is that while in Canada we produce sufficient oil to meet our own needs, we still have to export 60 per cent of our production because we do not have the pipeline facilities through which to take that oil from the parts of Canada where it is produced to the areas where it is required.
About a year ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) promised that a pipeline would be constructed to Montreal. There were two possible routes; from Sarnia to Montreal, or an all-Canadian route through northern Ontario and Quebec. The government said that while it would provide greater security for us to use the northern line, that would take a year longer and consequently it selected the less desirable route from Sarnia to Montreal. After a year, where are we? Not only is the line not started, but the application to build the line has not yet been dealt with by the National Energy Board. Interprovincial Pipe Line has asked for an adjournment, and an indefinite adjournment has been granted. The fact is that Interprovincial Pipe Line is dragging its feet. One cannot help but ask, who is running this country?
In answer to a question of mine the other day, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) said-and I do not lay the blame for all of this situation in Canada at his feet; he inherited the result of 20 years of negligence and maladministration; he is one of the most knowledgeable ministers we have had in this field, and I think he is valiantly trying to deal with the situation-he was prepared to consider the alternative of having the
Oil and Petroleum
government build the pipeline. We are always considering alternatives, but we have come to the time when something must be done.
I want to suggest a number of aspects of a national oil policy which have to be dealt with by this parliament. The bill before us is part of it, and the bill which is on the order paper to set up a national petroleum company is part of it; but there are many aspects of this question which ought to be brought together into a Canadian oil policy. Let me suggest, first, that it is not too early to institute measures for voluntary curtailment of petroleum consumption in this country. If Canadians were told that there will be a gap between the time our western oil supplies run out and the time new supplies from the tar sands and from frontier areas come into production, they would co-operate in reducing consumption. A reduction in consumption can be brought about without any hardship, and we ought to be asking for public co-operation to that end. I am not suggesting that any curtailment of consumption would solve the problem, but it would increase the lead time we have in finding other supplies of oil and natural gas.
My second proposal is that we should start, now, to drastically reduce our exports of crude oil. Some of our western oil could be moved east. If the pipeline were built, of course, we could move quite a bit of it. Some could be moved down the St. Lawrence Seaway, some by the Panama Canal, and some by rail; but if we could not ship all the oil that is surplus in western Canada it would do no harm to leave some of it in the ground, because we are certainly going to need it in the very near future.
The third proposal I make is that we should get on at once with the construction of a pipeline to take western oil into the province of Quebec and eventually to the Atlantic provinces. We in this party would prefer the all-Canadian route through northern Ontario and Quebec: it would give us greater security and would serve an area in Canada where a petrochemical industry and other industrial operations could be established. I do not think it will take any longer, if we begin right away to build an all-Canadian northern line, than if we sit around waiting for the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company to make up its mind and for the minister to summon up courage to do something about it.
Somebody must tell the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company either to begin construction of this pipeline or the government will move in. As a matter of fact, it is inconceivable to me that when the government a year ago decided it would agree to the building of this pipeline, it did not obtain an understanding from Interprovincial Pipe Line Company that if the National Energy Board approved the line, it would proceed with construction, otherwise months would be wasted with no result.
The government ought to move boldly. It has an obligation to the people who live east of the Ottawa Valley. The present situation in the Middle East is so precarious that no one can be sure that oil will be available from that area in the next few months, particularly if war should break out between the Israel the Arab nations. If that should happen, even at the very best estimate the people east of

October 31, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
the Ottawa Valley will go through two or three winters of uncertain oil supplies because the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company has been dragging its feet and refusing to move boldly on this project.
The fourth proposal I wish to make is that we should speed up production plans for the development of the Athabasca oil sands and the heavy oil in the Cold Lake area of the province of Saskatchewan. I do not agree with the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) who last year wanted us to build one plant a year. I think that is unrealistic. However, a plant could be built every two or three years in the Athabasca oil sands area.
It is possible to bring the heavy oil in northern Saskatchewan into production when adequate technology has been provided. I submit this is an area for public ownership in which the federal and provincial governments, either jointly or separately, should develop those sources of oil owned and controlled by the people of Canada with the people of Alberta or the people of Saskatchewan.
Today, almost all countries of the world except Canada and the United States have seen governments step in to take control of the oil industry and to set up national petroleum corporations to develop their resources. Most of these countries now recognize that the pressure of events is forcing them to look upon oil and natural gas as public utilities. Energy is too important to be left to the international buccaneers. In a speech made to the Sierra Club, Robert Macaulay made a comment which I should like to quote. He said:
The open marketplace should not determine energy prices. The marketplace stresses short-term benefits, particularly profit, rather than long-term social needs. Those who won't abandon the market concept are going to bring something cataclysmic down around their heads.
I should like to say that when a Conservative really becomes convinced that public ownership is for the benefit of the people, he has the courage to say so. That worthy position was taken by a former Ontario cabinet minister who comes from a province which gave us Adam Beck and Ontario Hydro. I should like to see my Liberal friends become equally courageous about the idea of public ownership in respect of the production of oil and natural gas.
We will have an opportunity, when the minister brings in the bill on the Canada Petroleum Corporation, to see to what extent it is merely a peripheral move or a genuine attempt to ensure that we develop oil in this country under some measure of public ownership. I urge the government to consider the possibility of becoming involved in the Athabasca oil sands and the heavy oil area of northern Saskatchewan.
The fifth point I wish to make is this. If the government is not prepared itself to establish plants in the Athabasca oil fields at least, as I suggested to the minister today during the question period, we ought to be prepared to take up the share of the project for building a $1 billion plant in the Athabasca oil sands which is to be dropped by the partner of Shell Oil of Canada. The American partner, Shell Explorer Company, of Houston, Texas, has decided to withdraw because the government-I congratulate it for this-refused to agree that whatever oil that company produced from this plant could go out of the country,

which would mean we would have no control over keeping our oil in Canada. The company also wanted very large tax write-offs. I commend the government for refusing this.
So the Shell Explorer Company is getting out and will dispose of its shares to someone else. This is a golden opportunity for the minister and the government of Canada to step in and take over the shares of Shell Explorer Company. This would give the government a 50 per cent equity in the plant to develop the Athabasca oil sands, and it would give the Canadian people some input into the development of those oil sands. One of the good features of this is that the government would not have the problem of having to go to the Alberta government for a licence or permit. The licence and permit have been granted, the plans are laid, the technology is completed, and the operation is ready to begin in 1976.
The government, either through the new Canada Petroleum Corporation or the Canada Development Corporation, should become a 50 per cent partner in this project. I hope the government will seize this opportunity so that this very important development of the last great resource of which we are sure in this country will not slip out of its hands into the hands of the multinational corporations. Mr. Speaker, I see you are about to rise. It is five o'clock, and I understand we are to proceed to private members' hour. Since we will not be dealing with this subject tonight, I move the adjournment of the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: I thank the hon. member. It being five o'clock, the House will proceed to the consideration of private members' business listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions (papers), public bills.


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions. I believe there is a general understanding that perhaps we could move from Bill S-ll, which would normally be dealt with today, to Bill C-206 in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The House has heard the suggestion of the parliamentary secretary. Is it agreed that that private member's bill be stood?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Since there is no motion for papers today we will proceed to public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: that Bill C-206, to amend the Inquiries Act (publication of
October 31, 1974

reports), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the parliamentary secretary brought me in on his conference because I certainly did not realize the procedure would be other than the disposition of Bill C-206.
An article by Geoffrey Stevens appeared in the Globe and Mail on October 26 dealing with the subject of private members' hour, in which he referred to members who bring bills as "candidates for oblivion". I think he was quite correct because this private members' hour could be called an hour of frustration notwithstanding the fact that it does give members of parliament an opportunity to bring forth matters which they consider important to the Canadian people.
I should like to read the concluding paragraph of Mr. Stevens' article which is right on point. He said:
Although some of these bills will eventually be debated, (for one hour), they all have one thing in common-none will become law unless the government decides to take them over. Unless you subscribe to the quaint notion that the only people in Ottawa who are capable of thinking are those who inhabit the treasury benches, you have to be concerned about the short shrift given private members' bills. It's one more argument for a real reform of parliamentary procedu. a.
I certainly agree with that and I am sure all hon. members do, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who has indicated his interest in and concern about the role of parliamentary procedure, will read that paragraph and take it seriously.
The explanatory note to Bill C-206 reads as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to establish a right in the public-vested in Parliament-to reports made by Commissions appointed under the Inquiries Act. Under the present law, a commission only reports to the Government which thereafter voluntarily releases the report in its own time.
I sincerely believe it essential in a participatory democracy that the public have access to information compiled by government, provided such information does not affect national security or matters which are, without question, confidential.
The bill I bring before the House this afternoon will commend itself to you, Mr. Speaker. It entails no expenditure of public funds out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, this bill, if passed, will ensure that another fund, the fund of public knowledge, will wax fat with the pearls of wisdom, gems of wit, and nuggets of information continually brought forth by royal commissions.
Getting down to the substance of the bill, it would first ensure that a report by a commission appointed under the Inquiries Act be made public by tabling in both Houses of Parliament; second, that the publication of a report would not be delayed but be tabled in both Houses within 15 days after its completion; and third, that there be an opportunity to debate a report within a time limit after it is tabled upon motion of ten members in either House. I would hope that all hon. members would look upon these criteria with favour.
Having regard to the report of the commission which inquiried into Canadian security measures and procedures, and in fact the procedure followed by that commission in its own report, there is a provision in the bill that a
Inquiries Act
commission-if so authorized in its terms of reference- may omit from its report published in the House any matter that may be prejudicial to the safety or interests of Canada. The uncensored report would, of course, go to the Contemporary Secretary of State.
I do not propose, Mr. Speaker, to delve at length into the history of our Inquiries Act. My recollection is that it came to us from the United Kingdom by way of the province of Upper Canada. I do not believe it was amended over the years since its passage in the early years of Confederation except perhaps to consolidate part I and II with part II which relates to inquiries by a minister within his own department. The United Kingdom, however, amended its legislation many years ago to provide for publication of a commission's report. The amendment was made after a government got into trouble by withholding a report.
In the hundred years of Confederation from 1867 to 1966 there were 396 commissions under the Inquiries Act. Excluded from this total are the several hundred commissions appointed to investigate charges of political parti-zanship, and many pre-1948 commissions involving the revocation of naturalization or of citizenship. My authority for these figures is George F. Henderson's "Federal Royal Commission in Canada, 1867-1966-a Checklist". Information provided by the Library of Parliament adds four more commissions, in the period 1967 to mid-1974, for a total of 400 commissions exclusive, as previously mentioned, of those commissions relating to political partizan-ship and citizenship.
Mr. Henderson's introduction to his "Checklist," although only seven pages in length, is interesting reading. The following quotation from page xv is relevant:
Today many royal commissions have become temporary government departments. To a large extent this change from the earlier, simpler form, with a few commissioners, a secretary and a stenographer who recorded evidence, has occurred because of the greater importance now attached to the gathering of data and to the preparation of "special studies". The first commission to prepare numerous studies-18 in its case-was the Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations (1937-1940). To date the largest number of special studies has been issued by the Royal Commission on Canada's Economic Prospect (1955-57)-33 in all.
Then Mr. Henderson speaks of his difficulties in locating many of the diverse reports. At page xvi, he says:
... With the compilation of the list completed the task of locating the reports commenced. About half of them were readily available either in the Sessional Papers series or as separate publications. The others which have been discovered turned up in various places from sets of private papers to the departmental files of the federal government.
In spite of this added effort only 300 out of 400 royal commission reports could be located ... There is consequently little doubt that copies of many of the elusive reports are hidden away in collections of private papers or in other unlikely repositories.
That is one reason for my introduction of this bill, Mr. Speaker. There should be a specified public depository for all commission reports. This bill provides that the depository shall be parliament. Mr. Henderson's introduction alerts me to the fact that the bill may be deficient. It does not deal with the problem arising from the modern trend of commissions to issue "interim reports" and "special studies".
Nor does the bill deal with that recent phenomenon, Mr. Speaker, the ubiquitous "task force," so-called. The
926

October 31, 1974
Inquiries Act
Library of Parliament-in a ten year period commencing in 1964 and ending in July of this year-lists the appointment of 19 royal commissions. However, in the last five years of that period, there were 17 task forces or other miscellaneous federal bodies of inquiry that published reports. This does not include, Mr. Speaker, those task forces and other boards of inquiry appointed by the government that did not publish reports, but withheld from the public the information they had gathered at public expense.
I am concerned about information gathered at public expense not being readily available to the public. It should be readily available. It can be argued, Mr. Speaker, that modern royal commission always publish reports. That may be so. But they do so only by the leave and licence of the government.
Under the Inquiries Act the public is not entitled to the reports as a matter of right. This point is illustrated by the fact that the terms of reference of the Food Prices Review Board, dated May 25 of last year, specifically authorized the board to "issue reports, on its inquiries, with all dispatch, including recommendations." Again, when the board's powers were widened on August 21 last year, the Governor in Council, in granting powers to the board, said that where the board deems it necessary it may publish a report on tis inquiries without delay. Here, Mr. Speaker, are both the principle and substance of this bill in governement form.
The government itself speaks of publication of reports from time to time, and of the publication of these reports "with all dispatch" and "without delay". Here are words, Mr. Speaker, that are full of juice to meet the purpose, 100 per cent pure in bacillus coli count.
I suggest to the House that the order in council in which these words are recorded is public confirmation that members of the Privy Council who advised His Excellency to use them are in accord with the principle of this bill and would welcome the present opportunity to send this bill to the committee.
The suggestion may be made that the precedent concerning the Food Prices Review Board is addressed to a particular purpose, and that the members of the Privy Council never intended to adopt the principle of "publication with all dispatch" as a general principle. I refute that suggestion with the words of the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) who said at one time:
-there is another side to the right to privacy which has not received the prominence it deserves but whose dimensions cannot be ignored. This is the tendency of governments to abuse citizen entitlements under the guise of privacy. In other words, government secrecy is sometimes legitimated as the need for a government's right to privacy but which may well be a denial of the public right to know. If privacy is the foundation of democracy, the right to know is fundamental to any participation in democracy. The public cannot be expected to dialogue-still less decide-meaningfully if it is refused the very information which would make such a dialogue and decision-making possible. What is necessary, then, is a freedom of information act entitling the individual to information which the government authority has arbitrarily seen fit to withhold. Indeed, as Professor Hugh Lawford of Queen's University has pointed out, the Canadian government has yet to enact a law respecting clearance of, and access to, government documents. The situation both in respect of access to documents in the National Archives as governed by the Public Archives Act, as well as

documents still in the possession of government departments, is far from satisfactory.
I adopt those words, Mr. Speaker, and make them my own, just as colleagues of the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton have made them their own. He uttered those words when he was Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, and he was addressing Queen's University in May, 1970.
Let me isolate the nitty-gritty of that statement: "If privacy is the foundation of democracy, the right to know is fundamental to any participation in democracy". To which, Mr. Speaker, in humbleness I add a paraphrased commentary from the Magna Carta: "Knowledge delayed is knowledge denied".
I ask my colleagues to support this bill. I commend it to the consideration of the House, in the certain knowledge that it is acceptable to Her Majesty's government.


Mr. Pierre Bussieres (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, the bill moved by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), an Act to amend the Inquiries Act, stems from a natural right of the individual, the right to information. As I have just said, this is a fundamental right and we, in this country, are very sensitive to the individual rights and the basic individual freedoms. We live in a liberal society, we find advantage to it, we want this kind of society and its advantages to be preserved. Any discussion, any administrative or legislative measure which would tend to restrict those fundamental rights of the individual are always the object of discussions and objections from citizens, pressure groups and also politicians. In these circumstances, in these discussions, where we see that these rights are in danger, protests rise from all sides, justly so.
The intent of Bill C-206 is precisely to confirm that right to information. Its aim is to make it easier to exercise this right, and, I would add, to protect the individual against the government's leaning to hide its administrative activities behind the too discretionary curtain of State secret and security.
Mr. Speaker, the administrative machinery of all our levels of government has become so cumbersome and complex that people are bewildered, and feel cut off from it. They often wonder to what degree they control that machinery which, as a matter of principle, belongs to them.
One can guess, Mr. Speaker, by what I have said up to now, that I agree as a matter of principle with the bill now before us. However, I would have certain objections to raise as to its passage. The first would be as follows: I believe that on the whole, one can say that the individual, in our Canadian society, is not hurt as far as his right to information is concerned. The second objection would be as follows: The act that this bill tends to amend is such that we should ask ourselves whether it would not lose some of its efficiency, should we pass Bill C-206, introduced by the hon. member for Hamilton West. And here is my third point: one wonders whether the right of the individual does not reflect upon another right, which is the right of the state, and whether a conflict may not arise
October 31, 1974

here between an individual freedom and another right of the state or the community.
A more careful examination of those three points I mentioned could justify, I believe, objections to the passage of this bill. It is obvious that a surprising volume of information is made available to the Canadian people as to the administration of their country. A day barely goes by, Mr. Speaker, without the editing staff of the various media getting numerous releases, either from government departments or from various government agencies. Releases are so numerous that the mass media are unable to publish or broadcast all of them.
Those releases deal with all aspects of the public administration in this country. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, papers are published by Information Canada at such a rate that I wonder whether an individual would be able to go through them on a regular basis.
As for ourselves, Mr. Speaker, we already find it difficult to go through the releases of all kinds that we get on the information coming from departments or various government agencies.
However, Mr. Speaker, our parliamentary system is another mechanism which contributes to the spreading of information, alerting public opinion on the administration of government affairs, and shielding what can be claimed too easily that is official secrecy.
The official opposition constantly has the opportunity to raise problems and put questions on the administration of public affairs, problems that seem to them as not being necessary for the public good, the better being of the people of this country. I must add, Mr. Speaker, that the opposition is doing a good job. I can understand that the three parties forming the opposition readily acquired extensive experience after several years on the other side of the House, enabling them to do a marvelous job, and thus help people to be better informed.
I would also like to add, Mr. Speaker, that the incredible number and the quality of mass media and information professionals also contribute to fulfill the right to information, a fundamental right of citizens and the community. The volume of information, the aggressiveness of the opposition, the number of media and the quality of information professionals are such that in Canada the right to information is in no way denied or restricted but quite on the contrary, highly promoted.
The second point I wanted to raise is the following-will the Inquiries Act up for amendment lose some of its efficiency if amended as under Bill C-206?
That Act, Mr. Speaker, gives the government powers to institute an inquiry on any matter relating to the good government of Canada, or the administration of any area of public affairs.
It seems obvious to me that if a provision like the one contained in Bill C-206 becomes part of the legislation, the Inquiries Act may loose some of its effectiveness.
Indeed, the immediate publication of the report on an investigation carried out under this act could nullify or seriously hinder certain procedures that should or could become necessary in view of the findings of the inquiry.
Inquiries Act
On the other hand, such a provision could make these inquiries more difficult. Witnesses could be much more reluctant to testify and to present certain papers in such conditions.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we must think about the harm that could be done to certain people by a premature publication of the result of such inquiries.
In my opinion, our governments do not abuse the secret of State nor the secret of inquiries. Time has shown the validity of the arguments for postponing the publication of certain documents until such time when the results of the inquiries are made public.
The third point that I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, is that in opposition to the right to knowledge, there is also the right of the State to keep some secrets. This right is related to the right of the society to protect itself. This point could be carried as far as saying that this right can also become a means to protect individual freedom.
What I would call the right to secrecy is recognized in our administrative traditions. This right is recognized and easily justifiable by common sense alone.
For instance, one could wonder if parties in this House are shocked and think they ignore the individual's right to information when they make their caucus secret. They are not shocked, they do not infringe this right and I believe that this right to secrecy is justifiably recognized.
One could also wonder if the parties in this House are shocked or believe that they ignore the right to knowledge because the discussions of the Privy Council must be kept secret. I do not think so and I believe that this is justified.
Those who would be shocked about this would certainly not have had to take part in the government or are sure that they will never be asked to do so.
By analogy, it can be said that the publication of the findings or the report of certain inquiries must be left to the discretion of the one who orders it pursuant to the Inquiries Act, that is the Governor in Council.
It seems to me that we are all very conscious of the importance of public opinion in our society and of the influence of public opinion on the institutions that govern our society.
I think the primary occasion on which public opinion materializes can be identified as electoral campaigns. The electoral machinery, which in a way is a symbol of democracy in our society, gives the people the opportunity to convey their judgment to their leaders, at irregular intervals of course, but not exceeding five years. And that opinion of theirs on their government is conditioned by political parties in presence. It is a vast forum which the various political parties take advantage of to cross-examine the administration of the outgoing government.
The actual duration of those campaigns, Mr. Speaker, is not as provided for in the Canada Elections Act. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, our parliamentary system allows political parties to canvass all year long.
Consider for instance the relation between information as broadcasted by the media and the actions of opposition parties in this House. For instance, a program on the quality of ground beef has led the opposition parties to
28305-59'/2

October 31, 1974
Inquiries Act
literally pester the government with questions. And that is a very serious matter.
The opposition parties quickly materialize the preoccupations of the people, and information is rapidly broadcasted, whether in respect of eggs, immigration regulations, or again in respect of the cow-calf prices, following the situation in the past few days in Quebec. One just has to take a close look at the questions put to the House to realize that the government is not hiding or entrenched in state secrecy.
Mr. Speaker, no one can obviously question the hon. member's good faith in introducing this bill. Keeping in mind the honesty of his intention, I should like to revert to the principle underlying this bill, namely the right of individuals to information.
However, even though I am personally convinced of the validity of this bill, I cannot subscribe to it for the reasons I have just mentioned.
Those were, Mr. Speaker, my feelings about this bill, and I thank you for letting me voice them.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to inhibit debate on the bill but it had been brought to my attention that there was supposed to be some discussion with respect to Bill S-ll, which has something to do with telephones in British Columbia. I just want it to be known there was no discussion with me or, as I understand it, with other members of my party-I am not sure about the NDP-with respect to that bill, which was supposed to come on today, rather than Bill 206.
The only discussion in which I took part was through the appropriate channels. The parliamentary secretary did indicate to me some time ago that Bill C-206 was to come up this afternoon. I do not like what has occurred over there. I was not brought into the discussions. Bill S-ll was supposed to be debated, and now we find out through the parliamentary secretary-I do not know who it was-that Bill S-ll would be postponed in favour of Bill C-206. As far as I am concerned no discussion took place. I want to let you know, Mr. Speaker, that we take a dim view of this sort of hanky-panky, if you will excuse the expression.


Walter David Baker: On the same question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I say that if there was any discussion with respect to this matter it would likely have taken place with me. There were no discussions with respect to the point my hon. friend has raised. When I left the House a few moments ago I did so in the expectation that on my return we would be dealing with Bill S-ll, which is extremely important to British Columbia. We had hoped that Bill S-ll would be brought forward because of its importance to the people of that province. If there were discussions, they were not through the usual channels. Perhaps they were through the most unusual channels.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to try to clarify the situation. I should say that the instructions I personally received as parliamentary secretary to the Min-

ister of Justice were to discuss bill C-206 introduced by my hon. friend from Hamilton-West (Mr. Alexander).
I have no knowledge of the discussions which might take place on the subject of Bill S-ll but I think that we shall certainly clarify the situation because I believe that the point raised appears to indicate circumstances which might seem surprising at first sight.
I presume however it will be easy to provide my colleagues with the necessary explanations so as to prove that if Bill C-206 was discussed, it is because the circumstances warranted it. But I shall undertake, together with my colleagues, to submit the objections to the parliamentary secretary who submitted the agreement in order to try to clarify the situation in the interest of all the parties in this House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I confess I am taken by surprise at the suggestion there has been any hanky-panky. Someone from the government side did speak to me and indicated that the sponsor of Bill S-ll did not wish to proceed with it today. The fact that a member has a bill on the order paper does not mean he is obliged to proceed. I was told that in any case a day had been set aside for the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) for his bill. I see nothing wrong with that, I am a little surprised that the hon. members were not given the same information, but I do not think there has been any hanky-panky.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: I thank hon. members for commenting on the question of privilege. From the point of view of the Chair may I say there seems to be no way in which the Chair can be aware of the nature of consultations which may, or may not, have taken place. The responsibility of the Chair, when suggestions such as that which have been made by the parliamentary secretary are forthcoming, is to ask whether or not there is agreement. In this case there was agreement, and the Chair has no choice but to allow the debate to proceed accordingly.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: I can
assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I was not privy to any discussions. I am not in the same position as the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) when it comes to keeping in touch with such matters. I was advised last week that I was to speak today. Bill S-ll is, no doubt, very important, but I was always under the impression that we were to discuss Bill C-206.
The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) made some pertinent observations regarding the need for the improvement of the rules of the House as far as Private Members' Hour is concerned. Although I do not agree with him that we should be candidates for oblivion I think it might be said that some of the subjects put forward might well be consigned to oblivion, since not all of them are reasonable, or set out in a sufficiently striking manner. I do not have the experience available to the hon. member for Hamilton West and it is possible that the criticism was well taken. Maybe, though, we should be putting forward better legislation.
October 31, 1974


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is not trying to mislead the House, but those were not my words. I was quoting from an article by Mr. Geoffrey Stevens who called us "candidates for oblivion".


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. member. I do not read Mr. Stevens, so I do not know. I should like to see some improvement in the quality of our debates on the principles of the bills which are presented. Possibly we could exchange points of view more freely with regard to the principles of the bills which come forward. That is the main thrust of my speech this afternoon. I hope that any time I say something with which hon. members opposite disagree they will interrupt me so that we can have a debate which would, I suggest, be more meaningful than some of the debates which go on during Private Members' Hour, when speeches made from one side are followed, without comment, by speeches from the other.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the remarks of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). It is obvious that Bill C-206, at least in my opinion, runs contrary to any government objectivity concerning information necessary to a healthy public administration.
I am not at all surprised to see that a member of the opposition-maybe if I was one I would do the same-is trying to do harm to the present government by requesting that it make public all reports of commissions established pursuant to the Inquiries Act. In its present wording, as has been said, the Inquiries Act allows the cabinet to investigate anything concerning the good government of Canada or the administration of any area of public affairs. This act also allows a Minister, with the authorization of the cabinet, to order an inquiry and demand a report on the activities of his ministry and on the conduct of whoever is employed by this Ministry.
At this time, the commission responsible for an inquiry submits its report to the government only who decides afterwards whether it should be made public. Bill C-206 is intended to change this practice and make it mandatory for any commission established under the Inquiries Act to submit its report to both Houses of Parliament.
I have read the bill-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The hon. member has not read the bill. Confidentiality is still respected.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: In certain matters. But who decides the confidentiality?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Read the bill.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Subclause (3) reads:
The commissioners, if thereunto authorized by the commission issued in the case, may exclude from a report to be laid before Parliament pursuant to subsection (1), so much thereof as might, if published or otherwise communicated, be prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State but nothing may be so excluded from a report
Inquiries Act
except upon explanation made in the report as so laid before Parliament.
Who decides, the House, the government or the commission? Understandably, the scope of any particular inquiry and its scale of endeavour vary in accordance with its underlying purpose, and this of course will usually be revealed in the commission's report. If the issues are narrow and reasonably clearly delineated, the report may read like the judgment of a court. On the other hand, broader and more policy-oriented questions will likely produce a report that speaks in language appropriate to these wider terms of reference.
Nevertheless, a commission's report remains just that- a report containing its own conclusions and recommendations on the subject under investigation. It is not a decision. In the same way that this House must decide whether and how to act on a report submitted to it by one of its committees, so the Governor in Council will have to determine these matters in so far as a commission report is concerned. How, if at all, should it be translated into action?
There may be occasions when publication of a commission's report is itself important to the object of the inquiry. Public doubts and concern about a contentious issue, such as alleged maladministration or supposed threats to the security of the nation, may have set the inquiry in motion and the most salutary means of putting them to rest may, as a first step at least, be by publication of the commission's report.
However, there may be many occasions when this is not of such great importance. The report of a commission of inquiry may be wanted as one of the steps leading to the formulation or assessment of a particular policy. This step, like so many others that are carried out by government, may lead to a public statement of policy, the publication of a white or green paper, or the introduction of a bill into parliament.
But arrival at any particular policy position is, as is well known, usually carried out in an atmosphere of confidence and secrecy. Nobody would seem to disagree that this is a necessary and desirable condition of policy making in government. If a commission report represents merely one step in this policy making function then it, too, like the other steps along the way, should be subject to the same secrecy requirements. Therefore, whether such a report should be published or kept secret will depend on circumstances.
A general and unalterable rule in favour of publication in all cases may be injurious to the policy making process in many cases. Such a rule would fail to take into account the variety of objects that may have prompted the appointment of a commission.
Required debate of a report ignores the fact that the report represents only findings and recommendations, and only of the commission itself. It has not been translated into government policy. The subject of any such debate, therefore, would not be the policy or decision of the government. Debate at this stage may very well be often premature. When, and if, a report is translated into a green paper, or a white paper, or a bill on the subject, it would seem to me that this would be the appropriate time for debate.

October 31, 1974
Inquiries Act

The bill introduced by the hon. member for Hamilton West seemed at first glance to bring a judicious change in the situation which exists presently.
However, if we consider it carefully, we find that it features more disadvantages than advantages. I sincerely believe that reports prepared by commissions established under the Inquiries Act must remain classified, and that for the following reasons.
First, the inquiry commissions must proceed in all impartiality and put forward with honesty the necessary recommendations. That would be impossible if the investigators knew that a priori their reports must be made public. They would rather tend to attenuate the scope of their recommendations and please the greatest number of people, even groups, in order to avoid hostile reactions. So, there would be neither objectivity nor impartiality.
Furthermore, those who will give evidence before the commissioners responsible for the investigation must be able to do so in total freedom, so that their testimony may not be prejudicial to them on a professional or human level.
Moreover, we must protect reputations which might be affected due to the simple mentioning of names even though there is nothing they can be blamed for or though they cannot be charged with any criminal action.
Fourth, it is important not to restrict Cabinet freedom in choosing the decision that is best in the national interests. How can the government exercise sound management of this country if, instead of being free to weigh all possibilities, he has to adhere strictly to recommendations made in a public report?
Undoubtedly, the government would soon be considered as being at fault if it did not implement immediately a recommendation of such reports. The government would be considered at fault, and not quite assuming its responsibilities. Such would in my opinion be a very narrow view of government. I believe government is entitled to research and direct enquiries on any subjects of concern to it. Commissions created under the Inquiries Act, aim at serving Cabinet, at helping it better discharge its duties. Cabinet must not become a servant to such commissions, it is the other way around. Cabinet is answerable to the public, and commissions to Cabinet. The reverse would in my opinion be contrary to reason.
I am amazed that the New Democrats did not discuss that matter because in my research, I found there has been in Sweden, since 1766, a legislation on the subject. A whole lot of government information is available to the general public, in cases where Canadian citizens have no such right. Any government document can be made available to the public in Sweden, and since this principle was adopted, such right has been enshrined in the constitution.
In theory, all state documents are public property and each government department must present any document or file requested by a citizen or a newspaper, radio or TV reporter. In actual fact, the situation is much more complex and there are a number of exceptions: national defence, foreign affairs, unofficial reports, and the like; the main thing is that in Sweden, as in Canada, a minister

can always refuse access to a document and his decision is final.
So, I do not think that there is any improvement evolving from the statement that generally speaking all commission documents are public.
The main thing is not statements of principle, but the honesty and the morality of the government. Nothing ever prevents any government who has something to hide to avail itself of exceptions included in a bill such as the one before us, and to avoid making public the reports it receives, for reasons that it will divulge or not.
The last election proved it enough. The present government has the confidence of the people, it has nothing to hide. Therefore it must be free to decide whether or not it is in the interest of the population to publish a report submitted to it under the Inquiries Act.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask that Bill C-206 be rejected.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) in introducing his bill made some reference to the use of this hour allocated to private members' business which I think is of concern to many of us. However, he did not make any specific suggestions. Surely he would be considered naive if he really thought there was some chance that all, or most of some 150 and more public bills presently appearing on the order paper, and 40 motions, could get through to committee discussion. Quite obviously this would make the whole committee system of this House completely inoperative.
I think that also he is missing the point. He said many good ideas are presented. That may be so. I myself have several bills on the order paper which I think present good ideas. The reason for putting these bills forward is to present these ideas and, as the hon. member knows, via the draw at the start of a session, to give some of us the opportunity to expand a little more on what is back of the idea presented in a bill.
Since we only have at most some four hours each week for the discussion of motions and public bills I suggest that there might be some move toward splitting the time so an hon. member would have the opportunity to present his arguments in a period of, say, 15 or 20 minutes, and the remaining 10 or 15 minutes of the first half hour would be allotted for the response from either the government or opposition, depending on which side of the House sits the hon. member who presented the bill. This would enable us to get through about twice as many bills and motions as at the present time.
We are discussing the hon. member's Bill C-206, which takes a position I cannot support. We realise the protection of the confidentiality of reports under this act is at the discretion of the government which, naturally, must always retain full responsibility for the actions of the department under review. The public does not have the availability of reports as a matter of right and, as has already been said in the arguments presented here today, if this House debates subjects before the decisions are formalized and presented, it may make debatable the
October 31, 1974

actual need for the government and for responsible ministers since, in effect, this House would become the discussion point before the government could make up its mind. It is the government that has the responsibility for determining the direction in which it should move to correct anything found out, or found to be improper, as a result of the investigation.
I also think that the hon. member for Hamilton West, for the benefit of those persons who may, more by accident than design, read what is being debated in this private members' hour, should have expanded a little bit on the bill itself. In that respect I think I should read paragraph 2 of Chapter 1-13 of the Revised Statutes of Canada:
The Governor in Council may, whenever he deems it expedient, cause inquiry to be made into and concerning any matter connected with the good government of Canada or the conduct of any part of the public business thereof.
Then there is a paragraph about the appointment of commissioners and the power of the commissioners, which is much as it is set out in a court of law. Perhaps I should also read paragraph 6 as follows:
The minister presiding over any department of the Public Service may appoint at any time, under the authority of the Governor in Council, a commissioner or commissioners to investigate and report upon the state and management of the business, or any part of the business, of such department, either in the inside or outside service thereof, and the conduct of any person in such service, so far as the same relates to his official duties.
I have already stated my position in respect of the principle governing the declaration of these reports being at the discretion of the government. We then come to the technical considerations. As the hon. member himself must realize, as most of us do when presenting these public bills, when they are compiled they almost inevitably contain points at conflict with the existing statute.
Let us take Bill C-206 as an example. In the first clause, which is the part the hon. member suggests be added, it states:
The commissioners shall, within 15 days after the completion of a report by them on any matter within the scope of the commission, cause the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
However, the act itself says in Section 13:
No report shall be made against any person until reasonable notice has been given to him of the charge of misconduct alleged against him and he has been allowed full opportunity to be heard in person or by counsel.
Obviously no one can guarantee the time this is going to take, and that makes quite inoperative the definition in Bill C-206 of the specific time, which might quite easily take away the rights of the individual.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in respect of the arrangements that have been considered for the debate tonight. I think you will find there is unanimous agreement to a House order which I shall suggest in a moment.
Slaughter of Calves
Standing Order 26 provides for all speeches to be limited to 20 minutes, but it makes no provision for the debate to end until everyone who wishes to do so has spoken. I think you will find, however, that there is unanimous agreement to the following points: First, that the first round of speeches be limited to 20 minutes, but that all speeches after that be limited to 15 minutes; second, that no one shall seek or be given overtime; and third, that the debate be concluded not later than twelve o'clock.


Walter David Baker: That is the agreement as I understand it as well, Mr. Speaker, and we consent.


Mr. Caccia:: It is acceptable to us as read, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The House has heard the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Is it so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired I now leave the chair until 8 p.m. at which time the House will proceed to consideration of the meat producing industry, under Standing Order 26.
At 6.03 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Leave having been granted to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) 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 crisis in the beef producing industry manifested by the destruction of calves in Quebec and the high prices being paid by consumers throughout Canada, it is moved by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House do now adjourn.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want at the outset to answer briefly the questions- why do we have this debate-why do we have the crisis that now exists in the meat producing industry, referred to in the motion I sought leave to move this afternoon?
Public awareness that something was drastically wrong, that something was profoundly disturbing, was surely maximized last night when millions of Canadians witnessed on television the tragic destruction of some 600

Slaughter of Calves
calves by beef producers in the province of Quebec. Such destruction is abhorrent both to the producers themselves and to consumers throughout Canada.
Men do not raise cattle, farmers do not produce any kind of product in order to see them or it destroyed. Hungry people, whether in this country or abroad, and many of them are abroad, do not sit back in any state of equanimity or pleasure beholding the deliberate destruction of food, whether it be beef or some other product. Something has surely gone astray in Canada when this situation exists.
I want next to deal with the question of blame. Who is to blame? Is it some institution? Is it the farmers? Indirectly are the consumers responsible? The answer surely is that none of these groups is to blame. The answer surely is that the blame must rest squarely on the shoulders of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: He, and he alone, is responsible for the total lack of a beef production policy, a lack that has resulted in the situation where producers are losing approximately $150 per calf and have to resort to killing their products in order to dramatize their plight.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, it is the Minister of Agriculture, and he alone, who is responsible for this situation. He, and he alone, has permitted a vicious cost price freeze- squeeze leading-


An hon. Member:: A freeze?


John Edward Broadbent: We would have had a freeze if we had had the gentlemen to my right forming the government. That is perhaps the sole advantage of the present situation. It is the Minister of Agriculture who permitted this cost price squeeze which led to tonight's emergency debate.
During the past 18 months we have not had total inaction by the minister. He has certainly been very active. However, the action really amounts to a hodgepodge of ad hoc policies on beef which contradict themselves and, from month to month, lead to solutions which on a previous date were considered by the minister to be totally inappropriate. Let me be a little more specific.
During the past 18 months we have had increased tariffs on beef. These were followed by decreased tariffs. We had the elimination of tariffs. We then had them reintroduced. A few months ago the minister banned the importation of all beef from the United States. He then lifted that ban. Now we have a quota system for the importation of beef from the United States.
I see the minister is making notes. It is refreshing to see him involved hopefully in some constructive activity. I hope we will hear from him later this evening. The minister has done everything but give this country a coherent, rational, beef-producing policy that would, as a minimum, ensure the survival of Canadian produced calves over the coming winter months.

What specifically ought to be done in the short-term emergency situation? I do not want just to waste time by condemning the minister for his inaction or lack of coherent policy. I want to come to grips with the immediate emergency situation by making some constructive suggestions.
First, in the short run the federal government must catch up with the provincial governments. The prairie governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta some time ago introduced special measures to help the producers of beef. They wanted federal assistance. They wanted federal action, but they did not get any from this minister.
Yesterday the province of Quebec took a much needed step to help the producers of beef. However, there is not one of these programs which, in itself, is sufficient to deal with a situation that is national in scope. The provincial governments simply do not have the financial resources to do what is needed in the current situation.
The federal minister must immediately guarantee that our beef producers will receive, as a minimum, their costs of production in keeping the calves they must feed during the coming winter months. That must be done as a minimum, and it must be done immediately. Only by guaranteeing our producers that they will be subsidized to the extent of the difference between costs and market prices next spring can our beef industry be salvaged from the present crisis.
I do not use the word "crisis" lightly. If the product is not saved during the coming winter months it will mean one thing, and one thing only. Next spring, summer and fall we will have much higher beef prices in Canada. The consumers think they are experiencing difficulty now. If the minister does not take immediate steps to deal with the problem over winter months, Canadian consumers will be much worse off next year.
Second, for the long term the federal government must establish a national marketing board for beef.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I expected that. I expected my friends on my right, ever as they are back in the 19th century in terms of economic and social thinking, to oppose a beef marketing board. We have the hoots and catcalls now. I repeat, for the long run we must establish a national beef marketing agency. Without such an agency that would bring to the production of beef a sense of coherence and rationality, the horror produced in the minds of people watching television last night will, next spring and next fall, be repeated in the same minds due to the resulting increase in price. The only way of breaking the vicious up and down price cycle so harmful to farmers and producers alike is to establish a marketing agency for beef.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I say to my Conservative colleagues, and I use the terms loosely, that over 60 per cent of our agricultural products are marketed by such agencies. The only major agricultural product excluded from such marketing agencies is beef. I suggest it has been, to a considerable degree, the sense of coherence and organization

brought to agriculture by these marketing agencies that has made Canada one of the major agriculture producing countries in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: What about consumer interests? In the short run consumer interests can best be met by the point I made a minute ago, that is, by a guaranteed subsidy program introduced by the federal government to ensure that calves will survive the winter months. Secondly, the federal government must follow the example of the government of Manitoba and initiate a full inquiry into the beef industry, following the product from the farm or ranch through the meat packing industry to the retail outlets, and eventually to the consumer.
What is needed is a full and comprehensive study of our meat producing industry. I want to stress that any survey that is merely a skimming over of the industry by the Food Prices Review Board will not constitute an adequate substitute for the kind of major inquiry I am calling for now.
Why do we need this inquiry? It would at least provide answers to the following questions. Why is it slaughter prices have dropped more than 10 per cent from last year but the price of sirloin steak has gone up by 25 per cent? Why is it that the profits of the major meat packing firm in Canada, Canada Packers, went up by 36 per cent during the past year? I am comparing March, 1973, with March, 1974. The public have a right to know the answers to these questions. They have a right to know all the facts about the meat producing industry. The government has an obligation to set up the kind of inquiry necessary to provide these facts.
I want to conclude by saying something about the situation outside Canada. I have said we are among the four or five major agricultural producing countries in the world. We are among the four which are capable of exporting food. We are capable of producing more than we need. What all Canadians and people throughout the world find abhorrent is that there should be starvation in many countries of the world, not tomorrow, but today, while we in this country are not maximizing our production of agriculture.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Eachen) is here this evening. On behalf of his government he will be attending the world food conference in Rome next week. I suggest that he take to that conference not a general commitment or rhetorical expressions of concern for the well-being of the needy nations in terms of food, but that he go to that conference in Rome with a very specific proposal.
Surely Canadians are capable of producing enough to meet not only their own needs but also the needs of a great many hungry people of the world. If we had a coherently organized beef producing sector, along with the good organization and productive capacity we find in other sectors of the agricultural industry, the Secretary of State for External Affairs would be in a position to go to Rome and make a commitment on behalf of all Canadians so that people would not have to starve this year, next year or the years to come.
Slaughter of Calves


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I want to say, first and foremost, that one of the things I am appalled at is the cheap politics some people are trying to make out of this issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: One of the members of the NDP has made a big bunch of noise about putting the Minister of Agriculture into jail for destroying food. I emphatically deny I have ever done so, and I am amazed that anybody would stoop to tactics that low, knowing my history of aiding other people and taking part in food aid programs. If his party is serious-


John Edward Broadbent: On a point of order, if the minister wishes to rise on a question of privilege I respectfully suggest he should do so. If, on the other hand, he wishes to fulfil his obligations and talk about agricultural policy, then I suggest he do so now.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: If the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) endorses the suggestion of his colleague, he is saying that every Canadian should be put in jail, because every Canadian is, on an average, throwing away 400 pounds of food a year. The eggs which were lost amounted to one and a quarter ounces per person. To suggest that I am responsible for what happened in Quebec-


Steve Eugene Paproski: You are.


Eugene Whelan: Some more assassination by innuendo. You are one of the greatest I ever saw at that. In a democratic society, when things like that are said by people without any backing whatsoever, they want to do nothing else but destroy, because they figure I stopped them from being over here on these benches-that is the main reason-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Anyone who says I have not fought for the farmers or not got things done for the farmers since I have been Minister of Agriculture is a stranger to the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby talks about what I have done and what I have not done. I intend to touch on some of the things the government has done to assist the farmers of this nation, especially beef farmers. I would suggest he take a closer look at what was in those pictures last night and learn something about them. Most of those calves were day old calves from dairy herds. They were not beef calves at all. They are dairy calves, and they are not for human consumption until they reach a certain age.
What the minister of agriculture for Quebec has done is a most reasonable thing, and I have complimented him for it in the House of Commons. I would remind hon. members that farmers do not have the same bargaining power
934

October 31, 1974
Slaughter of Calves
as do grain handlers on the west coast, for example. I didn't hear the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby get up then and condemn those men when they stopped the shipment of millions of tons of grain for food to the starving people of the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: I did not hear him, or his party, or any of them condemn the Great Lakes pilots, some of the highest paid people on the Great Lakes, when they stopped the shipping of grain through the Great Lakes, which is worse than stopping shipments of grain from the west coast because more grain moves through Thunder Bay than from the west coast. We shall never make up the delivery of those grains to the hungry people of the world. Did he condemn them? No, he didn't. Why? Because he knows where his bread is buttered. He was too cowardly to get up and condemn them at that stage.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: As I was saying, farmers do not have the same bargaining power as other people in this nation, and they probably never will. But who the hell has condemned me more than that party for my stand on behalf of the agricultural producers in this country? I ran against a member of that group over there in my constituency and, boy, oh boy, he certainly sounded different from that great fellow opposite who is going to support the farmers, with the innuendo about me that he spread among the workers in my constituency at that time. But the workers in my constituency didn't believe him at that time, and they don't believe them now either, as far as that goes. They are about as phoney as a three-dollar bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: The fact of the matter is that we have ten provinces with ten different agricultural programs.
I welcome the opportunity to take part in an emergency debate on the beef industry in Canada. I have had many discussions on this subject with the provincial people. I believe the hon. member would even suggest that we impose a national marketing board on the beef producers. I say the legislation is there. If the producers want a national marketing board they can bring it about in a democratic fashion. The machinery is there. But maybe the hon. member's party doesn't know anything about democracy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: It is there for them to use. It is like a machine. It is there, and if they want to use it, it can do a job for them. There is no denying that. This government sponsored marketing boards for farmers if they want to use them. But marketing boards will not be forced upon them as long as I am Minister of Agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: We are all concerned about the price and quality of food Canadians eat. We all know that beef is one of the most important items in every housewife's shopping basket every week. I am deeply concerned over

the slaughter of calves in Quebec. My position is, and always has been, that I cannot sanction the destruction of food by anyone in any way.


Walter David Baker: Even eggs?


Eugene Whelan: Just stick to the facts, that is all. And make sure you act as you have been taught to act, as a good jurist.
On the other hand I sympathize with these farmers. They have been faced with rapidly rising prices for feed and all the other commodities they have to purchase. At the same time they have been hard hit by the loss of overseas markets for dairy calves. In the first six months of this year exports to Europe amounted to only 74,000, well down when compared with the first six months of last year. This situation has been brought about by the world surplus of cattle.
Last year, when the producers were exporting calves there were people who suggested we should ban those exports-that we should take this market away because it was a lucrative one. We did not do so. We let them keep that market. Now there is a surplus of beef pratically all over the world. The situation has been brought on, as I say, by a surplus of cattle, and this is something Quebec farmers can do nothing about.
I welcome the action taken by the government of Quebec and congratulate them for their quick response to offer assistance. I am not sure that all of us are fully aware of the importance of the livestock industry to this country, or aware of the serious problems that those in the industry face, particularly since inflation has been upsetting trading patterns in all commodities. Not all of these problems originate in Canada: we have to react to world situations, and I have outlined what we have done in this respect. In fact, most of the problems are international in origin. Nevertheless, we in Canada have done our utmost to assist the industry and to keep it on an even keel.
The statistics will show just how successful we have been in stabilizing the beef industry in spite of the enormous pressures and price fluctuations generated outside our borders. For example, let me first put the industry in proper perspective. Canadian farmers last year had total farm cash receipts of $6.4 billion. Livestock accounted for $3.6 billion, or 57 per cent of total farm income in Canada. Livestock are not only important to the agricultural industry of this country but to the manufacturing industry as well. The meat processing industry in Canada has annual sales of over $2.5 billion, which makes it the third largest manufacturing industry in the country. It employs more than 31,000 people, pays out $265 million each year in wages and contributes more than $20 million in income taxes. The hon. student from Oshawa-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: -who I was told by a hard working friend of mine has never worked a day in his life, would learn a little about beef farming if he spent some time on a beef
October 31, 1974

farm. He also might learn a little about automobile manufacturing if he were to spend some time in an automobile plant, which he never has. He is an expert on everything. He has now become an instant expert on food and beef marketing in Canada. He astounds me. His leader, in the last election campaign, had a two-price system. He never explained it, although I asked him to explain it many times. He said there would be one price for Canada and one price for the rest of the world. For whom was the other price meant, Mr. Speaker? The starving Africans and Asians who make only a couple of hundred dollars a year? He never explained it, neither did any member of his party.
We had dramatic evidence just recently of how high feed prices have made livestock production a very touchy business for the farmer. We have had to cope with some gigantic problems in the industry in the last two years. Anyone who says that I have not worked on those problems and done more than any other minister of agriculture of any government just does not know the facts. They do not want to be associated with the truth. They are out to assassinate by innuendo, and that is all.
On January 1, 1973, Canada banned the use of DES both as a feed additive and as an implant, because of the potential danger of cancer resulting from its use. The Department of Agriculture did not take this step, as Dalton Camp says we did; this action was taken by the Department of National Health and Welfare in the interests of the health and safety of the people of this nation. In February of last year we suspended the tariffs on beef and live cattle to ensure consumers a better price. We were also informed that there would be free movement of cattle in the United States. On August 13, 1973, we imposed export controls on beef and cattle, pork and hogs, to ensure that all Canadians had adequate and ample supplies of meat.
Why did we do this, Mr. Speaker? Because of the price control system in the United States, some sharpies down there discovered that if they shipped meat into Canada they could then ship it back to the United States and sell it at whatever price they wanted, thus disturbing the whole of the beef market in Canada and North America, a market on which we had always relied. Then in September we removed the controls but restored the tariffs same as the United States. On November 2 we imposed an import surcharge. We were asked to do this by the beef producers of Canada. We did what they asked, to protect them at that time. Hon. members can ask any one of these producers whether we did anything to assist them at that time.
Then in March we introduced a seven cents a pound premium on grade A cattle. In April we reduced it to five cents, but extended it to all grades except mature cows and bulls. Also, in April we required certification that imported beef was free of DES. The United States did not see fit to follow that up, but tried to participate in the election campaign in Canada. On August 2, I announced a comprehensive beef stabilization program, and on August 12 beef import controls went into effect. The beef import controls were based on a five-year average of imports from all countries shipping beef to Canada. We could see what was happening to beef production throughout the world,
Slaughter of Calves
and all these actions were necessary to stabilize our own beef industry.
On October 7, senior officials of my department met with provincial officials to begin work on a truly national plan to stabilize the beef industry. If hon. members opposite had not said, "You are going to have an election, you lucky Canadians", the stabilization legislation would have been before the House and passed into law by now. But they said, "No, let us have a big election," because they said they were going to run the country.
All these actions were necessary, Mr. Speaker, to deal with unusual and abnormal situations in the domestic and international markets that threatened either to depress the industry or to inflate consumer prices. They were all successful, too. We have enjoyed stability of price and supply that no other country in the world can match, and I challenge hon. members to prove otherwise. To October 19 of this year, inspected gradings of beef were 4 per cent above the same period in 1973, yet the price to the producer remained almost constant. Beef producers in other countries have been forced to fire-sale prices by increased marketings. At the present time, top grades in the United States are 10, 11 or 12 cents a pound less than our top grades.
We took action to protect our producers from the price pressures exerted by the ill-advised price freeze imposed by the former President of the United States. The United States Secretary of Agriculture said that any man who put a price freeze on food or beef would be an idiot.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There are lots of those around.


Robert Elgin McKinley: How much is beef in Japan?


Eugene Whelan: I am glad the hon. member for Huron (Mr. McKinley) has asked that. A kilo of beef in Japan-that is, two pounds, two ounces-costs $25. Let me tell the House about Japan. We protected our consumers against imports of United States beef that had been fattened with the artificial hormone DES. Every other country in the world did the same as we did. They do not import meat from any country that allows its beef exports to be fed DES. Even the energy problem and the rising cost of fuel affected the industry. Japan, for example, drastically reduced its beef imports because it needed the money to pay the higher prices for imported oil. This cut off imports from Australia, New Zealand and the United States. So where did they look for a home for their products? To the old dumping ground, Canada.
However, we did what the cattlemen wanted: we put a quota on all those imports, and in essence we protected Australia and New Zealand as well. Last year, when Americans were buying Canadian beef to try to circumvent the price controls on their own animals, we applied export controls to ensure that Canadians had enough meat, at stable prices, for their own needs. I was criticized for that, too. This was done mainly to ensure that the industry was stabilized, and it worked. When U.S. price controls were removed, we placed a surcharge on imports of American beef to protect our beef industry from the
28305-60'/i

October 31, 1974
Slaughter of Calves
flood of overfat cattle which U.S. farmers had kept off the market in protest against their own country's price freeze, and which they then flooded their market with.
In January of this year, the United States court of appeals ruled against the ban on DES, and Canada required that all beef entering Canada be certified free of the growth hormone. In March the government moved to assist the beef industry and the consumer by applying a seven cents subsidy. During the spring and summer that subsidy program was phased out in favour of a beef stabilization program that ensures the beef producer an adequate floor price for his product. Every provincial program is based on the federal stabilization program for beef. We do have a national stabilization plan which is something that no other nation has, Mr. Speaker.
At the same time we applied import quotas made necessary by the fact that there is a world surplus of beef. We do not want this beef to ruin our Canadian industry, or to benefit from our stabilization program.
In addition to what the federal government has done, most of the provinces have instituted programs to help their producers deal with the particular problems they face. Not all of the programs are the same. Alberta, which is not a very poor province, has funded up to $40 million with the objective of improving the cash flow to small farmers hit by low calf prices. This program is available to Alberta farmers with cow herds owned prior to August, 1974.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about federal plans; never mind the provinces.


Eugene Whelan: I have heard what the hon. member has said about the farmers in Alberta from time to time, but I will not repeat them in the House tonight. The Alberta plan is eligible to farmers with cow herds owned prior to August, 1974. It provides a cash advance of $75 per head up to a maximum of $6,000 per farmer, and up to 80 per cent of the individual farmer's calf crop on the date of application. These cash advances are to be interest free for one year.
Under this plan the unpaid balance at the end of one year is to carry a prime rate of interest plus a small carrying charge. This amounts to an average of more than $1,200 to these farmers to assist them over the winter.
I might say that most of the beef producers in Saskatchewan and in Alberta have condemned these plans as something that is not what they need. Most of their associations have recommended that the farmers do not participate in these plans, but I am sure there will be some who will be participating. The program in Saskatchewan is practically the same as the one in Alberta, so I will now move to the plan in Manitoba. This is a different kind of a program. If I were allowed I would ask the consent of the House to have these program statistics printed as an appendix to today's Hansard.


An hon. Member:: No.


An hon. Member:: You have told us what you have done, now tell us what you are going to do.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Tell us how you won the election single handed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: Alberta and Saskatchewan have made a move to assist farmers who have been hit with low calf prices, by providing a cash advance of $75 per head.
Manitoba has adopted a program to make cash available to farmers who wish to feed their own stocker calves and have the feed and facilities to do so. They have applied a little bit of socialism by adopting a stocker agreement not to exceed 200 head, or $50,000 per farmer. This plan provides for an insurance fee of 2 Vt per cent of the stock payable by the farmer to cover 75 per cent of the cost of losses. The program is to be interest free on up to 50 calves for one year, and loans made one year ago are extended.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It was agreed earlier this day by unanimous consent that the first round of speakers be limited to 20 minutes, and that each speech after that be limited to 15 minutes. The point I think significant in the order of the House at this moment is that no one shall seek or be given extra time, and that the debate be concluded by midnight. Accordingly I must interrupt the minister and go on to the next speaker.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and privileged as a cattleman to take part in this debate tonight. This is an emergency debate of concern to the Canadian cattle industry, and the first to result from a television program such as the one last night, repeated again this morning. Let me suggest that this incident has finally dramatized in a very spectacular way the current very serious crisis on the cow-calf side of Canada's cattle industry.
I am sure all hon. members regret having to see such a demonstration as we saw in living colour last night. However, as a lifetime cattleman I can fully appreciate the frustrations and despair behind that tragic action.
Our Canadian cattle industry has, and is still involved in a series of developments that have almost destroyed our faith and confidence in ourselves as cattlemen and in our total industry. No responsible cattle organization in Canada would properly condone this approach, yet as a cattleman I can understand this very extreme action. Suffice it to say that this emergency debate tonight would not have developed without that incident.
First of all let me give some background information about our Canadian cattle industry. This industry has had plenty of rough times before this crisis. I am old enough to remember my father selling two and three-year old grass steers for two cents to three cents a pound, fat dry cows at the same price, with canner cows going for three-quarters of a cent per pound. That took place back in the 1930's.
In 1948 I attended a Western Stock Growers Association meeting in Lethbridge when the late James Gardiner, the then Minister of Agriculture, was invited and was under pressure to lift the U.S. embargo which prevented our cattle from going south to the U.S.A. The Alberta cattlemen were so sincere and dedicated to this concept that they threatened to secede from Canada and join the United States if the minister did not agree to their request.
October 31, 1974

He stayed up all night and, although he did not agree, next August the embargo was lifted and the Canadian cattle market shot up $3 overnight.
This is not the first crisis the cattlemen have been through and it probably will not be the last one. Nevertheless the present cattle situation is the most serious I have seen in my lifetime as a cattleman, and that includes all of the days of the depression and drought during the 1930's.
How did we get here from there? What has happened that has allowed present day cow prices, as well as yearling and calf prices, to drop approximately one-third to one-half while feedlot costs have doubled, all in about one year? This sudden price collapse in respect of grass cattle has a chain reaction in other industries, since about 15 per cent of all our economic activity is related to our red meat industry. Our red meat industry has a high economic generating effect, probably the highest of any of our industries in Canada. The cattle industry itself has perhaps an even higher effect, about 17 per cent of our total economic activity. That is an indication of how important is this industry.
Let me point out the most important factors that have contributed to the present crisis. First we have a shortterm over-supply of cattle in North America and in other major beef producing countries. All but one of the major beef producing nations have been expanding production over the last five years. They are the United States, Russia, Brazil, Australia, Canada, France, Mexico and New Zealand. The numbers of cattle in respect of this group of nations have gone up 13.6 per cent during that five year period, from as low as a 4.7 per cent increase in France to a 32 per cent increase in Australia. The only exception is Argentina which had a decrease of 6 per cent.
During this interval the world price of beef almost doubled in less than three years. Most of us read the signs wrongly. We argued and convinced ourselves that these rapidly rising prices meant there was a global beef shortage. However we, and I mean the economists, governments, cattlemen, and even some farm organizations, were wrong. As far back as three years ago the Canadian Cattlemen's Association was warning anyone who would listen that north American and world breeding cattle numbers were increasing too quickly.
Most of us, in the midst of our affluence, had completely overlooked and forgotten to take into account the impact of world inflation and devaluations of major world monetary systems. A contributing factor has been the shortfall in feed grain worldwide, which has caused dramatic feed Cost increases. I am sure you will recall, Mr. Speaker, the serious droughts of several years ago in the U.S.S.R., China and Australia, as well as the South American rough fish crop failure which caused upheavals in respect of one of the world's major sources of protein.
Then we had the soybean shortfall in the United States and Ontario due to too much moisture. Next there was the aftermath of the United States control program, and especially the extra 60 days during which these controls were left exclusively on the cattle industry. This was the cause of fantastic holdbacks and price disruptions, mostly in the United States but also in Canada. In fact, the United
Slaughter of Calves
States is still not current in respect of its supply-demand situation.
The third factor is that, more recently, two major meat consuming areas of the world have been shut off completely from the cattle and beef exporting countries. I refer to the European Economic Community and Japan. This contributed immensely to the short-term over supply. The fourth item was the beef subsidy program of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) which was a disaster for our cattle industry. This was the seven cents per pound subsidy on all A, B and C grades of fat cattle. The program resulted in a market drop of about $10 per hundredweight in ten days, of which only $2 to $3 was due to a drop on the Omaha, or United States, market.
This hurry-up program, I suggest, cost our Canadian cattle industry an inventory loss of about $1 billion in ten days. Recent history has proven that the cattlemen were right in advocating reciprocal quotas and tariffs with the United States which recognized the ten-to-one ratio in respect of our respective cattle and human populations. The minister's global quota policy is a good one, and I commend him for it. It is working well. However, if it was the right policy on August 2, why was it not right last spring when he brought in his subsidy program?
Let us now consider the current situation. Canadian cattle producers are split into two well defined groups concerning what should or should not be done by governments in respect of this crisis. The well established cattlemen who have been in business for ten years or more, who are reasonably debt-free-and this includes both the large and the small producer-say, "Leave us alone. We've turned the corner, hopefully, and we'll get by. We want no more government interference, because there has been too much already".
The newer producers, the ones who have been in business for perhaps two or three years, are in a desperate situation. They have paid too much for their breeding herds-as much as $400 to $600 per cow. They were probably from an exotic breed. They had easy credit, but paid highly inflated values for their land. They budgeted to repay this line of credit on the basis of $250 to $300 per calf. The problem is easy to recognize; indeed, it is very real. Some of these producers have already folded up and moved into industry.
This group is demanding government grants or interest-free loans, or at least some type of positive action, now. Because of a considerable sense of responsibility, five provincial governments already have taken some action in their considerable encouragement to farmers to diversify and switch to cattle. The federal government has as much, or more, responsibility here, but so far has done very little. I suggest emphatically that the minister's new support price policy, with the price of $45.42 that will trigger deficiency payments, is not providing any short-term help. There are obvious reasons for this. It is payable only in respect of feed cattle grades A, B and C, but is not paid in respect of feeders, yearlings, calves or cows. No benefit will be available until August 11, 1975, when the first year will end. This is in operation for one year only. It is not to operate by quarters. This is regrettable, since this would greatly improve the policy. If this support policy were extended for another year it could help, but unless the

October 31, 1974
Slaughter of Calves
triggering price is somewhat higher, even this is somewhat doubtful.
What can be done about this cattle crisis? There are no easy or apparent solutions. I say that very sincerely. Essentially, and perhaps I am oversimplifying the situation, we must grow and eat our way out of this current crisis. A number of things should be considered. First, let us take the short term. We must recognize that heavy marketings of cows are now under way and will continue. There is nothing wrong with this. The culling of old and undesirable cows should be continued. During the 12-month period from September, 1974, to September, 1975, our Canadian cow slaughter will be up 34 per cent. I say this is good. It is inevitable.
The second point is that the most urgent market problem is our current calf crop, now coming to market in large numbers. We must appreciate that we have an extra 570,000 calves over last year for which we must find homes. This represents the 7 per cent increase in the current calf crop of some 5.5 million. There is a greatly reduced demand for these calves because of the obviously bad experience of those who bought them a year ago. Essentially, they have to go to two broad areas in Canada: the first is southern Alberta and the fringe areas of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and the other is Ontario. If they cannot be absorbed in Canada at adequate prices, they will have to go south to the United States at $2 below their market price which is already $6 to $8 below ours. This is the reason the United States trade information hearing that was held last Friday in Washington on Canada's beef trading policy is so important. If it should result in a United States embargo, our market situation could worsen still further. We should consider an incentive policy that ties in with cow slaughter and would encourage the holdback of heifer calves and lightweight steer calves for future breeding and feeding requirements.
The next point is that in view of increasing evidence of the need for world food banks, surely we should seriously consider a joint program with the packing industry for the freezing and/or canning of surplus cow beef that could be disposed of in offshore markets where there is an urgent demand. Such a program would require federal assistance in financing and storage. Another point is that in view of the present live cattle market spread of 30 cents per pound between top steers and good cows, the time is most opportune to have an all-out merchandising campaign to promote the consumption of good Canadian cow beef, which is generally superior in flavour to younger grades of beef. Most people do not realize this.
We should immediately encourage our Canadian banking institutions to continue to make realistic credit arrangements with feeders. Considerable mutual understanding will be necessary here, but the results could be very beneficial in the form of increased demands for feeders and a strengthened calf market.
Finally, in the short term we should encourage our Minister of Agriculture to get back to the negotiating table with the United States Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Butz, immediately after next week's United States elections, to

bring back some common sense to the United States-Canadian cattle negotiations.
There are several things that we must do in the longer term. First, we must recognize that the key to our sagging fed cattle industry is, of course, the price and supply of our domestic feed grains. Until world feed grain supplies become more adequate, our domestic prices will reflect world prices. These will be high and will likely remain so until United States corn and soybean crops are greatly increased, hopefully as a result of their set-aside lands now back in production, but that point is at least two crops away.
Second, governments can help the total cattle industry to adjust to some fundamental structural changes that are both needed and inevitable. We can no longer afford the luxury of feeding high priced grain and protein to calves for some 200 days, or even 120 days. The limit will be about 90 days or less; and that will not be too long in coming. Third, in the long term, our packing industry should be encouraged to move somewhat away from the traditional "kill and ship" philosophy. New "breaking" facilities by our packers or processors will be needed soon, if only to capture our complete HR and I trade, that is, the hotel, restaurant and institutional trade.
Fourth, and perhaps most important of all, our final feed grain policy may very well determine whether our feedlot industry in western Canada will survive. Equitable freight rates are needed here. If the Crow rates are to continue, then they must apply to the products of feed grains as well, that is, moving carcass beef from Alberta to central Canada which now accounts for about two-thirds of our total beef requirements.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, it seems evident that a Canadian beef cattle industry investigation is not only inevitable but perhaps highly desirable. In a full board meeting of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association held yesterday in Calgary, it was announced that that body would be happy to see such an investigation and would co-operate to the fullest. They pointed out that the present market system for Canadian cattle has responded well over the last very trying two years, and has sent back appropriate signals of some very unique situations. With this I certainly agree, and would suggest most emphatically that our Canadian marketing system is not at fault, although there are some who seem to think it is on trial. I say again, and most emphatically, that a national marketing board is not the answer to this crisis.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, a while ago I listened to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and when he finished speaking, I thought that all our problems were solved because of the vigour with which he pleaded his case. However, I always remember that when the House has to deal with crises involving both levels of government, we always wonder who is really responsible while both governments put the blame on one another.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the hon. member of the New Democratic Party who finally obtained the unanimous consent of the House to discuss the price of beef. We have been proposing such motions in

the House since the beginning of the session and they have always been turned down by the government. I believe that the situation has reached an epidemic level for our beef producers and that the federal government must act, even though the Quebec government does not want to ask for help, it seems, particularly since the primary cause of the beef crisis is the ever rising price of feed grain which seriously affects the market.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) suggested earlier that the slaughter which is going on in Quebec is almost senseless and quite useless. But tonight, I would like to make quotations reflecting the opinion of our farmers and explaining their behaviour. I believe that the Minister of Agriculture is misinformed or uninformed about the intentions of our producers.
If we consider the prices published in the Grain Chronicle of October 11, 1974, we find that in 1972, corn and barley cost only $1 and $1.40; in 1973, they had gone up to $2.04 for barley and $2.53 for corn. In August 1974, corn sold for $3.69 a bushel and barley for $3.50, and the dealers expect the prices to go up to $4.70 for corn and $4.30 for barley in a few months.
Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister that it is not exactly because of a beef or calf surplus in our area that the farmers have to slaughter their cattle, but because of the lack of money, a lack of means to feed the cattle this winter. That is why they would rather kill them this fall rather than go into debt to the extend of three times their value this winter.
However, what is most ridiculous about the situation, Mr. Speaker, is that in 1971, the government was paying western grain producers not to sow their fields because Canada would have had a grain surplus-at that time it was a grain surplus, now it is a beef surplus-which would lower consumer prices. Would it not have been more logical at that time to build storage facilities to guarantee supplies for three or four years in case of bad crops?
Because of this negligence, our farmers cannot feed their herds this winter. They will therefore have to sell them on the market for a ridiculous pricee since the big buyers will take advantage of this sad situation, as always, to get for next to nothing the producers' beef and sell it at fantastic prices. Proof of this is in the fact that the price of beef did not go down one cent at the consumer's level. On the contrary, consumer prices are constantly increasing. Our Quebec families still look for a few pounds of hamburger, the cheapest one they can find on the market, because they cannot afford choice meat.
For months Canadian producers, and Quebec ones in particular, have been increasingly begging both levels of government in the hope of getting relief from either side. It must be observed, Mr. Speaker, that in most cases where governments offered help, it was aimed at allowing farmers to get deeper into debt, to the point that their present indebtedness forces them to sell their land in order to repay finance people, while we are granting loans without interest to foreign countries, to the extent of hundred millions of dollars each year, for periods up to 60 years. I repeat without interest.
Slaughter of Calves
But we do not find the means to allow our farmers to secure loans at reasonable rates, in order to modernize their equipment and become truly efficient, as the term is used among self-appointed agricultural experts.
There is apparently a principle in Canada that what is good for foreigners is not good for Canadians. One must then conclude that Canadian loans are first intended to serve foreigners before Canadians may be helped.
As far as direct help to subsidize production is concerned, I believe the government will have to change completely its policy of helping industry by investing more into agriculture, our basic industry, before making grants with workers' and farmers' money to multinational American companies at the rate of $100 million at a time, under the pretence that these companies create jobs in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I challenge the House to find in Canada one industry creating more jobs than farming. The government will have to stop playing international finance at the Canadian people's expense and remedy the current situation. The government is indeed well aware of the situation. Going through the beef price stabilization program, I realized they knew the situation. They could have submitted to the House measures we could debate. The situation is very simple.
There is an excess of supply, that dictates the price farmers need to earn their living, over demand. Prices fell below profitability level. Such is the case not only in Canada, but all around the world. Certain markets are glutted with beef to such extent that such countries as ECE members had to stop imports. This is only made matters worse. Further, he said:
However, in the meantime, Canadian producers need help during these hard times.
I admire the farmers' courage. We continue to take things lightly, Mr. Speaker, and to give nothing.
I believe the farmers, after all the promises made by the two levels of government, have decided to take action, to use the only weapon available to them, to act in their own way. That is why there were demonstrations, slaughters, and calf destructions. There were not only calves, as suggested by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). He should not forget that all those calves were bound to become mature. The farmers had no hope of being able to feed them during the winter. This fall, there will not be any shortage of beef, but it will be scarce next summer or during the coming months. An article appeared in La Presse which reads as follows:
Thousands of calves slaughtered on Quebec farms.
I shall read a few excerpts to give the minister an idea of what the farmers think:
Mr. Paul Couture, president of the Farmers' Union, disclosed yesterday to La Presse that thousands of calves have already been slaughtered in various parts of Quebec in the last few days.
According to Mr. Couture, it is due to the fact that farmers are unable to sell their cattle to feeders whose production costs are too high compared to the sales prices. For instance, it costs 60 cents a pound to raise a calf and its wholesale price is between 15 and 40 cents, according to its grade.
Being unable to sell or feed their calves, the farmers prefer to slaughter them.

October 31, 1974
Slaughter of Calves
The Farmers' Union now speaks a different language. There is no more talk about reports, study committees or recommendations to the minister, but of strategy and of fight to a finish with the government. To use the words of the secretary general, Mr. Jean-Marc Kirouac, it is necessary "to settle matters with the province before deeling with the federal government".
Farmers and especially beef producers want a standard of living comparable to that of city dwellers, which is far from being the case for the 38,000 Quebec farmers, except for a few.
The Farmers' Union sent to Premier Robert Bourassa a telegram requesting essentially:
-that the price of their products reflect production costs;
-that the cost of production be escalated;
-that the farm producer get an income comparable to that of the skilled worker in industry;
-that a $150 adjustment be given in two payments of $75 in the fall and in the spring to facilitate the purchase of feed grain during the winter;
This shows that there is no calf surplus but a lack of feed, and that is what the farmers are asking for in our area. On October 31, they said concerning the grants requested:
The grant proposed by Mr. Normand Toupin represents approximately 13 cents a pound and applies only to 2000 out of the 10000 producers who need it.
That is the problem at the provincial level, and that is why, if the federal government does not intervene and provide assistance, hundreds and thousands of calves will continue to be slaughtered. I now resume the quotation:
This $2.6 million grant applies only to the producers of slaughter calves, said Mr. Dagenais. It does not concern feeders who feed calves to produce beef ...
According to the Union, this represents $40 million, of which the Agriculture Department gave $5.8 million-
This serves to give an idea of the amount Quebec is expecting from the federal government. Again I quote:
What is $34.2 million, he said, to save the Quebec agriculture, compared with the hundreds of millions of dollars given by the Quebec government as subsidies and tax exemptions to ITT, a multinational concern?
And what about the $90 million which the federal government granted to the american aircraft companies, supposedly for creating from 2,000 to 3,000 new jobs, when we know the number of jobs created in agriculture? Mr. Speaker, I feel comparisons are impossible in this case.
This type of slaughter was criticized by many people. Perhaps our farmers would have been better inspired to slaughter their steers in front of the supermarkets and give away the meat to needy families who cannot afford it.
Public reaction might have been better, for the general public cannot tolerate to be made aware of these destructions. As far as farmers are concerned, in view of the present situation, they had better destroy these animals instead of getting into debt for three times their value during the summer months.
Mr. Speaker, I wish I had the time to quote figures to give an estimate of the losses in the whole Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area, but since the time allotted to us is very short and I do not want to go beyond, I will say very simply that the hon. minister ought to do something immediately and not wait one, two or three months or till

the winter is over to take action in order to put an end to those slaughters of calves. We, the whole population of the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area, are looking forward to his action, and I know it can be effective.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I think this is an excellent opportunity, tonight, to review during this debate the situation prevailing in the beef industry in Canada. This debate is obviously the result of a series of events which happened those last few days in Quebec and reached its climax with the slaughter of a certain number of animals yesterday in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area and particularly in the municipality of Saint-Bruno, within the constituency I am representing.
It stands to reason that I had to take part in this debate for several reasons. First of all as a member for an agricultural constituency; second, as an active member of the House Standing Committee on Agriculture, and as a consumer and a producer concerned with the producers' welfare, of course, and also in order to ensure food at decent prices to consumers.
Mr. Speaker, what caused the situation we are in today? Why have producers come to the point of organizing such demonstrations? We have to consider the governments' programs and the general situation in the meat trade and industry.
As regards beef, if we look back two, three, or four years ago, we will remember that some economists, some market analysts who make projections, were unanimous in predicting a beef shortage in the world markets. They predicted that shortage and they asked the government to take the necessary steps to provide against it.
Realizing they would be held responsible for that situation in one way or the other, governments responded to the suggestion and created programs to encourage the development of domestic beef production. Canada, the United States, Europe, the Common Market, Argentina, New Zealand, Australia, in fact all the important producers of beef most of which are at the same time exporters, developed programs designed to increase beef production. They had to, because it is not a production that can be increased quickly. Such was the situation about four of five years ago. This government participated in the program by providing assistance to increase grazing land, herd efficiency and to encourage artificial insemination, which developed very rapidly and permitted to increase the capacity of our beef stock, all of which resulted in the fact that our agriculture and our producers increased their efficiency more rapidly than the shortage predicted by analysts came along.
Finally, production was increased faster than the predicted shortage came along. We find ourselves today with surpluses, temporary ones, needless to say, which are going to vanish to a large extent within six months at the utmost and it is possible that prices will get back to a more normal level. If we fail to intervene promptly and judiciously it is also possible that the prices will increase more than normally due to a scarcity which can reappear.
Such a cycle is not easy to control, Mr. Speaker. The beef industry is confused because of certain government
October 31, 1974

measures. We have urged producers to increase their production in the face of a demand which seemed to be on the increase. It was not and we have surpluses today.
As a government we have, therefore, responsibilities towards producers, and we must live up to their expectations and help them. It became more difficult because production costs has increased excessively over the last two years. The cost of feeds and grain has almost doubled which has also been prejudicial to producers. Not only are they not getting a fair price for their product, once it has reached the market, but also it is costing them more to deliver it to the market.
There are many explanations to this, and as I have but a few minutes at my disposal, I shall not dwell on them.
I want to remind you that today, governments must take position on this problem and that the incident which has taken place yesterday in Saint-Bruno, in the Lac Saint-Jean area, has served as a spark to trigger this debate. As a representative of that area, I would like to say that the farmers in my riding are not more unruly than others. It is rather the contrary. They are disciplined producers who are aware of the fact that in order to sensitize governments, and especially consumers, a shock treatment is needed. Consumers have been used to pay a rather low price for food in Canada. They have been spoiled for years and it is difficult for them to accept paying reasonable price.
It is unfortunate that the farming community should have to resort to means such as those we witnessed yesterday on the national television network from Halifax to Vancouver. It is unfortunate that the farmers should have to resort to such means to make the consumers aware of the difficulties the farming community is now experiencing, and especially, which is more important, of the problems the consumers will have to face themselves in a few years if we, the people, do not accept to support the farmers who, in 1974, represent only 7 per cent of the Canadian population.
It is impossible for 7 per cent of the Canadian poeple to continue producing food at a low price and accepting to live on the fringe of society. It is indecent to ask 7 per cent of the people to work, produce and give the others comfort and more. We must take on our responsibilities towards that group of workers, the farmers.
This evening, we are dealing with the question of beef producers; tomorrow, we will deal with that of turkey breeders, and the day after, that of dairy farmers. The whole gamut of food products will have to be dealt with.
We have a choice, Mr. Speaker, we can abondon agriculture to its fate, and let it adjust to the natural forces of the market which tend strongly towards doing away with a third of the farmers, at the risk of perhaps having to pay very dearly for our food within the next few years. That danger exists even now, let us not forget it. Food could even be rationed, we could be deprived of it no matter how much money we would be willing to pay for it.
The danger is real and governments cannot shirk thir responsibility of ensuring decent food to the people. If we are to do our duty, as members of Parliament, we must support the government, the cabinet and especially the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) who is fighting with
Slaughter of Calves
all the the means available to him in order to obtain the support of his colleagues of the cabinet, but who must also get the support of each and every member of Parliament and of Canadian consumers to guarantee the farmers a decent income for the work they do for us, seven days a week, for very costly investments and also for the great risks they take in order to provide us with food. If we are not prepared to give this support to agriculture, we will have to accept the odiousness of the situation we will be in as consumers in a few years.
I say that if we rely on the studies, on the report of the Plumptre Commission or on the report which has just been tabled, Professor Forbes' report, we should let agriculture adjust itself to the forces of the market. If we do that, Mr. Speaker, in a few years the same people who recommend today sanctionning agriculture will probably say: the government did not act timely, the government did not look after the agricultural community and today, we face scarcity, rationing and starvation.
I sometimes wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether it would not be good for us to be rationed by the agricultural community for some time. It is perhaps a lesson we have to be taught and experience. We have been overfed for too long, we do not really know the price of the comfort we enjoy in Canada. I say farmers are getting ready to teach us a lesson. They warn us and if we are not intelligent enough to understand the message they want to convey, I think we deserve punishment, which perhaps will not be very long coming.
In July of last year, only 50 per cent of the expected shipments came in Montreal and dealers got only 25 per cent if not less, of their orders. There was restlessness in the newspapers or on television, everywhere. We heard a cry of restlessness. We thought we would have beef rationing, a phenomenon that had been almost inexistent since World War Two. We did not learn from last year's lesson. We did not learn and if we are not prepared to take steps to help our farmers, we deserve another lesson and we shall get it.
Before resuming my seat, I should like to refer more specifically to the situation in Quebec. There are approximately one million heads of dairy cattle in Quebec. The dairy herd is our main source of beef. Most of the beef we eat comes from that part of the dairy cattle not required for milk production. The cows are covered or artificially inseminated to produce beef animals.
Unfortunately the Quebec producer engaged in milk production cannot have the benefit of government assistance, of the excellent program announced by Minister Toupin of Quebec. I commend him for his remarkable program, undeniably the best of all those offered to beef producers in Canada. But of course it is meant exclusively for beef producers and those who devote themselves to milk production, who are bound to milk quotas cannot get this assistance and, perforce, must get rid of young calves as we saw yesterday, because there are no buyers.
We cannot expect those producers to feed those calves all winter long to give them to us free next spring! That is impossible! What we saw last night seemed to shock the weak-hearted. We saw happen in the open what occurs in the near building that is the slaughterhouse of the Saguenay co-ops. We saw the slaughter of animals. That is what

October 31, 1974
Slaughter of Calves
they do inside the building. There is nothing unusual in that except of course that we Canadians do not see that. We are quite pleased to eat those animals, of course, at meal-time. We do not see them being slaughtered and we are untroubled, we sleep peacefully, our conscience is at peace.
However, that is how the animals are slaughtered in our Canadian slaughterhouses, in my area as in any other area of Canada. There has not been any slaughtering of animals yesterday in Lac-Saint-Jean. It is not true. The slaughtering was done outside instead of inside. Personally, I feel too many were slaughtered, I approve of the symbolic protest gesture on the part of the farmers. Perhaps they could have slaughtered fewer animals as a symbol of their protest, but it seems they had to slaughter 600 of them in order to impress the Canadian people. Otherwise, there would have been no response.
I believe the goal set by the farmers in those Quebec demonstrations has been reached. We were made aware, the Canadian public opinion and authorities became aware of the situation. I hope the Canadian consumers were particularly made aware of the problems the beef industry has to face in Canada. We owe it to ourselves to do something and I hope we can rely upon the comprehension and support of all opposition members and particularly on the Canadian consumers' support.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to take part in this debate and I am doing it following the account that was made by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Lessard), an objective and balanced account, from a man of experience, who knows something about the agricultural situation in Quebec.
I must point out in particular that I was listening respectfully to the hon. member's remarks. And I hope that some day his magnificent qualities will be recognized and that he will be appointed as a parliamentary assistant or else to some higher office.
Mr. Speaker, on October 15 last, as I was taking part in the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, I said, and I quote:
In agriculture, the government will have to launch a "green operation", as the saying goes, the time has come to give it all we've got. When one considers the proliferation of auction sales in Quebec especially, one soon realizes why the farmers are growing angrier.
And I added:
Recently, 2,000 of them, in front of the Quebec Parliament, exposed their grievances. Madam Speaker, let us not wait till those people, who rightly hope the governments will solve their problems, grow so impatient that they go beyond the bounds of reasons and are led perhaps into even more difficult situations.
That was, Mr. Speaker, my assessment of the situation on October 15 last. The facts now show that my words which made government members smile at that time were unfortunately too well-founded.
Mr. Speaker, those pictures we saw on television of a public cattle slaughter campaign dramatized the impatience of producers and reminded everyone that their patience is not without limit. And that action we saw was

a follow up to an increasing number of marches and demonstrations of all sorts in the province of Quebec which should bring public authorities to meditate on that situation. At the rate this discontent is increasing, we are one step away from social chaos.
It seems to me we have now reached a point of no-return when people exacerbated by the frustration of the cost of living, the inaction of those in power, feel they have to resort to extreme means to draw the attention of legitimate authorities on their disarray. It will have been necessary, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Lessard) pointed out earlier, to slaughter 600 animals in Lac Saint-Jean for the governments concerned of both Quebec and Ottawa to stop and examine the Quebec agricultural record. This short special debate we are having tonight will be of any value only to the extent that we, all of us, deal with the causes of the anger of beef producers in particular, and farm producers in general.
What are those causes? What are the real basic problems in that whole business? That is what I would like to deal with without passion, without innuendos and without insults of any kind.
First, we all want, particularly in this time of inflation, to meet the needs of the consumer. We will manage it provided the farmer himself is satisfied and can plan the management of his business. However, the present situation of fluctuating beef prices makes such planning of farm operations positively impossible.
The federal government bears the primary responsabili-ty for the agricultural situation prevailing in Quebec in that it lacks planning in that respect as in many other ones, therefore allowing for the disorderly management of the cattle market and the exportation of American problems into Canada.
We have to realize that for want of an orderly beef marketing system, whatever it is, or of any other adequate solution, the victim once again is the consumer and also, as a matter of fact, the farmer, both being mainly, though not uniquely, people from Quebec.
And yet that situation is not new, since in some 40 years, 17 royal and other commissions, have revealed a lot of inconsistencies especially in respect of controls.
It is no surprise that the present government has apparently chosen for its motto: "Let go and let moo". Let us talk about controls, Mr. Speaker. Are the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister in charge of consumer protection aware of the fact that in Quebec for instance, and particularly in Montreal, swindlers and speculators of the worst kind keep the market under their own control by storing at leisure Canadian beef or United States imported beef. I urge them to check whether that is true, and to take the necessary measures to put an end to that shameful and antisocial process.
The federal government is again responsible in respect of the anger of Quebec farmers, since it has no really efficient control over intermediaries between producers and consumers. And, by third parties, I do not necessarily mean the wholesalers and even less the food retailers, but rather those profiteering adventurers on the make in our economic system and those people are well known to the ministers concerned.

If the governments in Ottawa and Quebec do not step in at the planning and control level, I am afraid that the predictions of some economists specialized in agriculture will become true when they say that in a year from now the consumer will have to bear a 50 per cent increase in the price of beef.
And more serious still, Mr. Speaker, is that every delay or refusal coming from the government in Ottawa or Quebec in answering the reasonable demands from the farmers concerned can only lead to the loss of a profitable industry in Quebe. In fact, we are running the risk of seeing our stock-breeders getting out of the production industry. Such a step would be economically disastrous for Quebec when agro-business relies on our producers for more than three billion dollars a year.
It is therefore urgent that the governments of Ottawa and Quebec, in answer to this green wrath come forward with a real "operation greenery" that will result in massive budgetary votes for the departments of Agriculture.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, it is a question of justice that we effectively and quickly meet the essential and reasonable demands of the farmers especially those concerning production cost control and raw material price stabilization, as in the case of feed grain, for example.
The next budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), a budget that we are all anxious to see, must bear witness to the importance that the government grants to the farmers of Quebec and those of the whole country. In actual fact, this whole thing revolves around a battle for the respect due to the agricultural class and profession. Mr. Paul Couture, president of the Agricultural Producers Union, had this to say on the subject last night at Alma, and I quote:
If in one, five or ten years we wish to ensure the population of a good diet, we will have to give the farmers the assurance that they will be able to make a living out of farming. They are sick and tired of being treated as though they lived in a world apart.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the provisions announced to date by the Quebec and Canadian ministers of Agriculture are both inadequate and partial, as they only concern some of the producers. Incidentally, I do not quite see Why the beef producers of district No. 6, which includes the territories of St. Hyacinthe, Farnham and Valleyfield, have apparently been excluded from the grant program recently put forward by Minister Normand Toupin.
In brief, Mr. Speaker, I am asking the members of the Canadian government not to let the responsibility for this whole thing fall on the shoulders of the government of Quebec alone. Recent answers from the federal Minister of Agriculture have given us that impression. Unfortunately, in the address he has just made, an address which was sometimes tinged with passion, I did not see where this impression was corrected, amended or erased.
The government members must realize the importance of the problem and they must consider that the Quebec farmers are quite serious in voicing their indignation when they said yesterday in Alma, and I quote:
We are going to fight this battle to the bitter end; it may be long and hard, but it matters not, we have nothing to lose.
Mr. Speaker, if I am speaking like this tonight, as I do whenever I speak about agriculture, it is not because I
Slaughter of Calves
have any special experience in that field, far from it, it is because I represent a riding for the most part rural and because of that I have always thought it was my duty, since October 1972, to be there with my constituents and meet farm producers as well as UPA officials.
I know how much the farmers from Saint-Hyacinthe and from all over Quebec, in all justice, need higher income and deserve a more human existence for they also are entitled to enjoy this civilization of leisure.
I have been elected and reelected mainly because I have become the protector of farm producers in my area and I intend in all honesty to continue to be the upholder of the farmers' cause.
Now, I say to the Minister of Agriculture that he can be assured of my sustained and continuous efforts which are identical to his. I assure him of my support because he will need it as he needs the support of all members.
In concluding, I say again, Mr. Speaker, that satisfied farmers mean satisfied consumers. And to that end, we will have to depend not only on statements made during an emergency debate but on specific action. I hope we will achieve something before it is too late.


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity of speaking during this debate tonight as one who represents an agricultural riding. The constituency of Kamloops-Cariboo has one of the largest cattle populations in the province of British Columbia. I was raised on a small ranch and I have some idea of and feeling for the difficulties now facing cattlemen. Over the years they have often faced difficult times.
I go along with what the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) has said, that ranchers have faced many of these problems before but have prided themselves on not crying to the government for help. As a matter of fact ranchers have often told governments to keep their hands off and stay away because they want to ride out the ups and downs.
I do not remember all the things recalled by the hon. member for Medicine Hat as he has been in the game a lot longer than many of us, but I recall about 20 years ago when the price for cattle calves in British Columbia went up to 35 cents a pound, and that was a good price then. But not too many years afterwards the price dropped to 15 cents or 16 cents for good calves. The ranchers have ridden these ups and downs, and by and large have made a great contribution to the country.
In many ways the cattlemen of British Columbia find themselves in a more difficult situation than perhaps that of other cattlemen in other parts of the country. They have had a double-barrelled bit of bad luck as a result of a drought in British Columbia last year.


An hon. Member:: Too many Liberals.

October 31, 1974
Slaughter of Calves


Len Marchand: Liberals don't cause droughts.


An hon. Member:: Thank God; they cause too many other things.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They are all wet.


Len Marchand: Those socialists out there in British Columbia are causing other problems, and the people know what to do about that, at least in my riding.
There was a hay shortage last summer in British Columbia and many of the ranchers had to haul in hay over great distances. Many of the ranchers had a lot of outstanding bills, but as a result of a good market last year some of them were able to get out of the hole. Some were able to grow crops, but many ranchers on dry land had to haul hay from as far away as Manitoba, and even from the United States, at over $100 a ton.


An hon. Member:: That's free enterprise.


Len Marchand: The socialist government in British Columbia didn't do a doggone thing for the ranchers of that province.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Len Marchand: Just let me finish the few remarks I have to make on behalf of those people I represent, and I will look after the socialists in the next election.
Many of the small ranchers in British Columbia had a double bit of bad luck. They hoped to be able to get out of that situation last year because of good markets, but this year as a result of various things, including the uncertain market, not only in Canada but in the United States, they were unable to do so. I suggest that the price and wage control program in the United States was one of the biggest factors contributing to the difficulties facing the beef industry.


An hon. Member:: Who told you that?


Len Marchand: I can give you all kinds of proof for the statement that the price and wage program of the United States caused difficulty in the beef industry. I am sure the cattlemen were happy that the people did not elect those over on that side who advocated a price and wage control policy during the last election campaign. That is certainly the case in respect of the ranchers in my part of the country. They are among the last who advocate free enterprise, and they are pretty great guys.
I must agree with a couple of things said by the spokesman for the NDP. He expressed concern over the fact that these 600 calves were slaughtered and buried. No one in his right mind likes to see a situation such as we had in northern Quebec in respect of these calves. No one likes to see food wasted. In my opinion that was an irresponsible act on the part of those people. It should not have occurred under any circumstances. I do not wish always to be

referring to my colleague from Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave), but I agree with those sentiments he expressed.
One can imagine the frustrations of those people because of the amount of money they must spend in order to feed their calves. In talking to them one hears that it can cost up to 60 cents a pound to finish a pound of beef. That is a pretty rough situation. I do not believe even the Social Credit economics could work that out, Mr. Speaker. There is just no way to survive in a situation like that.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Give money to the consumer and that will fix the whole thing.


An hon. Member:: That solves that problem-next one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I move we adj ourn.


Len Marchand: I realize there are varying points of view about what should be done in this situation. There are no easy answers. I have a mixed view about this situation.
When the President of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association was in my riding we were told the point of view of that association was that the cattlemen should be left alone, that they are surviving. I do not fully subscribe to that view. That view might be all right for the big rancher. He can survive. He can ride it through.
However, there are many smaller producers, those who might have 200 or 300 head of cattle. They have been great contributors to the cattle industry and to the food supply of the country over the years. They have a very difficult time. I think something must be done for them. As a matter of fact in discussions with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) I have asked that he introduce a program. I think it is incumbent on him to introduce a program. I realize that it is rather difficult for him to do something at this time when many provinces such as Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta have introduced their own programs.
I should like to suggest two or three things which might be done. There is a need for ready cash. Many ranchers in British Columbia have suggested that perhaps there should be outright grants. I do not like outright grants. I do think, however, there is a good case to be made for interest-free loans similar to those available under the programs offered in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba. Quebec probably has the best program of all, yet we hear about government becoming too much involved in some of these things.
I think there is a real opportunity here for the cattlemen to start culling a lot of their older cattle. They should sell many of the old cows. Perhaps some ranchers have been saving them so that they would have more calves in the event that the price should increase. There never has been a better time to cull some of the old crotchety cows.
I also believe there must be a greater effort made to sell more beef. A program has been introduced by the British Columbia cattlemen which I think will be useful. They would like to cut out many of the mi ;'dle people. They
October 31, 1974

believe the beef is handled too much from the time it leaves the rancher until it reaches the consumer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Len Marchand: I was very pleased to note one suggestion they made is that the sale of beef to the freezer market should be encouraged. They are promoting the idea of selling whole hind and front quarters. This is a program they have just begun to promote. I think there are real possibilities here in respect of cutting out many of the middle people so that the rancher will get his product more directly to the consumer. This would benefit not only the rancher but also the consumer.
I have also been interested in the possibility of there being a full-scale inquiry in respect of the beef market situation. I am glad to see there is much consensus in respect of an inquiry of this nature. I feel great benefits would accrue to the rancher as well as the consumer if there should be a full-scale inquiry, particularly in respect of what happens to the beef after it leaves the farm gate.
I am not in favour of a marketing board concept. The legislation is available to the producers if they should decide to avail themselves of it. They could use the provisions of the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act. The cattlemen do not want to do this, and I do not believe this is necessary. However, there is a real need for an inquiry in respect of the marketing of beef after it leaves the farm gate.


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, as a farmer and producer I am very pleased to enter this debate this evening. Although I am not a producer of beef, over the years I have seen many producers of different products in much the same situation as the beef producer is in today. There are many ranchers in my riding which is similar to that of the previous speaker, the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand). It is in the dry belt of British Columbia.
At this time, for the benefit of the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo, I should like to set the record straight in respect of what happened last year concerning the drought and its effect on the beef producers in this area. It was one of the most difficult times these ranchers experienced. There was a combination of frost and dryness. Not only were their ranges and hayfields dried out, but also the frost killed their alfalfa and the fields they cultivated. In British Columbia the provincial government awarded a transportation subsidy to those ranchers who haul in hay from-


Mr. Benjamin:: "Tomahawk" said he was interested in culling.


George H. Whittaker: I am giving the government of British Columbia a little credit, Mr. Speaker, and members of the same party in this House should take it or we will start talking about the land freeze. This transportation subsidy was $15 a ton. But then they came to the federal Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and asked him to help them with it. At the same time I was pleading with the minister to match the subsidy, but instead of doing that he paid
Slaughter of Calves
half of what had already been paid. He could have done more for the rancher at that time, but he did not. It cost some of these people up to $100,000 to feed their basic herds, and they had to do it because there were officials from the federal government telling them not to count on selling their herds, but to feed them. The Minister of Agriculture was telling them how wonderful agriculture was in Canada, what he was going to do for them, and to keep producing. But today the bankers are telling the same people that they must sell. The market price today is lower than it was a year ago. This constitutes a disaster for the ranchers.
I know from experience that in the past other producers have found themselves in a similar situation to that of the rancher today. We have been pleading with the federal government for years to bring in agricultural policies which will give the industry a solid base. There have been many passionate speeches over the years on the plight of the farmer and the plight of agriculture, but really we have not seen any action to remedy the situation. No good, concrete farm policies have been produced to sustain the industry in times of trouble. There have been the shotgun programs which the minister spoke of this evening. If that kind of program had done anything to help the beef industry, we would not be here this evening. The minister can talk until the cows come home about the subsidy, the surcharge, the stabilization program-but he did not offer any solution.
We have heard from the government that we need high production in order to solve inflation. When we get high production in eggs and in beef, what happens? If the government is going to encourage high production at the farm level, it should have programs ready to take care of overproduction. The percentage of overproduction does not have to be very high to give rise to a situation such as we have experienced in Quebec.
We heard the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) say tonight that the rancher should cull his old cows. If he did that today, he would get five cents per pound, which is about $28 or $30 per animal. Mr. Speaker, that hardly pays for transportation to the yard. I am very pleased to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave). Because he knows the beef industry very well, he made an excellent presentation of the problem and what should be done about it.
The Minister of Agriculture told us what he has done, but it has not solved the situation. He did not say anything about what should be done, however, or what is going to be done. Last week in the agriculture committee I asked the minister about situations such as the one that caused this debate. He said that the stabilization program should help the farmers indirectly, and that there was the hope that the cow-calf operator selling his calves on the feeder market would get some security. Mr. Speaker, the producers cannot live on "should" and "hope": they must have something more concrete than that. We have heard the fancy speeches about what good citizens of Canada the producers are, and how they feed the nation. But that is not good enough.
The stabilization program will only cover about 50 per cent of the cattle going to market. It will not cover cattle

October 31, 1974
Slaughter of Calves
going to market at the rancher level, at the cow-calf level, at the grass-fed level, such as those in my riding and in much of British Columbia. If the industry is to be sustained, stabilization must be at the level of the basic herd. We are in danger of losing much of the basic herd in Canada. The hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo told us about the ups and downs of the rancher and the low prices he is getting. Mr. Speaker, I submit that producers today, particularly young farmers, will not stand for this kind of treatment. They want the same kind of treatment that is given to people in the urban areas. They want stability.
Tonight there has been a call for an inquiry; I have even heard a royal commission mentioned. I assume what is meant is an inquiry into the price of beef at the consumer level. We already have the Food Prices Review Board. Is this not what it was set up to do? Certainly it is costing the taxpayers of Canada a great deal of money. I think that the members of that board have done this. I would not want to say for sure that they have, but they certainly should have if they have not.
Over the years, on many occasions, the same type of plea was made for inquiries or royal commissions. Actually I do not think there has ever been a time when any complete inquiry or information has proved that there was anything wrong at the higher level. Let us ask the Food Prices Review Board; they should be able to tell us quickly if there is, Mr. Speaker.
It is at the producer level that the problem which has provoked this debate tonight has arisen. Ten cents a pound for beef at the producer level is a lot of money. It is not the same amount of money when you go up the chain. So I do not think that what we want is an inquiry or a royal commission inquiring into the meat industry. What we need is some concrete action by the government to look after the over-production and to ensure that the producer is making a living.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I must say, first of all, that I am happy to see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) back in the House tonight, awake, alert and alive. I think that the type of speech he gave tonight was the first one for him. I have never seen him so excited, nervous and emotional as he was in the House tonight. I must admit that in rhetoric and oratorical style it was one of the liveliest I have ever heard him make. But let us digest what he said.
What did the minister say? He said nothing at all. All he did was catalogue what he has done in the past for the beef industry. All of us know what has happened to the beef industry since he took office. But he did not say a thing about what he would do now to alleviate the situation. He said he would be making a statement in the House this week about his new program. I ask through you, Mr. Speaker: why did he not make that statement tonight? Is that all the sympathy he has for the cattle producers and consumers in this country?
The minister did not tell us a thing tonight. All he managed was to do a lot of politicking and to spout a lot of rhetoric. He has a reputation for doing a lot for farmers but, so far as I am concerned, he has not done anything at

all for farmers except to spout rhetoric from one end of the country to the other. The time has come when the minister had better start delivering in the House.
The four provincial governments, Quebec and the three prairie governments, have all recognized that there is a crisis in the beef industry today, and they have all tried to do something within their own limited means. But the Minister of Agriculture has been very critical of them and cynical about them. He said that they have not done enough, that they have not done the right thing, and that they are fighting among each other.
I have discovered today, talking to one of the officials in one of the provinces, that the minister and his officials have not even spoken to the provinces for the last four weeks about the problems and policies in the beef and livestock industry. Is this a crisis, or is it not a crisis? Do we have a problem, or do we not? I should like the minister to answer some of these questions, but he did not see fit to do so tonight when he spoke to the House, and made the dramatic appeal to us to understand the point of view of what he thinks is the best Minister of Agriculture that the country has ever had.
The time has come to do something for the cow-calf operator, something which in the long run will benefit the consumer also.


Eugene Whelan: The government of Saskatchewan did not do anything.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The minister speaks about the government of Saskatchewan. Let me tell him that they put more money into the cattle industry than this government is doing right now. At least we in Saskatchewan have a cash advance program. The Saskatchewan government is trying to do something, as are Quebec, Manitoba and Alberta. There is need for federal action. It takes money to stabilize the industry, and you must do that at the federal level, not through the various provincial governments.
There is a crisis. What we saw on television last night was something that I am sure all of us deplore. We saw 600 head of cattle slaughtered by farmers. That has never happened in this country before. We have never seen anything like it before. I am sure everybody in this country deplored what happened. But why do we not look at some of the reasons why it occurred?
Why did farmers decide, all of a sudden, to take cattle that they raised and fed in the last few months and slaughter them, one every 30 seconds? The reason is that cattle are hardly worth selling because the price has dropped drastically on the market in the last few months. Prices are down by one third to one half of what they were a year ago. In my riding in Saskatchewan this last week end I spoke to many farmers who had sold cows for eight cents a pound, cows that were at an age when they should be bred and produce calves next spring. Yet, farmers were selling out and depleting their herds. Calves are going for less than 25 cents, some for 10 cents or 15 cents a pound. One cannot find buyers.
When something like that happens, it is a crisis-a serious crisis. Who will benefit? No one will benefit except
October 31, 1974

perhaps the packing company, some of the retail stores, and some of the buyers in the short run who will buy at a low price and sell at a much higher one. What has happened to the price of hamburger, steak, veal, and so on? It has not come down despite the fact that the farmer is getting a low price for his commodity. Despite that, the minister has not seen fit to keep his commitment to the House and to the farmers of this country and to announce this week, as he promised, what his new program will be. I ask him: when will he make a statement? When will he provide us with the leadership that he has promised us? He led the farmers to believe in the last few months that he would provide leadership.
The price has fallen for the farmer, particularly the cow-calf operator. He is the small fellow who operates in a riding such as mine. Despite the fact that the price he is getting has fallen, the cost of producing a cow has risen drastically in the last year; in some cases it has nearly doubled. The feed cost and all input costs to producers of livestock in the country are up, Mr. Speaker.
Some agricultural economists to whom I have spoken told me that for every calf a producer is selling he has to bear a loss of about $150. When that occurs there is no way in the world that farmers will stay in business. They will sell their herds, sell their breeding stock, and get out of business. As a result we will have a shortage of cattle in this country in the next year or two, and if the consumer thinks he is paying a high price now, let him wait a year or two by which time prices will skyrocket because of the shortage of beef.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) speaks about increasing production and increasing supply in this country. Yet we will have a shortage of supply deliberately engineered by this government because it is not doing anything to solve this problem. When there is a shortage of supply, the price goes up. It is not possible to raise cattle quickly. It is not the same as in the case of hogs or poultry.
You cannot suddenly raise cattle. It is a long-term proposition. For that reason something must be done by the government very quickly, and it must be done on the federal level because we need the type of resource that is available at the federal level. It think we must have an emergency plan at this time, a subsidy for livestock producers such as has been started in Quebec. That subsidy should cover the difference between the market price and the cost of production of livestock in the country.
The cost of production is feed costs and other costs, plus the farmer's input in terms of his own labour and profit. If you provide a subsidy you will have the farmers and ranchers keeping their cows over the winter, and next year we will still have the herds we have at this time. That is the only way to stop farmers from selling. If we do not do that, they will sell out by the thousands all across this country. The government must make that commitment. It must subsidize the cattle industry, particularly the small cow-calf producers.
In the long term the time has come for us to say to the cattle producers what they need are marketing boards. They need some organization and some clout in the
Slaughter of Calves
market place. They must plan their production. The beef industry is one of the few agricultural industries which does not have a marketing board. Look what has happened. This industry has been going up and down. It goes up to the peaks and down to the valleys.
When there is an oversupply prices drop, and then there is a shortage. The only one to suffer besides the producer is the consumer, who has unstable prices in the grocery store. It is time to end the fluctuation in that industry. The only way to do that is to have a marketing board in which the farmers have a voice. They will be able to bargain for their product and have stability of production.
Something else we must do is guarantee prices so that the little guy can afford to get into the cattle industry, raise calves, and stay in business without being squeezed out by the big rancher. I have no sympathy at all for the large cattle rancher in Alberta who runs his outfit like a factory or huge industry. The one I am concerned about is the small cow-calf operator. The Minister of Agriculture should be spending millions of dollars trying to save him. He should be kept in business. He should keep his calves for the winter, and keep his cows to produce next year.
What is so sad about this whole affair of seeing cattle being slaughtered or hung, and food being destroyed, is that Canada is one of four or five countries in the world that are net exporters of food. There is no reason why this country should not be producing all the food we possibly can, and exporting it through the world food bank or the United Nations as part of our foreign aid.
Millions of people are dying of starvation in Africa, Asia and other parts of the world, yet the government is not encouraging the farmers of this country to produce beef and livestock. Three years ago, when millions of people were dying of starvation, the government told the farmers to get out of the wheat business through operation LIFT. That was highly immoral.
We in this country have the capacity to produce. We should use that capacity to the fullest extent, and produce all the food we can in order to feed the hungry people of the world. The farmers of this country want to do that, and that is what the Canadian people want them to do.
A world food conference will be opening in Rome on November 5. One of the proposals that should be made by the government is that Canada will commit itself to supplying a lot of food, beef, livestock, grain and so on, to the world food bank to feed the hungry people of the world. We have not yet had a statement about that from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen).
With the situation in this country, it is time to push for a world food bank. If we do that the farmers in this country will have a stable future, a stable income. There will be guaranteed exports for their commodity. There will not be the constant up and down in the market place that we have in the world today. However, that type of support is not coming.
The minister promised some action. In answer to questions by myself and other members of the House during the past week or so, the minister promised a new program. He has not yet come forward with that. I wonder whether he is waiting until tomorrow or next week when a bit of the heat dies down. The provinces alone cannot save the

October 31, 1974
Slaughter of Calves
cattle industry. Cattle are sold across provincial boundaries, exported and so on. Responsibility lies solely on the shoulders of this minister. However, he did not do a darn thing tonight, and the people of this country should not forget that.


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us under Standing Order 26 contains three specific elements. First there is a reference to the crisis in the meat producing industry. The second was manifested by the destruction of calves in Quebec, although I am not sure the crisis really started there. I feel a lot of people knew about that before the spectacle last night. The third is the high price for beef paid by the consumers of this country. I wish to deal with all three elements in sequence.
First, with respect to the crisis in the beef industry in Canada, it is quite evident that we have one. That crisis seems to stem basically from three things. First, the domestic and world surplus of beef is quite evident to any unbiased observer. The second is the price of feed grains which has risen between 200 and 300 per cent in this country in the past 12 months. Third is the anticipated levelling off of finished beef prices and the relationship of that to the whole equation.
I wish to illustrate the combined effect of high grain prices and the presumed levelling off of prices for finished beef in the industry. To illustrate that I wish to use an example. In 1969-70 feed grain prices were low. The offering price for calves in that particular period in the calf market for entry into the Stocker and feeder market went up very substantially because of two factors. First, the input costs to bring calves to market were down because of lower feed grain costs. Secondly, there was an anticipation in the market that beef prices would rise. As a consequence of expectations of good profit by those who were bringing calves through the system, offers for calves rose considerably.
Today the problem is exactly the reverse. Feed grain costs are up 200 to 300 per cent over the past 12 months, and finished beef prices are anticipated to be relatively stable at the present time. Therefore, Stockers and feeders are not willing to pay a high price for calves simply because the equation will not allow them the kind of profits they feel are appropriate. Thus, with the expectation of good profits by bringing calves into the system, people will pay more for calves. When they do not expect to be able to bring their calves through the system and make the same kind of profits as they are accustomed to, they obviously drop their offers for calves in the first instance.
Very simply put, the equation is that as feed prices go down, calf prices go up and as feed prices go up, calf prices go down. In the past number of years we have seen that equation fulfilled in every instance. I wish to give some examples of what has happened in terms of the value of calves in the market, bearing in mind the costs of feed grains in the past year have increased between 200 and 300 per cent.
I have statistics which indicate that in the Toronto public stockyards in August and September, 1973, the prices for slaughtered calves, normally called vealers,

were approximately $62 in August and $59 in September. In 1974, the prices for vealers were $49 in August and $46 in September. The average price of slaughter cows in August, 1973, was roughly $40 as compared with $26 in August, 1974. The price of feeder calves, in August, 1973, was $63.77 compared with $40.11 in August of 1974. Yearling steers fetched $57 in August, 1973, and a year later the price was down to $40.22. These statistics certainly show there is a crisis in the calf market.


An hon. Member:: What is the solution?


Norman Augustine Cafik: Wait. I want to get the principle established first. That is more than the hon. member who raised this question sought to do.
There is no doubt at all that there is a crisis. People selling calves are getting less money than the costs they must incur entitle them to get. I do not know the solutions to all these complex problems by any means, but there can be no doubt that under our constitutional form of government, the solution, whatever it is, must be worked out along the lines of federal-provincial co-operation. The provinces themselves have taken steps to alleviate the immediate difficulty, and I do not think there is any doubt in the minds of anyone in agriculture that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is lending his full support. He stands unique among ministers of agriculture in the concern he has shown for producers in this land and for the action he has taken on their behalf.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: The second element to which the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) directed our attention obviously concerns the destruction of food in the province of Quebec, dramatically illustrated last night on television. Action of that kind cannot be condoned in my opinion and my hon. friend, the Minister of Agriculture, concurs with that view. One appreciates that the situation in which these producers find themselves must be severe when it drives them to this kind of action. As I say, it is understandable, even though it cannot be condoned.
The third element involved in this motion is that of high prices to consumers. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs I should like to address myself in some detail to this question. First, I am a little nervous that a false impression might be created by the motion itself and by last evening's dramatic illustration of the low price which calves are fetching.
The impression may be left that the price of beef cattle in all ranges has declined as far as the producer is concerned. The information at my disposal does not indicate that this is true. Beef production is a complex business. There is the finished beef market, the stocker market, the cow market, the cow-calf operation. Lower prices to the producer have not been recorded in all those areas.
Today the price producers receive for finished beef is not very different from what it was last year, and 70 per cent of the beef we buy for our tables comes from the finished beef market. It is important that consumers should understand this lest they get the impression that, because calf prices have declined so significantly, the

October 31, 1974

price of finished beef has also declined to the same extent. It is true that prices for lower grade beef have declined and questions have been raised as to whether those reductions have been passed on to the consumer.
It is important to note that today in a committee dealing with an agricultural commodity, namely, eggs, Mrs. Plumptre of the Prices Review Board said she would be bringing forward tomorrow two reports on the subject of beef prices. The original report was put out in June. Another will be made public tomorrow, and I am sure all of us look forward to hearing her findings in this area. I understand that tomorrow she also intends to make public a report on retail price spreads in the beef sector, which should give us a clear picture of what is really happening in connection with beef after it leaves the producer and before it ends up in the hands of consumers.
I do not know what these findings will be, and none of us yet have access to this report. However there is no doubt it will be of great interest to consumers who wish to find out whether in fact any lowering of prices to producers has resulted in a corresponding reduction of prices at the retail level, or whether any benefits which are to be found there have been lost through an increased price spread. There has been talk in the House about the presence of too many middle men in this whole process. At this point I cannot make such a judgment although I basically suspect this to be true, and I look forward to reading what the board has to say on this particular aspect.
It has been said there is need for a commission of inquiry under the Inquiries Act to look into the price of beef, or for a royal commission to carry out this task. Since the Prices Review Board will be bringing down these two reports tomorrow I suggest it would be appropriate for hon. members to study them before asserting that there is a need for further expenditure by way of setting up royal commissions or public inquiries. The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and my minister, in particular, are extremely anxious to study the contents of the two reports to which I have referred on a priority basis to see what action might be taken to assure Canadian consumers that they will get a square deal in the marketplace.
As hon. members know, the government has put forward a series of legislative measures for this parliament to consider, measures such as Phase I of the Competition Bill to protect consumers against misleading advertising and to guarantee real competition by means of anti-profiteering legislation along the lines of the bill which was introduced in the previous parliament. That bill will be reintroduced, perhaps in a different form, in the present parliament. This bill will, I believe, constitute a legislative basis for the kind of action consumers believe should be taken. I hope opposition parties will co-operate with the government to ensure that the action that we want to take on behalf of consumers is made possible, and that they will support this measure rather than hold it up here in the House of Commons.
In conclusion, I simply want to assure the Canadian public that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and its minister will do everything in their power to be the guardian of their proper interests.
Slaughter of Calves


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, once again I am pleased to rise in the House of Commons to take part in a debate, one that is of utmost importance not only to the beef producers but also to the Canadian consumers.
I was glad to hear the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cafik) and his revelations. I wish he had stood on his feet a little longer and told the House why the department knew that eggs were rotting on May 31, yet kept the matter quiet until after the election.
That is the sort of thing that is happening under this government, and it is why we have the problem we are discussing tonight. The government has no agricultural policy at all.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member is referring to activity taking place before a committee of the House of Commons. If the hon. member wants to talk about that subject I think it would be more appropriate for him to do so in the committee. I have not seen him do so as yet.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I recognize from that statement that I have really hit a tender spot so far as the hon. member and the government are concerned. The hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) said there was a double barrelled problem here. Actually I would think it is a triple barrelled problem, and the third barrel is a Liberal government that the beef industry has been trying to defend itself against during the past several months.
No industry can withstand the manoeuvring that has been applied to the beef industry in the past 18 months. No industry can have six successive changes in policy in that short period of time and survive without problems. I must say I feel sorry for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) because he is having real problems with the government.
The hon. member for Ontario said that the Minister of Agriculture is interested in and concerned about this question, and that he is a minister of action. Unfortunately the only action we have had from the minister constitutes his travels around the country telling the producers what he is going to do for them. I can assure him that the agricultural producers will not accept this kind of malarky for very long; they want action. This is why we must have an agricultural policy that will take into account the inflation that exists at the present time.
The problem we are discussing did not commence with this Minister of Agriculture. It started with the Liberal government of six years ago which introduced the LIFT program. That was the time when the government started to meddle in the cattle industry and encouraged a lot of people to get into the industry, people who should never have had anything to do with it. As a result the Minister of Agriculture is now suffering from the actions of former Liberal ministers of agriculture. He is not getting the support from the cabinet that he should in order to extricate himself from this dilemma, because, apparently the government does not know how to solve the problem.

October 31, 1974
Slaughter of Calves


Eugene Whelan: Has the province of Alberta spent any money on the beef industry?


Thomas Gordon Towers: The situation we are discussing tonight can be found all across Canada. Last week calves in my part of the country were given away because they had no value. They are not killing calves in Alberta, but they are of little worth. It is unfortunate that the situation in Quebec was dramatized the way it was, but we must recognize that it happened and that we have to live with it. I consider it immoral to destroy food in a world where there are hungry people.
Let me return to the lack of government policy. One of the first bills that the minister presented to the House of Commons was a crop insurance bill. We wanted to amend that bill but the minister would not accept our amendment. If he had accepted the amendment, it would have encouraged' farmers not to go into the cattle business but remain in the production of grain. They tried to use the cattle industry as a buffer, so that if one aspect of agriculture failed they would be protected to some extent.
The minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) has promised to bring in a stabilization program. If this program works it will be to the benefit of the agricultural industry, but it will run counter to the crop insurance program introduced by the Minister of Agriculture. There is not room for both, but if the crop insurance program were made to work properly, it would stabilize the grain industry to a great degree and there would be no need of a grain stabilization program.
I am sorry that people are suffering as they are at the present time, but the Minister of Agriculture will not accept any advice offered from this side of the House. We have made suggestions which he did not accept. When he introduced the present beef subsidy program I said at the time it would be of no benefit to the producer unless chaos hit the industry, and I say the same thing today.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) dealt in detail with the minister's beef subsidy program, which is based on a 45.42 cents a pound average over the year. If the cost of putting on a pound of beef is 60 cents, this subsidy is 15 cents below the cost of production. The fellow in the beef feeding industry will try to protect himself, so he in turn is going to buy that animal at 15 cents below the subsidy price, which means that the selling price of the animal is down around 30 cents a pound. There is no way the cow-calf operator, in these days of inflation, can exist receiving 30 cents a pound for his calves, but there is a chance that he could survive with 40 cents a pound.
It is rather ironic, Madam Speaker, that a year ago last spring fat cattle were being sold in Alberta for 42 cents a pound, or $42 a hundredweight. At 42 cents a pound the beef producers had never made more money in their lives out of the cattle industry. This year, 12 months later, they were selling their cattle at 45 cents to 48 cents a pound, and they have never seen a time in history when they were losing money faster. The reason is, of course, the inflation factor which has hit the industry and the cost of production, something the government has failed to consider or to deal with adequately; hence the problem at the present time.

I sincerely hope the government does not try to ride out this dilemma on the backs of the grain producers. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will agree with me when I say that the grain producer is finally getting a price for his product that will enable him to survive and to buy a few of the things he has been waiting for for so long.
The grain producer has gone through a very difficult period in the last several years and I sincerely hope the government does not adopt a policy that is disadvantageous to him in order to offset or circumvent another serious situation, in this case the dilemma we are debating tonight. The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board has been hesitant about establishing an initial price within an acceptable ratio.
Today No. 1 barley is worth $3 on the world market yet the western grain grower is receiving $1.35. That does not make sense unless the government is trying to manipulate the producer into a position where he will have to sell his grain for feed, thereby getting the government off the hook. I hope it is not too long before the minister establishes an initial price for grain that will convince the producer he is not being used to get the government off the hook in so far as the livestock industry is concerned.
I remember the Minister of Agriculture standing up in this House telling the agricultural people to produce to beat the band. That is what they did, and now what has happened? Some 28 million eggs have gone bad, and we have a cattle situation he does not know how to correct. Until the government comes up with a long range agricultural policy for the benefit of the people, we will get nowhere. The government will continue to jump from crisis to crisis, and no matter how hopping mad the Minister of Agriculture gets, as he did tonight, we will get nowhere.
I hope the government sits down and establishes a long range agricultural policy for the benefit of the producer and the consumer, without manipulating one segment of the industry against the other. Canada needs a policy today which will afford the producer a certain degree of protection, guaranteeing that he will not be producing at a loss. If the time comes when we have a general shortage the person who will suffer most is the consumer. After all the agricultural industry is engaged in producing something for the consumer, and if that industry does not produce we will be in a sorry situation in a world which is becoming hungrier and hungrier as the days go by.


David Réal Caouette: Madam Speaker, who knows what tomorrow holds? One week, we hear that millions of eggs are being destroyed, the other week that wheat was spoiled in the west last winter, then we hear of problems concerning milk, whole milk, powdered milk, industrial milk. Then we hear that there are not enough workers to harvest fruits and vegetables, and this happens all across Canada. Tonight, after listening to half a dozen liberal members, I find that not one of them has suggested a solution to the problem, not even the minister. We ponder over the facts, and we say to ourselves: we are going to look for a solution, but we always wait until the
October 31, 1974

situation is a real mess before we start to discuss solutions.
Madam Speaker, I ask: who knows what tomorrow holds? That is especially true of this situation. Four months ago, we had a federal election. The liberals are on the treasury benches. That is true. At that time, a dozen ministers visited the Saguenay-Lake St. John area. The Prime Minister flew there by helicopter. The member for Lake St. John (Mr. Lessard) was there and at that time the liberal party had all the money they needed to buy the "two-footed calves" of the area. At that time, they did have the money. Four months later, the same party is in power and it no longer has enough money to buy fourfooted calves.
That is a paradox, Madam Speaker. Last night, on television, I watched calves being slaughtered. The member for Lake St. John says the calves were not slaughtered. No, they were doing the same thing as in slaughter-houses. The only thing is that in slaughter-houses, this is done behind closed doors. Last night it was done in public. And this is not a slaughter! What makes it a slaughter is not that they killed the calves. We know that when calves are sent to the slaughter-house, only the bones are taken away, and the meat goes to the consumers.
In Saint-Bruno, the meat went into the hole, along with the bones. The calves were buried with milk, eggs and some dirt. It did happen in the Lac Saint-Jean area. It is unthinkable! It reminds me of what happened 40 years ago. That was a long time ago. In 1934, wheat was burnt in western Canada, because the crisis was international. The next day potatoes were burnt or dipped in washing-blue in New Brunswick, because there were too many potatoes. Thousands of bags of flour were thrown in lake Superior, lake Erie and lake Ontario, because there was a world crisis.
Meanwhile there were unemployed in Canada. Families were not even getting welfare allowances because they did not exist then. A massive destruction of farm and other products took place. The same situation is happening all over again, but we are told: No, there will not be an economic crisis. Was not the destruction of animals in Saint-Bruno an insult to our poor and needy families? Nothing is said about those families. We talk about surpasses in Europe. Production of meat, wheat and other products has begun. Since we are no longer able to export, then let us quietly poop out here. What does that mean? Instead of finding a system that would allow the Canadian consumer to dig into his immense resources, we are being lulled by those words: Sorry, but there was nothing else the farmers could do.
Madam Speaker, the situation is serious and not only in agriculture but no solution is put forward in that field nor in any other field.
I asked the minister a question not long ago. Well, he said, the beef industry is the concern of the Quebec Minister of Agriculture. Quebec says: Marketing comes under Ottawa. We are witnessing a poker game. The buck is passed from the province of Quebec to the federal government and nothing is settled. Attempts are made to lull the people to sleep, but they will not be easily fooled.
Slaughter of Calves
Twenty-five years ago, when I was a backbencher, I said, as I say again today, that farming, the farm, the farmers, are the very foundation of the whole economic and social structure of Canada. Dress coats and beaver hats would turn to dust if it were not for the farmers, and yet we wait! The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) finds that amusing. But it is true! Everyone knows it.
The farmer is praised, but he is not given the means to live decently. His is the social class that is most neglected by the governments of Quebec and Ottawa. All other groups of society have obtained working conditions the farmers have been denied. The farmer is "trapped" at home, seven days a week, without holidays, summer or winter. He has to milk the cows, morning and night: they never go on strike. The farmer is tied down to his job. Our attention turns to him only when we are up against such situations as this one. Otherwise, we take no notice. No one offers solutions. What is the solution?
Twenty-five years ago, I suggested building refrigerated warehouses and others in which to store food produce when it cannot be sold; those stocks would eventually be sold normally. The government should give financial assistance to that type of construction, as it did, up to a point, for the storage of wheat. It was not done in the case of meat. That is left up to the big companies.
A while ago, the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) said there may be too many middlemen between the farmer and the consumer. It may be true, but what is the government waiting for? Why does it not help the farmers to set up public markets where the consumer could buy directly from the farmer? That would do away with the thieves between the two. Though I must say some distributors are honest.
We have seen backers of electoral party funds, like the fellow Obront, in Montreal, who got caught up to his neck by the underworld for having financed the provincial liberal party. Madam Speaker, those are the people who devour both consumer and producer, the producer who now sells his veal 15 cents a pound in Quebec, when it costs him 43 cents a pound to feed the calf.
As mentioned a while ago, in Saskatchewan beef was paid 8 cents a pound. How come store prices do not change? The other day, last Friday, I bought four T-bone steaks and paid $12 for them; that is the price of a calf at Saint-Bruno.


An hon. Member:: They are not yet on the market, the calves of Saint-Bruno.


David Réal Caouette: They are not yet on the market. Madam Speaker, this is terrible.
In the Ottawa area, a committee investigates supermarkets, A.L. Raymond, IGA, Steinberg and others, to compare prices. We hear on television that A.L. Raymond has much lower prices than the others. After having examined the reports, we note that they are on the bottom of the list and that they have the highest prices. The reports were useful for adjusting prices a little. Whether it is A.L. Raymond or another, I don't care. But it was good for adjusting prices a little. It established competition. There should be such committees in all Canadian cities to make comparisons between stores and to tell the consumer who

October 31, 1974
Slaughter of Calves
is selling at the best price. It is a way of curbing inflation. It is not only a question of noting, inventing or seeking, but of obtaining adequate prices. One sells at a higher price than the other, they say. If the public is informed about it, we will witness a price readjustment.
In the meantime, as far as agriculture is concerned, the only solution is to subsidize farmers, allowing them to make a profit on their cattle, to store meat for consumption when it cannot be sold, either through cooperatives, or by building storage facilities, or by establishing agricultural markets where the consumer will be able to buy at a decent price while bearing in mind that some profit must be paid to the producer.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to talk on a subject which, I am sure, leaves all the hon. members embarrassed. I think that no member in this House is very happy tonight, after having seen yesterday evening the television program on the demonstration of the Alma union group, especially when, at the end of the program, we were told that people starve in Bangladesh or India, for example. In Canada and particularly in the province of Quebec, we want to express our dissatisfaction with an agricultural situation by slaughtering calves.
It is not for me to judge such a situation. I do not think that farmers are involved because they love their animals. If they have reached that point, it is because they want us to hear their cry of anguish.
I shall endeavour, Madam Speaker, to make a brief review and then offer some solutions to the present problem. It is a most complex one. Agriculture cannot be compared to the shoe industry. Several factors limit our farmers' income, and I shall only list a few and devell a little more on the two main factors that have brought about this situation. Among the factors that could limit the producers' income when it involves a plant production, let us say that those producers are always under tension or subject to factors which could definitely restrict their crops, namely insects or weather. There is also the fact that these products are perishable. It is sometimes difficult to bring them to the market when prices are more or less attractive. We are dealing with products with short or long production cycles. And yet we cannot turn on the tap when we need some product and turn it off three months later when we say that the consumer market can no longer absorb those products. It is still an other element that may limit the economic aspect of the agricultural industry. A regular supply must be provided. Our economists tell us that an increase of more than 4 per cent of consumption is enough to lower prices much below the production costs.
And now my last point: there is no relation between the finished product's production costs and the sales price's production costs, between the production costs and the sales price. This is precisely the problem facing us tonight, that is the gap between the sales price and the production costs. Since there is no relation between the two, the producer who had to process grain finds himself in this situation which we could express in figures. I have here the report published by Statistics Canada, Agriculture Division, on a comparison of receipts from farm products. From January to August 1974, the overall amount is $3,190 million compared with $824 million for 1970. I am referring

to crops like wheat, oat, barley. With regard to cattle and other similar products, for the same period, we note for 1974 an amount of $2,725 million and for 1970, of $1,700 million. So we note an increase more than fourfold compared with the 1970 figures. But relating to cattle, we have barely a one billion dollars increase. This shows to what extent there is no relation between the gross product and the finished product's sales price.
Madam Speaker, I think that with regard to our Canadian agricultural industry, the objectives of the Department of Agriculture are as follows: we want to develop an agricultural industry that is stong, dynamic and competitive on all international markets. I feel that on this point we have succeeded because Canadian farmers are among the most knowledgeable in the world. We come first both in terms of quality and productivity as far as farm products are concerned.
Canadian farmers have bred the best Holsteins. They have developed the best wheat, the best layers, the best beef, the best dairy products, and so on and so forth. Canadian farmers are responsible for the best products in the world.
We have achieved our first aim. This productivity has not always been to the advantage of producers. When we consider the percentage of the family budget earmarked for food, we realize that consumers in Canada, compared with those in other countries, have largely benefited from this increased productivity by farm producers. In Canada, today, the percentage of the budget earmarked for food can be favourably compared with Italy, where one-third of the budget is used to buy food. In Great Britain, Sweden and Canada, these percentages are 25, 25 and 19 per cent respectively. This means that the first objective of the Department of Agriculture has certainly been reached.
As a second objective, we should see to it that Canadian farmers get higher incomes, in line at least with those received by workers in others sectors of our economy. This is a subject which we should pounder more. In fact, we have already done so.
We have won the Productivity Cup, a trophy which testifies to the quality of our products. Here is an example: Although our cars may be powered by very powerful engines, if we do not improve our roads, accidents may occur. In the area of farm products, if we increase production without regard for the needs of consumers, accidents may also occur. Legislation and standards dealing with production are essential. Well, this is exactly what we have done and we wish to continue to regulate this production.
A moment ago, I heard the hon. member for Saint-Hya-cinthe (Mr. Wagner) argue that it is necessary, for justice's sake, to go all out and to strain our budget to the limit.
I think that production should be set to order as there is a marketing and distribution problem. This is precisely what we have been trying to do.
One remembers that when we established national marketing boards, we tried for two years in this House to put some order in production, while the members opposite

were condemning everyone of our efforts. The Progressive Conservative Party has systematically objected to the creation of marketing boards, but a Canadian association of beef producers demonstrated their support for such a national marketing board with a view to regulating production in cooperation with consumer markets.
The Progressive Conservative members have objected to the creation of a marketing mechanism to ensure a return to producers for their investments.
I think if we consider the dairy industry, we will find that producers cover their costs, and the increase in production costs has affected that industry as well. Nevertheless, they cover their costs and there is a national marketing board which is the Canadian Dairy Commission. There is also another marketing agency called the Canadian Wheat Board.
Madam Speaker, I would like to mention about this marketing problem and the increase in production costs that since there is a marketing agency, that is the Canadian Wheat Board, we should, according to the wish of the Farmers' Union, have some representation in this agency. Going back to the year 68, 69, and 70, when the world price of wheat was lower than the domestic price, producers and consumers from eastern Canada have agreed to pay a premium in order to secure at least a normal income to western grain producers. But it seems to me that the principle acknowledged through the establishment of the Farm Products Marketing Board was a worthwhile one, providing for a distribution of members in agencies and in the Council. Well now, we also have consumers at the agencies level. I suggest that we should have at least one consumer representative from the eastern provinces within the Canadian Wheat Board.
Therefore, I would ask for a review of the Canadian Wheat Board powers, so that eastern producers who consume 75 per cent of the food grain produced in Canada, may benefit from it. I would also consider as a normal step, if we have acknowledged the principle whereby consumers should be represented within the Canadian Marketing Board, that the Eastern provinces should also be represented on the Canadian Wheat Board.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I say that the success of the farming industry depends not only on the farmer himself and his suppliers but also on those at the various marketing steps. Then, we should appeal to the goodwill of everyone directly related to the problem of foodstuffs marketing.
I fully agree with the hon. member who a little while ago has expressed the view that our producers do want to produce. There is no doubt, about that and this is not really a matter of production. We are sure that there is no problem at the production level. It is rather the marketing and the distribution aspects that cause some difficulties and I think that the mechanism capable of putting some order into farm production is precisely the marketing boards system.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, this is a really strange world. Every one of my
Slaughter of Calves
colleagues who has risen in the House tonight has said that he was pleased to take part in this debate which is dealing with a very serious crisis. This crisis is affecting not only Canadians but people throughout the world. I suppose that farmers will learn something from this debate, if no one else does.
I suppose that the farmers have learned something from the many acts that have been committed in Canada recently, acts which other groups of people have committed to gain the attention of parliament. I suppose that farmers have felt that by orchestrating a slaughter or a massacre-as some of my colleagues have termed it-they could gain the attention of parliament. So, finally, they have gained attention, but it is the attention of the government they have gained, not that of parliament. There were all kinds of people in parliament in the last week or so who have brought to the attention of the government the fact that there is a serious crisis in the lumber industry, and in the food industry, but it took a token act of that nature to get this matter debated in the House.
I am a practical man and I wonder what happened to the romance of being a western rancher that people in the east of Canada, and people in other countries, have dreamt about. I will not speak about the causes of this crisis in which we find ourselves. The purpose of this debate should have been to find a solution-the cause is not important now that we have gone this far. Farmers have lost confidence, they are helpless, and this is why they are massacring calves.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has not offered any solution tonight. He could not complete his speech, and I was tempted to rise and plead with Mr. Speaker to please extend the minister's time so that he would come up with some solution. However, the rule did not permit the minister more time to complete his remarks. Perhaps it is for that reason that he could not give us a solution to the problem. He also is a practical man, and I half expected him to say that perhaps we should invent a birth control pill for cows.


An hon. Member:: Or abortion.


Frank Oberle: Yes, or something like that.
The causes of all this are the anti-inflation policy in the United States, the policy in Canada to stabilize the grain industry, and certainly the forecasting by the people responsible for that work. The minister said in his speech that there was a global over-supply of beef. If we speak about the basic principles of economics, there is not a sufficient demand for beef in the world.
Several of my colleagues have said the same thing, that there is an over supply and an under-demand for beef. My God, there has never been a time in the history of this world when there was a greater demand for food, including beef. However, there is no demand for beef with the price tag that we put on it. Not only is there not enough demand within Canada for beef at that price, because there are some people in our society who cannot afford that price tag, but there is certainly a shortage of people in this world who can afford the price that we have put on our agricultural products, not only we in Canada but other major agricultural producing countries as well.

October 31, 1974
Slaughter of Calves
I am sorry that I have to say this here, but I cannot help but put myself in the position of a young, growing child in Bangladesh. It is not very hard for me to do that because I have been in such a position, I have experienced it. I daresay that there are not very many people sitting here tonight who can say the same.
This young boy in Bangladesh sees death around him every day. He watches his immediate family die. He watches his mother leave the place where they eat every day without touching the food because she wants to reserve every last particle that is available for her children. I cannot help but fear that perhaps the small boy, in this modern world of communications today, by some strange accident will read some of the press reports that have appeared in our newspapers in Canada lately. One reporter described the scene of horror in Quebec in this way:
The tiny black and white calf stumbled in a struggle to escape and its tiny hoofs slid in the blood soaking the scaffold hanging over a 30-foot-deep pit.
Roughly hauled to its feet, it grew calm, or at least motionless, as its brown eyes stared at the hundreds of carcasses below.
I could go on reading this, but my time is limited. However, it is a beautiful story. I am looking at this small boy who, by sheer accident, reads something like this, and at the same time he might be looking at the eyes of a person dying of starvation. I wonder if anybody here has ever looked into the eyes of a dying person. I have. You can see the sign in the eyes of a dying person for the whole day before his death. It is a terrible story to tell here and I know it shocks people, but obviously it is the only way in which to gain the attention of people. There are people starving to death in the world every day. There are headlines in any of the newspapers at which you would like to look. One of the articles reads as follows:
There is a severe famine throughout the country, and the most conservative estimates say 750,000 persons will likely die of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition from August through November this year.
We are living in a global community; we are talking about our immigration laws and about our responsibility to open up our borders to people from other countries, and yet we allow people in other countries to starve to death while we dump our foodstuffs.
Another thing that I have experienced, that the little boy in Bangladesh might also experience, is to have lived in a country where people were starving to death and, at the time, to have read that North America was dumping wheat into the ocean, dumping flour into the sea to maintain some kind of market stability. The press is full of stories about our rotten eggs. The global community which has access to radio and television will hear and read about those rotten eggs in Canada, about the calves we are slaughtering, and about the wheat we are dumping into the sea. I am very concerned about what this small boy might be thinking and I have an idea what it is, but I will not spatter the pages of Hansard with it. I will tell you one thing he will be thinking. If he ever gets the chance, and he likely never will, there will be an equalization of the score. However, we do not have to worry about that because he likely will never have the chance.

We have an oversupply of expensive beef and an overdemand for inexpensive beef. We must find a balance. We must consider the consequences of a great number of these small boys who say that some day they will have to equal the score. The consequences must eventually be a total collapse of our system, and even a global war as people in other countries watch us waste, destroy and commit criminal acts as we have done. I consider it to be almost a criminal act to discourage farmers and others from producing all the food they can. The solution must obviously be for them to produce all they can.
We cannot pass laws to restrict Canadian farmers from producing the maximum. We must look at who has the responsibility of paying the bill. Certainly everyone is entitled to a profit. Everyone is entitled at least to break even. However, it has been amply demonstrated this evening that the farmer has not been breaking even. The marketer and the processor have not done too badly.
The farmer is entitled to a profit even though he is dealing in food that is hard to come by for consumers. He can be compared with the person who drives an ambulance. Because some poor guy is lying in the ditch bleeding to death it does not mean the ambulance driver should not receive any pay. He is entitled to make a living.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The good Samaritan did that.


Frank Oberle: The farmers have been good Samaritans. They have played their role. There are more consumers in this country than farmers. The government should take the side of the farmer and equalize the responsibility. If it is fair for the farmer just to break even, it must be fair for the processor and the consumer just to break even. If it is fair just to break even, then anyone who receives a day's pay is responsible for the situation. If we look at it in that way, it is not hard to find a solution. We have to pay the farmer to keep these calves alive and feed them through the winter. We might even have to pay him to put them out to pasture next year and feed them next fall.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: But he doesn't want us to interfere.


Frank Oberle: What I am talking about obviously does not fit into the hon. member's philosophy. I do not think there is much common ground. I am saying we must allow the farmer to break even. It is a responsibility we must all face, whether we are electricians, storekeepers or whatever. Because it is a problem of society, it is something the government must face.
The government must make it possible for the farmer to make it through the winter. He should be given an advance for each calf born last spring or during the summer. He could be given an advance of $100 a head, interest free. This could be repaid after the eventual sale of the calf.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Like Saskatchewan did.


Frank Oberle: Saskatchewan implemented something like that, as did Alberta and other provinces. The federal government must enter into partnership with the provinces. If that is what it takes to overcome this situation, that is what we have to do.
October 31, 1974

This debate should have been designed to find a solution. We should put a dollar figure on what is necessary. I am a small rancher and, therefore, probably one of the reasons for this problem. I am a gentleman farmer. I consider ranching to be a romantic game. I have never really had to work at it, and walk through those brown things scattered all over the field. I see my time is up, Madam Speaker.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Madam Speaker, I do not often find myself making speeches at this hour of the night. However, I am glad to do so because this is an extremely important subject. I want to speak about an aspect I think is of very great importance. Although the resolution before us does not explicitly refer to the international crisis, that crisis exists. It is clearly related to what we are discussing here.
We are discussing the destruction of food in the context of the world food conference at Rome which starts next week. That destruction of food has implications not only for Canada but the world.
The situation that faces the world has been set out very clearly in the material prepared for the world food conference. I do not have time to go into it in detail, but it is estimated by experts that roughly 460 million people are in a state of chronic malnutrition, with all that that means for the energy, vitality, lives and even the mental development as well as the physical development of those people.
In addition to that chronic situation there is the problem of the starvation emergency that is facing the world. There are estimates by genuine experts, not scaremongers, that there is a prospect of between 25 and 75 million people dying of starvation within a very few months. Therefore, we face a human problem, a problem of human suffering.
In this context the destruction of food raises moral issues. I am not going to suggest we should point the finger at the producers because of the incidents here that precipitated this debate. I am quite sure the people involved would not have dreamed of doing what they did unless they felt obliged to call attention to the fact that the system we have is not providing them with the incentive or, indeed, the means to produce food in a needy world.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) will be one of Canada's spokesmen at this conference in Rome. At least that is the last I heard. I do not know whether he has changed his mind. In any event, I hope he will be there. I will say something about his presence there later. What I want to say is that this conference will give Canada an opportunity for practical leadership. Canada will be looking to the minister and his Cabinet colleagues to give that practical leadership at the conference in Rome.
One of the things we must do is to maximize food production not only in Canada, not only in the west, but throughout the world. It is true that a major responsibility rests with the developing nations to increase their own production and look after their own needs. But international action is needed to make this possible. They need capital and other forms of assistance which it is possible for us to supply.
Slaughter of Calves
It is also my belief that fundamental changes in the marketing system are required, not only in Canada but in other countries. It must be recognized that the agricultural industry or, to make it more personal, the farmers, are entitled to stable prices. They are entitled to economic security to the same extent as anybody else in the community, perhaps more. For that purpose, in our view, national marketing boards and other marketing boards are required. But there is also need for international action which would stabilize world prices for both producers and consumers throughout the world.
One proposal which I hope the minister and his colleagues will be putting forward in Rome concerns the establishment of an effective world food price reserve, or world food price bank to provide the security which is required, and prevent the boom and bust cycle which is beneficial neither to consumers or producers. I believe we should work for fundamental social changes. They are imperative. Although we are speaking of crises there is one advantage about them-they give rise to times of decision. We are now at a stage when the world food crisis requires decisions to be made.
I shall not attempt to run over all the suggestions which have been made to deal with the situation. What is needed is a comprehensive and flexible world food policy, making provision not only for wider research but a co-ordinated national stock policy embodied in international undertakings.
I shall conclude a few minutes before the allotted time but, before I do so, I would say this to the Minister of Agriculture: I hope he will approach the conference in Rome in a slightly different spirit from that in which he approached this debate. I hope he will listen with humility to what is said by those who represent other nations at that conference.
In particular, I believe we have a lot to learn from the so-called Third World, whose people are most endangered by the food prices we are discussing. I hope the minister will come forward at that conference with specific, practical proposals, which will call for continuity after the conference has ended so that the conference will not be solely an occasion for rhetoric, procedural debate and a few pious resolutions, but the beginning of co-ordinated, international action to deal with the gravest problems facing the planet, that is, the task of providing food for all the men, women and children in the world.


Mr. Frank Maine (Wellington):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) talked tonight about confusion. There is a lot of confusion in this House tonight. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) talked about the beef industry in general. The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), when he wasn't waffling about Bangladesh, also talked about the beef industry.
The problem is not the beef industry in Canada. The problem is the cow-calf operation. Let me illustrate this by giving some data. Slaughter cattle prices in Calgary have gone from $46.50 for Al, A2 steers in 1973 to $48.25 a hundredweight in 1974. That is an increase of $1.75 a hundredweight. The story is similar in the case of A3 and A4 steers. It is only in the case of commercial steers that

October 31, 1974
Slaughter of Calves
the price has gone down $1.50 from $40.50 a hundredweight in 1973 to $39 a hundredweight in 1974. The big decline in price relates specifically to cows. In the week ending October 19, 1973, D1 and D2 live cows were selling for $36.75, and in 1974 the price was $21.
It is recognized that cow-calf farmers are experiencing a problem and we must work positively and constructively to resolve it, and do so quickly.
The Ontario Federation of Agriculture has recommended to the Ontario government that a program be launched which would enable beef farmers to keep their herds intact, rather that force them to slaughter cattle because they cannot afford to feed them. This program would involve payments of $100 for each culled cow slaughtered for sale, and $25 for each calf introduced into or maintained in a herd. In the short term, this would provide cash to the farmer to improve his cash flow problem. In the long term, this would provide safeguards against a possible future situation in which we might be faced with a shortage of beef, perhaps as soon as 1976. Such a shortage may develop if farmers continue to slaughter feeder calves.
In order to maintain herds in the best condition, and still allow for some thinning out in order to save feed costs, it is suggested that a certain percentage of a herd, say 20 per cent of the poorest quality cattle, be slaughtered. These could be sold as cutters and canners, and the breeding stock would not be depleted as is now the case.
This would improve the quality of the herds and contribute to improving agricultural efficiency, as well as answer the criticism made by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) in his comments on the suggestions put forward by the hon. member from Kam-loops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand). The farmer would get $100
per animal, not $38 as stated by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary.
It is extremely important that the provinces act with the federal government to work out, as soon as possible, a uniform policy for the whole country. This is not being done at present. Alberta and Saskatchewan have moved to improve the cash flow to farmers hit by low cow prices by paying cash advances of $75 per head. Manitoba has made cash advances available to farmers who wish to feed their own Stocker calves. Ontario has provided low interest loans to producers of feeder calves. Quebec has made outright grants to help farmers winter their animals. New Brunswick will pay farmers up to $5,000 over the next three years to help them increase the size of their herds. All this has been done without consulting the federal Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan).
It is important that there be a truly national plan to ensure that the beef industry survives and that the consumer gets top quality meat at a fair price. These two things are more closely interrelated than most people realize, because if the beef industry falters in the face of unrealistically low prices the result will be abnormally high prices for consumers in the future.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Twelve o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. It being twelve o'clock midnight, pursuant to order made earlier today the debate is deemed to have been concluded, and I therefore declare the motion carried.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 2 (1), this House now stands adjourned until tomorrow Friday at 11 a.m.
At twelve midnight, the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Special Order passed earlier today.

Friday, November 1, 1974