1974-03-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table in both official languages copies of the foreign investment review guidelines concerning real estate businesses.


Mr. Speaker:: Introduction of bills. First reading of Senate public bills. Government notices of motions. Oral questions.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to move a motion. Apparently it was not brought to the attention of the Chair. I would ask the House to grant leave because it is a matter of extraordinary importance to western Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we might revert to motions for the purpose of allowing the right hon. member for Prince Albert to propose his motion.


TRANSPORT
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, by leave of the House I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That this House condemns as indefensible the action of the Canadian National Railways in totally or partially closing 21 of the 41 railway subdivisions in Saskatchewan for freight under the grain block loading system and for other carload traffic for an indefinite period at a time when the shipment of grain to the major markets is of imperative importance, and the action taken will result in serious and detrimental consequences to the farming population of the province of Saskatchewan in particular as well as to the national economy.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert under the terms of Standing Order 43. It requires unanimity. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a very urgent and important question.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That this House ask the government to consider the possibility of raising the old age security pensions to $200 a month for a person of 60 and his spouse under 60, and to abolish the supplement now subject to a needs test.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore, the motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Veterans Affairs I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. It arises out of a letter dated March 20 written by the Minister of Veterans Affairs to
768

March 22, 1974
Oral Questions
the hon. member for Charlevoix in which the minister gives this explanation:

-will put an end to the applications made by veterans eligible for obtaining loans to buy a property.

In view of the fact the letter, which is dated the day before yesterday, indicates that the program of loans to veterans for the purchase of property will terminate on March 31, 1974, and gives the reasons for this, will the Acting Prime Minister state whether this still represents the policy of the government?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as the House is aware, the government has been reviewing the situation in light of the speeches that were made in the House when a motion was moved to extend the date. This consideration is still under way and no decision has yet been reached.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As the Acting Prime Minister has indicated the matter is still being considered, I gather this statement in the minister's letter does not represent the policy of the government. In view of the great concern all across the country about the termination of this program at the end of this month, can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House that the government will give the House its decision very early next week and terminate the inexcusable uncertainty that faces the veterans of this country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that just as soon as the decision is made it will be communicated to the House.


Mr. Bell:: Playing with the veterans.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. In addition to the discussion taking place in cabinet on the March 31, 1974 deadline, was consideration given to repealing the October, 1968, deadline for certification, increasing the maximum loan ceiling from $18,000 to an amount to meet today's requirements and to reducing the minimum lot requirements?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, these views, which the hon. member has expressed on previous occasions, are also being looked at in cabinet.


Jack Marshall: In view of the fact that an extension of the deadline will require an amendment to the Veterans Land Act and as there are only five sitting days left next week before expiry, will the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that that legislation will be introduced before March 31?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I said in reply to the question from the Leader of the Opposition, just as soon as the government's decision is made it will be communicated to the House.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Oh, he has arrived. In the presence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs I should like to direct this question to him. In view of the fact that the Food Prices Review Board yesterday reconfirmed that a general increase of two cents on a loaf of bread was all that could be justified at present, and in view of yesterday's statement by the Bakery Council that a further increase of one cent can be expected, what steps is the minister taking to protect the consumer from the effects of this general stampede by the bakeries to get higher prices at the earliest possible moment?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think there is some misunderstanding on the part of the hon. member. According to the information I have with respect to the situation, the bakeries are going along with the position taken by the board, and the increase referred to by some industry spokesmen is the one cent increase which the board would consider justified in individual cases if there were costs which would call for an increase of that sort.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I believe the minister omitted something in his reading of the statement by the Bakery Council. The council has indicated it is seeking a general increase, not an increase in individual cases as the board recommended. In view of this situation, is the government now prepared to bring in legislation to enable the Food Prices Review Board to make its decisions stick?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Again, my information is that the position of the Bakery Council is not that stated by the hon. member. If it is in fact the case that the bakeries are not, in effect, agreeing with the position taken by the Food Prices Review Board, there will obviously be a responsibility on the part of the government to take appropriate action.


PRICE OF BREAD-NEED OF INDEPENDENT BAKERIES TO HAVE INCREASE TO REMAIN IN BUSINESS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether the government intends to bring in a measure to allow the independent bakeries to stay in business, because the information I have is that if they are not permitted to increase the price of bread many of these smaller independent bakeries will go under, something which would be to the detriment of the consumer?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, recommendations in this area were made in the report of the board yesterday and they are certainly being given urgent consideration. It is interesting that the hon. member should now be speaking for business rather than for consumers.
March 22, 1974


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Has he ordered the department to make studies on the total cost of all social assistance programs now in effect in the provinces and at the federal level and has he compared those costs with those suggested by the Social Credit Party of Canada, in other words, does the minister consider the establishment of an universal and guaranteed minimum annual income program as financially feasible?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we are continuously reviewing the programs whose cost the provinces and the federal government share in the welfare and employment fields. I am also in rather constant communication with my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare on this matter.


TRANSPORT
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: My question is for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. I should like to return to the boxcar situation. In light of massive lay-offs-the minister is smiling. I am gravely concerned. It is not at all funny.


Mr. Marchand (Langelier):: Your leader is smiling, too.


Frank Oberle: In light of massive lay-offs in the logging and lumber industry in central and northern British Columbia, and in light of the fact that one company has been forced to cut back its operation to a four-day week, along the lines of what was done in England recently, resulting in the lay-off of 500 people in this case alone, can the minister tell us today how he is responding to the demands from his western counterpart for a short-term solution to the boxcar problem affecting the lumber and logging industry in central and northern British Columbia?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I hope that I will not smile at all. I think the problem is very serious. I was not smiling about it, but I think we should keep a little sense of humour.


James Aloysius McGrath: Don't let them take that away from you.


Jean Marchand: As hon. members know, ten days ago I met with the premier of British Columbia in regard to bringing Canadian National Railways and the British Columbia Railway together to find a solution. I think the best thing to do in British Columbia at the moment as a short-term solution is for the CNR to lend cars to the BCR so that lumber can be moved. I am told
Oral Questions
that they are about to reach an agreement and maybe this will produce results, but that is all that I can do.


Frank Oberle: May I ask the minister whether he would consider a takeover of the CPR, nationalizing the CPR, a short-term solution to this problem?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Oberle: For the benefit of the members to my left, I should like the minister to explain to the House how he considers that a Crown corporation can run two railroads better than the one they are running right now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. In order to understand these recent revelations about the difficulties in the Ministry of Transport, can the minister say when he discovered that the former minister had left the department in such a mess?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that that question is hardly in order. The minister rises on a point of order.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very unfair question. I have never indicated that my predecessor, the present Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, was in any way responsible, and probably the hon. member for Trinity was not either. I refrain from accusing any civil servant and simply say we did not foresee the situation as it is now. We are trying to correct it, but I do not accept such comments about it made in the House.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question for the minister in charge of DREE, the former Minister of Transport. Was the minister aware when he left the Department of Transport that there were any of the difficulties that the present minister has laid on his doorstep?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that that question is out or order.


PROVISION OF BOXCARS FOR LUMBER AND WHEAT-USE BY MINISTER OF POWER UNDER RAILWAY ACT
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport concerning the shortage of boxcars to supply the needs of the lumber industry and the wheat industry. Is the minister prepared, under section 262 of the Railway Act, to demand that the railways supply the needed equipment, and does he intend to use that power?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am going to meet with the companies and I hope with the shippers early next week to examine this question. I hope the shippers can come. The problem is that even if we start to build boxcars, that does not mean we are going to have additional boxcars next month.

March 22, 1974
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will notice that there are quite a few who are seeking supplementaries on this question. Perhaps we should try to limit them to some extent. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, then the hon. member for Vegreville, and we will see where we go from there.


Mark Willson Rose: There have been suggestions by the minister and by others in the House that the government is considering the establishment of a controller to allocate boxcars. Would the minister tell the House if there is anything new on this question, whether a decision has been reached or when he expects a decision to be reached?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, last week or early this week-I do not remember exactly when-I said there were at least three decisions involved in getting boxcars quickly. There was the decision to refurbish a certain number of boxcars in order to move wheat to the west coast. After that there was a decision by the CNR to spend $50 million in order to buy boxcars and locomotives. There is also a decision which is going to be taken by the government, or which is before the government, concerning a certain number of hopper cars. We are trying to handle the problem as best we can.


POSSIBILITY OF BRINGING CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY UNDER PUBLIC OWNERSHIP-STATEMENT BY MINISTER-GOVERNMENT POLICY
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Was the Minister of Transport stating government policy when he said in the House yesterday, "Personally I am not interested in bringing CP under public ownership", or was he reflecting government policy when he said he would nationalize the CPR to members of the media outside this chamber last evening?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Transport is doing an excellent job-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: What has he done?


Mitchell William Sharp: -in bringing before the House and the country the very difficult and fundamental issues this country faces in respect of transportation.


An hon. Member:: He has done nothing.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I just add that, as the minister always does, he prefaced his personal views by saying "personally".


An hon. Member:: That's the whole trouble.
(Mr. Marchand (Langelier).]


MANPOWER
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Local Initiatives Program. In light of the statistics given Wednesday in reply to a question on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Leeds, would the minister explain to the House the formula used to determine LIP allocations to each constituency?


Mr. Speaker:: I trust the minister can answer the question briefly, otherwise he should indicate whether he will make a statement on motions.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the formula for the 1972-73 Local Initiatives Program has been disclosed to the House on many occasions. If the hon. member is really serious about each constituency, I would have to give the statistical details for 264 unit breakdowns, which I do not think would be possible in the time available during the question period.


William C. Scott: If, as the minister indicated some time previously, allocations are based on unemployment figures in the area, does it follow that certain cabinet ministers' ridings have an overabundance of unemployment?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the unemployment statistics in various areas represented the prime factor, but if the hon. member will look back at the comments made by myself and my predecessor which apply to 1972-73 he will find that is not the only factor.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi on a supplementary and then the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-AMOUNTS ALLOCATED TO WESTMOUNT AND BROME-MISSISQUOI RIDINGS
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. Since he agrees that slow growth and high unemployment should be or are the criteria for awarding LIP grants, on what basis was $1 million allocated to West-mount riding represented by the President of the Treasury Board when only $300,000 was allocated to Brome-Missisquoi even though the number of applications which met the criteria from both areas was approximately the same?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: They have a better member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please.


An hon. Member:: Another example of pork-barrelling.
March 22, 1974


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Another Bonaventure.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. minister may reply to the hon. member's question, but I hope we do not get involved in statistics dealing with all constituencies.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out on many occasions, the particular riding of Westmount contains, in addition to some rather prosperous homes, a great number of people who suffer from deep poverty. I might add that many projects approved for the riding cover a great deal wider area than the riding of Westmount, as has been pointed out by the people who have made an objective examination of this situation on many occasions.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, on the basis of carefully researched facts I would ask this further supplementary question. Can the minister explain on what basis grants were awarded when proportionately across Canada Liberal ridings go $2 for every $1 in Conservative ridings?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very apparent-


Thomas Miller Bell: There is going to be an election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: -that a great deal of the representation provided by the Liberal party in this House of Commons is from areas of Canada that do suffer from unemployment, including Quebec and the Maritime provinces. I defy any member of the House to deny that the degree of unemployment in those areas is not higher than it is in the rest of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary-


Mr. Nystrom:: My question is addressed-


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, it is a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I heard the hon. member as well as many other members asking for supplementaries. I indicated previously I would recognize the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, who has been recognized.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Science and Technology. In view of the fact that Herman Kahn's think-tank, the Hudson Institute, recently established a branch office in Montreal which is apparently directed by a former Power Corporation vice-president, Claude Fre-
Oral Questions
nette, I should like to ask the Minister of Science and Technology whether or not contracts are being given to the Hudson Institute by her department and, if so, what is the nature of the contracts?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the nature of our relationship with the Hudson Institute is that of an annual subscription which has been going on for a number of years.
H:	*	*


INDUSTRY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the Hudson Institute is now in Canada and has established a committee on the corporate environment, and as the minister has a representative on that ongoing committee, I should like to ask him what the role of that committee and the Hudson Institute is in the future formulation of an industrial policy in this country?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, it is just one of a number of different and important inputs. It is concerned with the corporate environment from 1975 to 1985.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the fact the Minister of Supply and Services has just issued a statement saying that he has entered the field of futures' research to do forecasts in social, political and economic fields, and also in view of the minister's statement and Khan's ideas on the tar sands, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce what impact that committee and what impact the new adventures of the Minister of Supply and Services will have on industrial development in this country in the future?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think that is far too general a question to give a succinct answer. I have already indicated that the corporate environment study is a worldwide study which includes Canadian firms as well as international firms. I think the Department of the Minister of State for Science and Technology, which has retained the Hudson Institute and did so when I was minister, is the only government department of any government in the world to participate in this kind of adventure. I think it is a very useful type of activity.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the minister and hon. members that we have reached the point where supplementaries might be placed on the order paper or the minister might be given an opportunity to make a statement on motions.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, my understanding was that the Minister of State for Science and Technology said that the Hudson Institute had not been retained. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce now says it has been retained. I think this is a very

March 22, 1974
Oral Questions
important issue. Perhaps the Minister of State for Science and Technology should be allowed to shed some light on this very important question.


Mr. Speaker:: Then perhaps we should have two statements on motions. The hon. member for Yukon.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. In light of the apparent alarming incidence of suicides and attempted suicides, incidents involving the discharge of firearms, and the disappearance of narcotics from police exhibit lockers, I should like to ask the minister whether any internal inquiry is going on within the RCMP to determine the reason for these rather alarming incidents?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the hon. member is referring to suicides within the RCMP, among members of the force.


Erik Nielsen: Yes.


William Warren Allmand: We have had suicides from time to time, unfortunate cases, but I do not know whether the level is one that would be alarming. We are always concerned when there are suicides and measures are taken to try to deal with personality problems, but I do not think there is an alarmingly high level in comparison with the level among the general population.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am not referring to the level of suicides but rather to incidents involving suicide attempts, suicides, the discharge of firearms, and the disappearance of narcotics from police lockers-there is a trial now going on in British Columbia in that regard. In view of such events, which seem to be on the rise, would the minister say whether an over-all internal investigation is now being conducted within the force to determine the reasons?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to two things. One is the disappearance of narcotics. I must say that no particular case has been brought to my attention recently where there has been taking of narcotics by RCMP officers. There have been cases where the use of firearms by members of the RCMP has led to unfortunate incidents. Members of the RCMP all have weapons, and there have been cases where they have been used against themselves and against others in unfortunate incidents. We are trying to make sure that the rules we have in effect in this respect are followed.


COMMUNICATIONS
Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Communications.
Would he tell the House whether there has been an agreement with Quebec about cablevision? If so, what were the points of agreement?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: The answer to the first part of the question is no, Mr. Speaker; therefore it is also no to the second part.


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The minister recently stated he was reviewing the selling of lists by Statistics Canada and would report back to the House. Is he now in a position to clarify this situation?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, and I both agreed that the practice of selling lists should be reviewed. Statistics Canada thereupon suspended the selling of lists until the review was completed. I am now advised by Statistics Canada that the review has been completed and that it has discontinued the practice of selling these lists.


ACCURACY OF STATISTICS ON AMERICANS TEACHING AT CANADIAN UNIVERSITIES IN LIGHT OF INDEPENDENT SURVEYS
Duncan M. Beattie: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the same minister. Noting that a large discrepancy exists between figures published by Statistics Canada on the proportion of Americans teaching at Canadian universities and similar statistics publisned by independent surveys of academics, will the minister now instruct Dr. Ostry to reassess the survey base used by Statistics Canada in obtaining such information?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I will draw the representation to Dr. Ostry's attention.
March 22, 1974


COMBINES
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the matters just raised by my colleague concerning statistics and the accuracy of the nationality of university and college teachers in Canada and also in view of revelations yesterday concerning the extent of confidentiality of Statistics Canada data related to unemployment insurance claimants, would the minister indicate whether he or his department were consulted or even approved the sections in the Combines Investigation Act amendments now before us which would make Statistics Canada data admissible in evidence in any prosecution or proceeding under that act without the right of cross-examination for purposes of testing accuracy?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, there is always a large amount of inter-departmental consultation with regard to any legislation. I cannot give a precise answer to a specific point, but I will undertake to make inquiries and report back.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. H. T. Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and/or the Minister of Justice give consideration to accelerating the introduction of revisions to federal legislation to ensure that the taxpayer will have full right of recovery for losses resulting from the actions of the persons or groups found responsible for the wrecking of the LG II damsite at James Bay?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I will be pleased to bring this to the attention of the Minister of Justice.


INFORMATION CANADA
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour who is responsible for the operation of Information Canada. In view of the fact that the practice of marking up prices of goods on hand is frowned on by the Food Prices Review Board and by his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, as well as by customers, would the minister explain why Information Canada is following the practice of marking up the prices of books on hand, as a matter of fact, even above the shelf list price?
Oral Questions


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I am aware of the particular incident to which the hon. member is referring and which was written up in the press a day or two ago. I am checking that matter out. As far as I am aware, no policy has been approved by Information Canada of indulging in such a practice, but we are checking the accuracy of that particular incident.


INQUIRY AS TO REQUEST BY NEWFOUNDLAND GOVERNMENT FOR ASSISTANCE IN NATIONALIZING BRINCO
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Can he tell the House whether he has been approached by the government of Newfoundland for assistance in that government's proposal to nationalize Brinco?


John Napier Turner: No, sir.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. It concerns a constituent of mine who has had his social insurance card stolen and his identity is being used by another person.


An hon. Member:: By a member of parliament?


William James Kempling: This is a serious matter, so please listen to the question. This person is accepting employment in my constituent's name and has amassed criminal charges that are presently standing in the name of my constituent. Inasmuch as this has been known to the government since 1972 and the government has refused to issue a new social insurance number, claiming that it would cause confusion in the Canada Pension Plan, UIC and National Revenue, but has recommended that my constituent change his name legally-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask the question.


William James Kempling: My question is whether it is the government's policy to advise citizens to change their names legally to accommodate the government's computer system?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer is in the negative.
2739&-50

March 22, 1974
Oral Questions MANPOWER


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-AMOUNT ALLOCATED TO CONSTITUENCY OF VANCOUVER CENTRE
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of the Local Initiatives Program and concerns Liberal ridings in poverty areas. Why is it that when the minister made his announcement the minister in charge of housing and urban affairs was to get $1.3 million in his riding while on the order paper we find that his riding has received $3 million? Could he explain that?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is mixing two fiscal year periods. I believe the information tabled the other day related to one fiscal year and included extensions before May 31 whereas the second figure referred to the projection for the 1973-74 period. If I am incorrect, I shall certainly check the information, but I think the hon. member is mixing the two figures. On the basic question, it should be recognized that a great number of projects did receive extensions and many of them had as a basic mailing address the particular constituency to which they were credited but in fact the activities were carried on city wide and in some cases on a region-wide or province-wide basis.


John Douglas Reynolds: Is the minister telling me that the sum of money allocated to the minister's riding was cut from $3 million last year to $1 million this year?


Robert Knight Andras: I presume that is the conclusion the hon. member can come to, yes.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Why did the riding of Brome-Mississquoi receive more funds than the riding of Saint-Denis?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


AIR CANADA
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. As Air Canada has not ruled out Winnipeg as the location for the overhaul base for Boeing 727's, can the minister explain what part he is taking in these negotiations and if there is a firm date when part of the Dorval overhaul base will be returned to Winnipeg?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it is well known that this is a problem which Air Canada is studying. Of course, Air Canada is the one that will decide where the base will be located, but I know that my colleagues from Winnipeg are interested in the matter and it is being discussed. We hope we can find a solution that will be satisfactory to both Montreal and Winnipeg.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of National Defence. As the minister has previously announced, military aircraft are to be overhauled at the Winnipeg base. When will this overhaul work commence?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the repair and overhaul of Boeing 707's is related to the previous question of the establishment of further repair and overhaul work in Winnipeg. I am discussing this development with the Minister of Transport.


PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY GAS PIPELINE-NATURE OF INQUIRY ESTABLISHED BY MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and it is based on his reply to the House yesterday when he said he will be setting up a special inquiry board headed by a judge to look into specific aspects of the Gas Arctic pipeline application. Can the minister tell the House just when this board will be set up, will it be holding public hearings and, particularly, will it be holding public hearings in the northern territories?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there will be public hearings in the north and the inquiry board has been set up this morning. Mr. Justice Tom Berger of British Columbia Supreme Court has agreed to be the commissioner.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SOCIAL SECURITY
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare I should like to direct my question to the acting minister. In view of the fact that departmental officials administering the Family Allowance Act are interpreting the word "parent" not to include grandparents and are taking away family allowances from children who have lost their parents, would the minister consider changing the regulations immediately so as not to contravene the intention of parliament on this issue?
March 22, 1974


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that this very interesting point, which I do not think has been brought to the attention of the department before will be looked into very carefully.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Supply and Services. Having in mind the fact that the department now place approximately $1 billion worth of federal contracts across Canada every year and that only approximately 4.4 per cent of the business goes to British Columbia firms, would the minister give consideration or is consideration being given to equalizing the situation for the benefit of western Canadian firms and workers?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the figures for the current year. If the hon. member is willing to wait, in one month I shall have the figures for 1973. In any case, sometime in May we intend opening a regional office to serve British Columbia, which will certainly contribute toward an increase in the number of purchases made and the amount of money spent in this province.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. It concerns the serious and insecure situation at Mill-haven prison in my constituency. It results from an incident Wednesday evening at Millhaven prison in which Donal Pyke, a guard, was assaulted by a prisoner and seriously injured. Will the minister hold an investigation into this incident and all the other troubles there with the objective of charging prisoners who assault guards?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, there is an investigation under way at present. I might say that the two inmates who attacked the guards have been placed in dissociation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: The institution is partially closed as a result of the difficulties and we are conducting a thorough search of all cells in the institution to find weapons and other instruments that could be used in attacking guards.
Oral Questions


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: While the Solicitor General and his department are conducting this investigation, will they also deal with the other 153 outstanding charges against inmates now outstanding for more than a year and still not processed?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if there are that many charges outstanding. I am surprised at that allegation but I shall check into it.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
As concerns the agreement between the federal and Quebec governments providing for the investment of several thousand dollars in Quebec, could the minister tell the House whether special attention will be given to the Drummondville area?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to look at the details of the agreement to answer the hon. member specifically. In a general way, however, I am quite certain that there will be assistance in the region to which he referred for specific industries and in order to strengthen the industrial base of that region.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the Centurion tanks in service in the Canadian Armed Forces date from 1946 and 1947, and that in consequence many of the crews are younger than the vehicles they man, will the minister say whether the government, in reaching its decision to extend the life of this elderly veteran, while at the same time refusing to extend the Veterans Land Act, gave full consideration and weight to the technical advice supplied by those servicemen who have devoted their lives to the role of armour in the Canadian Armed Forces and in modern warfare?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the advice of the experienced personnel in the Canadian Armed Forces is always taken into consideration in these decisions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are approaching the end of the question period. The hon. member might ask a supplementary and I will then see the hon. member for
27398-50J

March 22, 1974
Oral Questions
Winnipeg North Centre, the hon. member for Malpeque, and call orders of the day.


Donald W. Munro: I should also like to know whether due consideration was given to the intelligence reports reaching the minister and the government about the tank strength of the Warsaw Pact powers facing NATO?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, all factors were taken into consideration. The Centurion has performed well. It is, as I am sure the hon. member knows, a very effective tank.


PENSIONS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Further to the answer the minister gave me on Monday, March 11, may I ask if he is yet in a position to announce the appointment of a commissioner to go into all aspects of railway pensions, including the position of those already retired from all railway lines in Canada?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is a possible way of dealing with it. If it were the most beneficial and if it were desired by all parties, I think it could be proceeded with quite rapidly. All that remains is to determine whether there is a better method. We hope to decide that very shortly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the difficulty is with the CPR, will the minister get the assistance of the Minister of Transport?


MANPOWER
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In light of the fact that the position of OFY co-ordinator for Prince Edward Island was vacant for many months and was filled only one day before the March 15 deadline for submission of applications, will the minister give sympathetic consideration to extending that deadline in these special circumstances or at least give sympathetic consideration to applications that have been or may be received late?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, as of the other day we had received and coded about 93 applications from Prince Edward Island. I have looked into the matter and I do not think there is justification for extension of the March 15 deadline there or anywhere else. I do not think P.E.I. applicants received any less aid than those of any other

province. It is true there was a change in the co-ordinator. There is no co-ordinator in each province; this one happens to be headquartered in Halifax for the maritime region. A new co-ordinator was hired early in March but the previous one remained in office until his replacement arrived, so the Atlantic region has never been without a co-ordinator. There was a project officer in P.E.I. until January 31 and that position was filled shortly thereafter. In the meantime, there was a very competent secretary who helped those applicants she was able to and referred all others to Halifax where they received assistance. OFY information was sent to schools, libraries, CMCs, the Student Manpower Centre, universities, and the Atlantic regional co-ordinator went on television and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the minister is making a statement. Orders of the day. Is the hon. Leader of the Opposition rising on a point of order?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No, sir, on a question.


Mr. Speaker:: We have reached the end of the question period but with consent the hon. Leader of the Opposition might be recognized.


INQUIRY AS TO MEETING NEXT WEEK BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER AND PROVINCIAL PREMIERS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the Prime Minister has invited the premiers of the provinces to meet with him next week and, if so, can he tell the House what day the meeting will take place and the nature of the discussion that is to take place?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that the Prime Minister has asked the premiers of the provinces to meet with him next week and the invitation has been extended for Wednesday.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette) moved:: That this House, considering the necessity for a reform of our troubled dairy industry, requests that the government immediately introduce its policy on dairy products and, furthermore, that it announce an increase of two dollars in the price paid per hundredweight of milk.
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak as member for Joliette, a constituency very much interested in that
March 22, 1974

industry which is experiencing difficulties and danger at the present time. As I must reply first to those who are involved in the dairy industry in my constituency, and considering the importance for the dairy producers in my province who represent, I believe, 50 per cent of the dairy production in this country, and without forgetting of course all the milk producers throughout Canada who are also worried, I am convinced that our party had to reply to the invitation of the people responsible for the dairy farmers of Canada as well as the Quebec Federation, and all those closely or less closely connected to it, to consider such an important question, since the minister responsible for this should also let us know about the decisions of the Canadian Dairy Commission in a few days.
I believe our suggestions, our speeches today will, I hope, reply to the people concerned and to the suggestions they made to us a long time ago and I hope of course the suggestions and recommendations that I will have the opportunity to make and that all members will make to the government will prompt the government to reply in a very clear and precise way, taking account of the importance of this question.
We readily recognize that the milk producers' situation is untenable and again, as I know that the Canadian Dairy Commission will let us know their new policy in a few days, it was exceedingly important, I believe, to select this day and to enable all parties to speak on this question. In this way, we meet fondest wishes of all those concerned with this industry.
Mr. Speaker, the dairy farmers of Quebec and the dairy farmers of Canada who produce industrial or fluid milk met with representatives of all political parties. The members held discussions recently with these officials and we know full well that the officials of the dairy industry are still waiting for the answer they sought. Considering the importance of an early answer, I believe it is our duty to press the government to intervene much more rapidly.
Mr. Speaker, why are we in such a situation and why has the government waited so long? Personally I have been receiving briefs from responsible organizations warning of the danger facing us and this dairy industry today, namely the possible collapse and the obvious inadequacy of milk production in this country.
Responsible organizations have made repeated representations and requests to the government which were ignored, I regret to say. For this reason alone, we are holding today a special debate on the matter and we note a deep concern among milk producers as well as a reduction in the number of milk producers which is increasingly being felt.
Therefore, does the government intend to act? I feel that all the same the government cannot allow such an industry to deteriorate much longer. We are quite aware of the importance of this industry for the consumer or the ordinary citizen, as well as the huge amounts invested in it. Therefore, we have every reason to believe that the government intends to act, but we thought that it was about to act five, four or three years ago.
Once again, this year we find ourselves in a situation where responsible organizations have to send delegates to Ottawa to try and sensitize us again as well as to urge us
Dairy Policy
as an opposition party to force the government into action. I think this is unfortunate. Today I hope that by outlining our party's position which fully agrees with the recommendations of the dairy farmers of Canada, there will be no hesitation. We urge the government to respond to the dairy farmers, that is to meet the producers' wishes and requirements.
Therefore, in view of the fact that my province produces 50 per cent of the Canadian milk, I am calling upon all Quebec members to compel the government to meet the essential requirements which would enable the producers to stay in business.
I would like to make a few remarks on the main recommendations made by the Dairy Farmers of Canada. They make no bones about saying that the government should formally commit itself without delay to implement a national policy providing that it will use our dairy production to meet the needs of Canadians.
It is only natural that milk producers should obtain the assurance that they may produce according to consumer needs. And if a government will not acknowledge this fact, I wonder why, because it would then prevent Canadians from producing a commodity which would meet Canadian needs.
The brief goes on, and I quote:
2.	Never in the past have the representatives of the milk producers of Canada, assembled in annual meeting of Dairy Farmers of Canada felt so strong a sense of urgency and concern: urgency over the need for basic commitments and decisions that must be made by the Government of Canada over the next month or two; concern that if those commitments are not made, and the decisions wisely taken, serious and perhaps irreparable harm will be done to Canada's dairy industry, and to the basic interests of Canadian consumers and the Canadian economy.
3.	There are three essentia] priorities:
(i)	an overall increase in returns to industrial milk and cream
production equivalent to at least $2.00 per hundred pounds of milk.
As all hon. members know, government ministers met with Quebec officials recently. That was reported in the press, and it was shown that an additional $2 would be a minimum. As for us, we understood that those figures were justified and the needs were real, and we readily support that recommendation which is vital for the future of the milk industry.
Is this government now in a position to respond in the same way rather than wait a few more weeks? We know producers are concerned and it is up to us to dispel those anxieties. I think this government could at least answer this question today by making, and I quote:
(ii)	a commitment by the federal government, and preferably by
Parliament in legislative form, to future maintenance of income from
milk production at fully adequate levels.
I said earlier that it is absolutely necessary for us to try and match production with consumption. Of course, it is always difficult for the Commission to come up with accurate forecasts. However, when we consider that this year, we had to import 54 million pounds of butter, we have every reason to be shocked by those irresponsible and inaccurate forecasts. Therefore, milk producers have grounds for complaint, because they are compelled to restrict their production and to accept butter imports worth 54 million pounds.

March 22, 1974
Dairy Policy
It has also been stated in the light of serious studies made that as the situation is now evolving, we will have to import another 100 million pounds of butter. I would think that no one in this House will accept that without a word and that we will all try to force the government into acting quickly.
I was told recently that the number of milk producers had decreased, and please correct if I am mistaken, but I think that the number has been cut in half during the past five years. It will be stated that the producers involved are older people who have decided to give up dairy farming. This is not true, Mr. Speaker.
For instance, some forty milk producers have decided to auction their stock this year, and we are already expecting still a further spectacular and extraordinary number of auctions later on. These people know their arithmetic and they realize that they cannot at the present time support their families with what they get from their dairy operations. They have therefore decided to sell their farms.
And do not dare tell me that it is because these people are getting tired and have reached a ripe old age, that they have decided to live off the Old Age Security Pension, for it is simply no.t true! Obviously then, milk producers need normal and adequate incomes to cope with the needs of their families. I do not think Canadians will be against that. No hon. member will be against this principle either. Just how far can we go with words to try and solve these problems. I therefore urge hon. members to try and understand how important it is to solve this persistent and dangerous problem which might jeopardize the future of the milk industry in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, they also ask for one quota system for industrial milk and cream, instead of the present double system of marketing quotas and subsidy quotas. It is quite normal, logical and legitimate to give a favourable answer to such a request.
We know perfectly well that in view of the fact that the production quota is not subsidized, this results in a price that is below the cost of production. There again, those who followed the problem of our dairy industry are perfectly aware of this fact and cannot deny it. They will recognize that this is fair and true, but nothing has been done for two years in this regard. And yet, we knew long before today that dairy farmers were obliged to produce milk at a loss. Therefore, I suggest that the consumer himself will understand and will not demand that dairy farmers produce at a loss. Nobody wants to work without getting a minimum return, an adequate return. As regards those three priorities of our party relating to milk producers' requests, I hope that all hon. members will give a favourable answer and will oblige the minister to make a policy statement now rather than to wait ten more days. But if we must wait for ten days, if this is what the Canadian Milk Commission wants, then we agree to wait ten more days.
But when the Canadian Milk Commission makes its announcement, I hope that the minister who, I am sure, is aware of the situation, will respond as hon. members so kindly did. The Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellett) took part in discussions and met dairy farmers; by the way, I

read his statement which was encouraging. But there again, following their recent meeting with government members as well as Social Credit Party, NDP and Progressive Conservative members dairy farmers hope to get satisfaction because their claims are justified.
So I do hope that this debate and this chance that we have today to reply favourably to their requests will also be followed by positive action on the government's part.
Mr. Speaker, I continue reading the brief from which I select very interesting abstracts:
These things must be achieved for the 1974-75 dairy year beginning April 1st.
The major shortfalls in the present position and policies of the Canadian dairy industry are as follows:
Returns to producers of industrial milk and farm-separated cream are sharply below necessary and equitable levels: necessary to provide Canadian consumers with their requirements for industrial milk products; equitable in relation to the income milk producers must receive for their labour, their investment and their management skills.
The fluid milk consumer subsidy policy, by which the federal government has involved itself in the negotiation of fluid milk price levels to producers, has marked its entry into a field of policy from which it should immediately withdraw, ending the setting of any restraints upon the level of producer returns as a condition of payment of the subsidy.
Present policies of the federal government limit to a fixed amount the quantity of milk upon which direct assistance payments are made with the result that production of milk over this amount (which is below national requirements) is unprofitable.
Present policies of the federal government on maximum limits for entitlement to direct assistance payments for dairy enterprises are discouraging progressive producers and hindering efficiency improvement.
Present policies of the federal government are resulting in serious discrimination against producers of farm-separated cream in the returns they receive.
Federal and provincial policies for encouragement and assistance to the dairy industry in education, extension, credit and finance, and farm labour are inadequate and too often ineffective, with far too little planning and co-operation jointly with producers themselves. The industry is being severely damaged by the lack of concrete commitment by government to stability and adequacy of returns to producers in the years ahead, and a systematic basic of forward planning for the industry. Fears and uncertainty created by references to the "temporary" nature of the dairy subsidy program must be brought to an end.
There must be a sharp upward revision in present thinking by government, on the level of returns that is required in the dairy industry today compared with other occupations, farm and non-farm. Increasingly, the producers of milk for fluid consumption must be recognized as having a legitimate, vital and probably growing place in the production of milk for industrial use, and policies must be designed to take this into account.
In relation to all these matters, and in spite of representations by Dairy Farmers of Canada over recent months and indeed years in some cases, corrective action and policy has been too long delayed. The result is that the need now is for extensive decision-making and action on all of these fronts immediately. There is a critical need for early announcement of policy this year, for late-winter decision-making on production plans by producers.
Dairy Farmers of Canada is however encouraged by evidence that there is increasing appreciation by Canadian consumers of the value and attractiveness of milk and milk products in the Canadian diet. New and important confirmation of the nutritional value of milk has come forward from the Nutrition Canada Survey, and consumption of a wide range of products is rising. Canada's dairy farmers take great pride in their products and express the hope and belief that the place of milk and milk products in the Canadian diet will continue to expand.
March 22, 1974

So, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this part of the brief which has been sent to every member highlights the necessity of doing something for that industry if we intend to give sincere and serious consideration to everyday problems.
I find it is important to be responsible enough and tell the truth. We are asked to approve a cost increase and the government can reply immediately: You are asking for grants, for additional rates on account of added costs, but who is going to foot the bill?
I am right, I think, in saying that the risk involved in letting this industry go bankrupt could cost Canadians much more if the matter is not attended to immediately. I think it is important to remind consumers of the necessity to keep this industry alive for their own sake even if they had to bear part of the additional costs. If we think that this is an essential industry, we should have the courage to publicize it, to claim for a publicity that would make the consumer understand that it would be much more economical for him to pay for this increase, even if he had to pay part of it, than to let this industry die and rely on imported products that will be more expensive and which he will have to pay for, anyway.
Even if the government recognizes that such a measure would be a bad political move or a non profitable one, it has the responsibility to apply it if it is convinced that it is essential for the future of the Canadian people.
I do hope that the government will react that way and once again, I will not hide it and I do not want the consumer to believe that he will have to pay part of it, but it is up to the government, up to us as members of parliament, to make the consumer understand that it is more important to save our dairy industry and to guarantee a sufficient income to our milk producers than to let it go down, as is the case today.
Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier that there was a decrease in the number of milk producers and I recently learned that there will be even more auctions this spring, and this is unfortunate. It has been said that young people no longer want to get into farming in general and dairy production in particular.
What concrete steps has the government taken to encourage these young people to replace the head of the family? Of course, there have been openings for loans, but at interest rates that are way out of reach of the young farmer.
The minister recently said in committee that the young people are not interested in agriculture and wish to have a better quality of life or the opportunity to live like the young people in the cities.
I do not agree with such a statement, Mr. Speaker. For instance, it is obvious that the youth, who has seen his father face current problems and who has grown up in a family that has had great difficulty in making ends meet because the farming policies were not sufficient to give the farmers the necessary income, is worried and is reluctant to get into the business.
Dairy Policy
In my opinion, the young people could have this assurance, this security that no farmer could get compared with other labour sectors.
If a young Canadian were assured of surviving, of making a decent living, he would not hesitate to take over the family farm, but to the extent that we will offer him incentives. As regards loans, I think we should consider the possibility of granting a minimum interest rate, perhaps a respite on payment of interests for the first years and tax deductions. The role, the responsibility, the future of our agricultural industry are at stake.
In that regard, farmers and dairy producers complain about labour shortage in the summer. I invite the government to establish a youth labour bank, ensuring fair and attractive wages, thus allowing farmers to reduce their production costs so they can get the absolute minimum return they need.
Mr. Speaker, barely a day or two ago we received from the Food Prices Review Board a very interesting document prepared by Professors Fischer and MacFarlane. In its conclusion they recognize that the requests of the Dairy Farmers of Canada are justified. May I quote you an excerpt from this document:
The Board considers that the urgency of the situation requires that the conclusions of the report be brought to the attention of governments without delay. It calls on government and industry to give these proposals immediate and serious consideration as practical suggestions for the resolution of significant problems facing the dairy industry and the consumer.
Through reporting to the public in this way, the Board wishes to draw the attention of the federal and provincial governments to the strong sense of concern with which it views circumstances affecting the dairy industry which threaten the future availability of milk supplies at reasonable cost.
In this brief, Mr. Speaker, the problems of the dairy industry are mentioned, and I quote:
(1)	low financial returns to dairy producers and declining production despite substantial public support in the form of subsidies;
(2)	a lack of available skilled dairy farm labour, and the inability of dairy producers to compete with off-farm employment opportunities;
(3)	excessive seasonal fluctuations in production of milk for manufacturing which limits total annual output; and
(4)	the present high level of feed grain costs.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is important to consider all of these problems which have direct implications on the dairy industry. The government has made reference to a fair price for feed grains; nevertheless, the people responsible, that is the producers, especially in Quebec, and I think the same thing applies anywhere, are still expecting this fair price.
Last fall, we just about had standard prices and this led to a shortage in supply and the product which could be bought at competitive prices was simply not available.
All this, Mr. Speaker, is discouraging for the producer. He finds himself in a very difficult situation; he sees practically no way out. Then, we are wondering why young people are not interested in carrying on with farming. I think it is important that every hon. member should ponder over these documents, which are now available and give a favourable answer to the basic requests and to the very particular points made by the Dairy Farmers of Canada. The future of the industry throughout the country depends on it and it also assures the consumer that a

March 22, 1974
Dairy Policy
Canadian product is maintained. I think that out of pride and for the sake of a truly Canadian nationalism, we have as our duty to maintain and to preserve this Canadian resource which is the dairy industry. I do hope that all the speeches made in this House today on this matter will force the government to say yes, Mr. Speaker, I should rather say "invite the government" because they have had such invitations extended to them during the past 10 years through all sorts of briefs submitted to them. This practice of refusing to take position and introduce positive measures has caused this concern on our part and today we asked to let this House answer and speak on behalf of our milk producers. I am convinced that on both sides of the House, there are hon. members who know more on this matter than I do, and who will rise to speak to it and thus induce the Minister to give the producers a favourable answer and assure the Canadian consumers that they will be able in the future to get Canadian dairy products and will agree to pay a certain price, if necessary. There is no point in dissimulating that, but we will have preserved an industry which has left its mark and enabled many Canadians to earn their living. But since revenues are totally inadequate, we must take action as soon as possible, and not only by giving temporary grants but by adopting policies ensuring security to this industry and to the producers who have been waiting for so long.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to say a few words about the motion. Toward the end of his remarks the hon. member said there were others who would speak, perhaps on behalf of other parties who knew more about the dairy industry than he did. As to the motion itself, I am surprised it got past the office of the Official Opposition. As you will see, Mr. Speaker, the reference is only to milk. But the federal government does not have total authority in that sphere, though it does with regard to most industrial milk products. The motion refers to the "troubled dairy industry". We do not have full authority federally over the dairy industry.
I should like to comment about some of the things the hon. member said when he talked about the report of the Food Prices Review Board. There are some things about the dairy industry in that report with which I agree. He, too, seems to be in agreement with at least portions of that report. However, there is a certain amount of that famous "economists' jargon" in there with which I disagree very much. I think every dairy farmer in Canada, though, will agree with some of the things contained in that report, as well as every consumer of dairy products, too, if some study were devoted to the subject.
I hope the hon. member has the concurrence of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), and other members of his party, who think the agricultural industry can be run in a way different from any other section of society, that dairy farmers are not entitled to any increases in price and are not entitled to compensation to offset any increase in costs. He thinks farmers can inhabit a yesterworld with prices much below those prevailing in the rest of the world. I hope the hon. member has the consent of the hon. member for St. John's East to go along with our dairy policy when we do announce it.
[Mr. La Salle.)
Mr. Speaker, the dairy industry is in a bind today as I stated at the annual meeting of the Guernsey Breeders' Association here in Ottawa a couple of weeks ago. Milk production at today's prices simply doesn't pay. Let me draw the picture. Last year, milk production in Canada dropped 4.7 per cent, the sharpest decline ever recorded since Statistics Canada began gathering figures on milk production back in 1920. At the same time, consumers are demanding more milk and dairy products than ever before. Fluid milk sales increased by 3 per cent and cheese sales increased by 8 per cent.
Canada is not alone in registering a decline in milk production. The United States registered a 3 per cent decline and in New Zealand, milk production was also cut in spite of the excellent climate which that country enjoys. Production in New Zealand went down by 5 per cent. And this is where some of the experts told us, and are still telling us, we should get our dairy products-countries like New Zealand and Australia. Even in Europe, where very heavy subsidies are paid to dairy farmers, total production levelled off last October and November. In some countries it began to fall off in November and December. If the consumers of Canada think we subsidize dairy farmers, they should find out what is being done in the countries of the European community to keep up dairy production.
In spite of this situation, consumers all over the world are calling for increased milk production. The United States has met this need by lifting quota restrictions on imports. This great free trader to the south of us imposes restrictions and tariff barriers of every kind until it wants a certain product. I think a lot of people should change their minds and their ideas about these tree traders to the south. The only time that they left quota restrictions on imports, as they did for skim milk powder and cheese, is when they want a certain product. That new attitude of our neighbour to the south presents Canada with a new and growing market for our industrial milk products.
In 1973 Canada exported 27,407 purebred dairy animals, for a total value of over $20 million. Exports of dairy grade animals over 200 pounds numbered 41,268, for a value of $15.8 million. We exported 59,417 calves weighing less than 200 pounds, for a value of $7 million. I do not mind saying that I have some reservations about the exportation of so many calves. Those statistics are at once an indication that our dairy cattle are very much sought after, but it is also an indication that our producers are beginning to make more money selling the animals rather than selling dairy products.
Let me explain the reason that these animals are so valuable. Historically the price for our dairy cattle in Canada was lower than that for cattle in the United States. This trend was reversed last year and has continued this year. The 1973 values reported by breed journals on auction sales of dairy cattle going all the way from milking age females through calves with dams, bred heifers, open yearlings, heifer calves and bulls-the whole family-have increased by a full 33 per cent in 1973 over 1972. As far as I am concerned, that is a very impressive record. Those increasing values of animals are not an indicator of a failing industry, Mr. Speaker. If the House
March 22, 1974

will bear with me for a moment I will cite some more statistics to illustrate the strong position of dairying in Canada.
The values of milk production in 1972 was $773 million, but in 1973 it jumped to $900 million. The government subsidy in 1972 was $101 million and in 1973 $150 million. Dairy beef sold in 1972 was worth $300 million, and in 1973 it jumped to $350 million, In other words, farm cash receipts to dairy producers last year were up 19 per cent, from $1.1 billion to $1.4 billion.
Compared internationally, Canada ranked sixth in importance in total milk production in the world. Although production per cow in Canada in 1970 was below that of Holland and the United States, we are catching up fast. Our production per cow is way above that of New Zealand and Australia. Considering our climate and the difficulties that our dairy producers face as a result, I repeat that our milk producers are the most efficient in the world. We have the best cows, the international demand and the prices paid for the cows by other countries proves it. These other countries know the full value of milk as a food. Most of the countries buying these cattle are much poorer than Canada, such as Mexico, Cuba, many of the South American countries, Spain and Italy.
This is where the government's programs come in. Under ROP testing and breeding programs, we have bred cattle superior to those of practically any other country in the world. This has taken time, and it has also taken good programming on the part of the government and producers. They can be very proud of that. Their cattle have become so productive that this helps them to stay in business.
It was only a few weeks ago that I gave recognition to the owners of Ingholm Rag Apple President that produced a 365 day world record by giving 36,594 pounds of milk with a butterfat test of 2,098 pounds. The owners of the animal are Mr. and Mrs. Ingram from Campbellford, Ontario. These people wrote me letters and we had our government inspectors actually sleep in the barn to make sure this cow was not being fed any drugs, etc. We were very cautious in our approach because we value our ROP testing. The value we place on it is so high that we wanted to make sure that no drugs, etc., were being given to this cow.
When this cow gave this much milk, Mr. Speaker, some people said that she had just gone crazy. These people were ordinary dairy farmers, not large operators. Whenever anyone went by this cow they just gave her another shovelful of feed and she ate it. They are now trying to do the same sort of thing again. We work with these dairy farmers so that no one can doubt the records. We had seven different inspectors watching them feed and milk this cow just to make sure that the records were authentic.
These people wrote letters to me saying that they were not a bunch of thieves or crooks, that they were doing just what they should. I told them that they should protect themselves, because if this cow produced a male calf, you can imagine how valuable it would be to an artificial insemination unit. If the offspring of that calf were anything like his grandmother, then you could imagine the tremendous increase in production that could occur all over Canada. Through artificial insemination you could
Dairy Policy
increase this type of productive animal manyfold, certainly more so than was possible many years ago. It has been part of our dairy policy in Canada to do this sort of thing, and world buyers will be watching progress and bidding for the semen and the stock from the offspring of this great cow. As I say, Mr. Speaker, the owners of this animal are very proud. But this just did not happen; it needed co-operation between producers and the government in order to make sure it was done correctly. If the people concerned do not have the knowledge and the dedication that is necessary to bring this about, then an important part of the process is missing.
In this regard, many articles appear in the press about subsidies and how people are made rich. Most of them are similar to the kind of article that appeared in the Ottawa Journal last night. Although it was not about the dairy industry, we do see some written about the dairy industry from time to time. This article had this to say:
The beef subsidy should be ended. Mr. Whelan should direct his efforts to get his beef producers to be more efficient.
I do not know who wrote this baseless editorial. All I can say is, let him check the beef industry of Canada and he will find that the beef producers, the beef feedlot operators and the people in the beef industry in general are some of the most efficient operators in the world. It goes without saying that the same applies to the dairy industry. Our exotic cross-breeding programs, improvement in our feeding program and all of our research have allowed our cattlemen, not only beef but dairy, to become the most efficient in the world. I say that anyone who writes an editorial like this which tries to convey to the public of Canada the impression that beef prices are so high because we have inefficient producers should be chastised for inflaming people with inaccuracies, innuendoes and jargon. As far as I am concerned this is nothing more than a damnable lie and downgrades a paper like the Ottawa Journal, which is so worthy in many ways.
The problems faced by the dairy industry today are those of maintaining production in the face of recent large input price increases, rising returns in alternative enterprises, and a growing disinclination on the part of farmers to accept the hours of work required in dairying without sufficient compensation. I recently attended the annual meeting of a 4-H Calf Club in the hon. member's constituency of Timiskaming. It was the night for the presentation of awards. Practically every member of the audience was either a producer or the son or daughter of a beef or cattle farmer. Not one of the young people I talked to, and I did not talk to them all, had any intention of becoming a farmer. I asked one young person "Why don't you want to become a farmer like your father who has a nice farm?" He said: "I can tell you why, Mr. Whelan. I can never remember my dad taking a vacation. The vacations I have had have been with my uncle who is an electrician. The weekends when I went fishing I went with my cousin and my uncle, and he is an electrician, not with my dad because he works on Saturdays and Sundays. My uncle is away on vacation in Florida for four weeks. My dad has never gone out of the community since I have known my father and can remember. That is one of the reasons, Mr. Whelan, why I don't want to be a dairy farmer. I am not saying that my dad has not supplied a good home with

March 22, 1974
Dairy Policy
everything we needed in it, but that way of life is not for me."
There is one thing that we too often take for granted. Some people seem to think you can turn the cow off on Friday night and start it back up on Monday morning. The other day during a discussion with some officials, not from my department but from another department, one of them suggested that when you had an over-production you should cut the feed off a little bit and the cow would not produce so much milk. What a ridiculous and asinine thing to say. We know that when you cut back feed milk production does cut back, but in 99 9/10ths of the time when you increase that feed after short-circuiting it, the production does not come back. A cow is not a machine. This man thought he had a punch press or something. What he has is a machine with four spigots that depends on you taking care of it and forcing it with everything you have, including every kind of good food 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In a way, a cow is a machine but no man has invented anything that compares with a cow when it comes down to the nourishment you get from dairy products, and that is something that we in our society take so much and so often for granted.
Because of higher dairy input prices, the support levels for dairy products were raised significantly for the dairy year 1973-74. I suggest that we reacted quicker to the requests of dairy farmers than anyone else since I have been here, beginning in 1962. We reacted to their requests last year and we will do so again. In April, skim milk powder prices were increased by 21 per cent and butter prices by 4 per cent to provide an increase in the milk price of 60 cents per hundred weight, the equivalent of about 14 per cent on the average market price. In August, 1973, the dairy farmers of Canada again made representations to me for a further price increase. The return per hundred weight of milk was increased by $1 including a temporary subsidy of 56 cents per hundred weight. Dairy farmers have recently claimed that still further increases in returns are needed to offset rising input costs, and I agree that they are needed.
This government, through the establishment of the Canadian Dairy Commission and the policies handled by them, has maintained a healthy dairy industry in Canada. This government is not now about to see it go down the drain. The Canadian Dairy Commission has substantially fulfilled the objective for which it was established, namely to give efficient dairy producers an opportunity to obtain a fair and equitable return; to provide the maximum of stability for the dairy industry; to assure consumers a continuous and adequate supply of high quality dairy products, the highest in the world; to make the dairy sector more efficient by increasing the number of larger units and, most important, to secure from the market the largest possible proportion of the milk price required by dairy producers.
I want to say this about the Canadian Dairy Commission. It is a commission which was set up by this parliament, and it operates as a marketing board, no matter what anyone else wants to call it. I would challenge those people who condemn marketing boards to show that the Canadian Dairy Commission has not seen fit to make sure
(Mr. Whelan ]
that the producers get a proper return, with the result that not only has there been stabilization of the income of dairy producers, but the increase in the cost of dairy products to our consumers has been less than anywhere else.
Dairy producers have been afforded the opportunity of obtaining a fair return on their labour and investment. On production covered by direct subsidies, manufacturing milk shippers have received a return estimated to be $2 to $3 above the equivalent of world prices. In the absence of Canadian Dairy Commission programs, farmers' gross receipts from dairying would have been more than one-third lower, and the output of the manufacturing milk and cream sector alone would have been only half as large. A relatively high degree of short-term stability has been provided, both through protection from fluctuations in international dairy product markets and through compensation for the exceptional input inflation of the past two years.
Consumers have been provided with a continuous and adequate supply of dairy products of high quality. All domestic requirements of skim milk powder have been provided from Canadian milk production, and until 1972 Canada was self-sufficient in butter production. With the exception of specialty cheeses, other dairy products have been provided exclusively from domestic sources. The dairy commission has seen fit to make sure that butter supplies were adequate by foreseeing what was going to happen and importing enough butter to cover our needs.
The effort to increase the efficiency and health of the industry has resulted in a very substantial increase in the number and proportion of medium to large-size dairy operations. Between 1968 and 1973 the number of quota holders in the 3,500 pound to 17,500 pound category has increased from 32 per cent to 42 per cent of all quota holders. These people represent the backbone of Canada's dairy industry.
A few relative price comparisons between Canadian Cheddar cheese and equivalent Edam or Gouda cheese in other countries illustrates the point. In mid-January of this year a pound of cheddar cheese in Ottawa cost $1.11; the equivalent cheese in Stockholm cost $1.55; in Washington, $1.35; in Rome, $1.23, and in Australia, Canberra cost $1.24 and so on.
Let me quote some additional figures as to the retail price in December, and I use butter as an example. In 14 cities in Canada butter cost 77 cents a pound, whereas in 56 cities in the United States it cost 89 cents a pound; in Brussels, $1.24; in Copenhagen, $1.19; in lucky Ireland, 79 cents; in The Hague, $1.29; in Hamburg, Germany, $1.54; in Paris, $1.44, and in Rome, $1.60. The difference in prices is further emphasized when one compares the average earning in Italy as compared to the average in Canada. One can check the efficiency of our dairy producers by looking at the fact that with our program butter can be produced and marketed at 77 cents a pound, or it was possible to do so at that time. We cannot continue to do that, but the price will not go up to anything near $1.60 a pound.
The federal government's dairy policy for 1974-75 and beyond will be announced within the next few days. Therefore, I do not wish on this occasion to go into detail on what action the government intends to take in that

regard. I have told the farmers and have said publicly that we are working on a long-term dairy policy. Announcements will be made by April 1 according to the legislation. We are fully aware of the situation faced by our dairy farmers. I hope it is not the hon. member's intention to use the motion today for political gain, and then to say to his constituents that, when speaking in the House, he told the government what must be done for the dairy industry, and the minister is doing it. It will not do him any good no matter what he says because we have been working on it for three months as hard as we can. We have worked very closely with the dairy industry. I do not think another Minister of Agriculture has worked as closely as I have with the dairy industry. We are attempting to really find out what is needed to maintain the dairy industry.
As I said earlier it is not merely a question of economics. It is a way of life. I heard the hon. member, when speaking in support of his motion, say that he did not know much about the dairy industry. If he had to milk cows seven days a week, twice a day and before he went to school he would understand a little about the seven-day week to which I referred, which includes Sundays, holidays, Christmas, New Year's and even St. Patrick's Day. Some hon. members probably have heard about it but they would understand it much better if they actually experienced it. This is the problem in respect of some of our world programs related to agriculture.
I wonder if any hon. member has any idea how many ministers of agriculture I met who were actually farmers when I attended the FAO meetings in Rome?


An hon. Member:: None.


Eugene Whelan: That is right. I did not meet all of them because there are 132. If we say that the agricultural situation in the world is in a mess we cannot blame the farmers. We should blame the economists, lawyers and others who are trying to run the agriculture and dairy industries in the world. To say that milk is an important food is to state the obvious. It is a food that we cannot afford the luxury of expecting some foreign country to produce for us. We must forget about depending on some foreign country. We have had this experience in respect of energy when we depended on some foreign country to supply it cheaper than we could ourselves. We have had a similar situation in respect of the sugar industry.
With regard to the dairy industry, it is obvious that we must make our dairy industry capable of supplying every product we need. It is a cornerstone of our agriculture. Dairying is important for reasons other than the basic milk product. Dairy animals supply a high percentage of the beef we eat as well as all kinds of other products, everything from leather to pet food. The government is most anxious that dairy farming remain an attractive line of work for both farmers now in the business and for those young farmers whom we would like to get started in dairy farming.
Last year we doubled the amount of money spent on the dairy industry and many people in the dairy industry have confidence in what we are doing. They have confidence in this government and I am taking for granted that they
Dairy Policy
have some confidence in what this minister says. The dairy industry has its own special problems. It is a highly skilled occupation. It is not surprising then that many farmers have opted for types of farming that are a little less demanding, like beef-raising or cash-crop farming. On the way here this morning I met a man who sold his farming operation not far from Ottawa. He is 45 years of age now, and is running an elevator. He said he has a much easier life now than before and has more take-home pay. Do not forget that. One must also realize that the whole family is involved in a farming operation. What the dairy farmers need is the guarantee of a decent living over an extended period. That is why we are working on a long-term policy. This is the reason the dairy industry asked for a long-term policy to which I am committed. A long-term policy is required so that the farmers can plan ahead.
In the middle of the current dairy year, we raised the industrial milk subsidy when it became apparent that farm costs had outrun returns on the product. We did not wait until now to take action. We instituted a consumer subsidy of five cents a quart, to solve the twin problems of rising consumer food costs and diminishing net profits for the producer. The producers need long-term help as well, so that they can plan ahead and take risks in investing in buildings and in livestock with some hope that eventually it will pay off and that their industry will be what it should be and must be so far as I am concerned. I stated this in the House before. We want a dairy industry that will attract our young people and the federal government is working very hard on this right now, not only with measures already in place, but with measures to be announced soon.
The world dairy situation is changing on an almost daily basis. A few years ago, we could not give away our skim milk powder. Today, the price is about 12 cents a pound above our own support level. This is a product we use in external aid and foreign aid all over the world. That is how quickly things can change. So, while we need a long-term policy, we must remain flexible enough to react quickly to a changing situation in other areas of the world. We cannot be so fixed in respect of a plan that we cannot change. We proved last year that we would react to the needs of the producers. No matter how good our long-term policy might be, we must always be in a position to react when the producers need it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the minister, but his time has expired. The hon. member for Timiskaming.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, would it be possible to call it one o'clock.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
March 22, 1974
Dairy Policy
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, as the minister indicated the Official Opposition, in putting forward today its motion to subsidize milk production by $2 per hundredweight, is confused because the federal government is only responsible for a section of the dairy industry, namely, industrial milk production, and the provinces have total control over the fluid milk production.
In March, the minister announced an increase of $1 per hundredweight of milk in the form of a federal support program for industrial milk production. If we added to this the $2 subsidy proposed by the Official Opposition, we would solve many problems facing the industrial milk producer. But I suggest that we should give consideration to the problem that is confronting dairy farmers, and in fact all farmers in Canada today, and ask ourselves whether or not the kind of programs we are implementing are really the programs we should be implementing.
On at least two occasions the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) rose to the emergency by putting forward ad hoc legislation which, in my opinion, has caused more difficulty than the original problem was causing, and at the same time has cost the Canadian taxpayer a great deal of money. I am uncertain whether or not it would be wise for the House to seriously consider why we are involved in subsidy programs for the dairy industry. I think it would be wise to go back several years, in fact quite a number of years, and consider the legislation that has been passed by the House. Until the last year or two the purpose of the legislation with regard to all agricultural commodities has been to provide farmers with a method of disposing of a surplus in a specific commodity. For years, Canada has been capable of overproducing practically every agricultural commodity, and nowhere has this been more evident than in the case of industrial milk production. I can remember many experiments that have been tried to dispose of our surplus products. One bright proposition which was put to parliament a number of years ago had us converting surplus butter into butter oil, but we found that there was no way of converting it back to butter nor was there any way to use it in the form of oil. That experiment proved both costly and foolish.
All of our experiments over the years have been designed to get rid of surpluses but we are no longer faced with surplus dairy products. It is true that there is an occasional surplus in powdered milk because the world is not yet willing to use powdered milk as a substitute for fluid milk, but in all other fields we find ourselves in the position of having to import many dairy commodities. This affects the consumer, and we should think what it will mean if that policy has to be followed for almost all agricultural commodities, not just to dairy products. We will shortly have to make our minds up whether we want to export water, oil, hydropower and lumber-in fact all of our raw and mostly non-renewable resources. Once we start exporting them it is difficult to regain control, so we must make the decision on whether we want the money or whether we want to maintain self-sufficiency in these commodities.
We can produce almost every agricultural commodity, from the dairy industry, from the vegetable and legume

industry as well as cereals, and under normal circumstances we can produce far in excess of our requirements. However, Mr. Speaker, we have not done that. We now find ourselves importing butter because it is cheaper to do that than to produce it. We find that it is cheaper to import almost every kind of fresh vegetable from the United States than it is to produce it here. Canadians are often shocked to see pictures in the newspapers and read accounts of apples being destroyed or not picked because it is not worthwhile to do so. We learn that tomatoes are left in the fields here because it is cheaper to import them. We have gone to great expense to develop a hot house industry in Canada, only to find that it cannot compete with Mexico or the United States when those countries dump these products here. On these occasions we have used the economic yardstick, and decided that it is cheaper to import than it is to produce.
This is particularly true of the dairy industry, and it was therefore very wise of the minister to cover the waterfront as he did. The Canadian public has not yet decided whether it is to our advantage to be self-sufficient in agricultural products or whether we should buy where the price is cheapest. At the moment, we are importing tomatoes and all kinds of fresh vegetables, whilst we are growing them and then destroying them because we do not have the ability to pick, pack, grade and distribute them.
The Conservative Party will have to consider whether it is to our advantage to pay an additional $2 to maintain the industrial milk industry. What do we do about the commodity by the time it reaches the consumer? Do we tell him he will have to pay what the supermarkets charge or do we tell him that his taxes pay the subsidy on the product or do we tell him that there is already a reasonable markup allowed in the field and there is going to be no more? This is what we have done with butter, not by design but by accident. We have done it to the extent of keeping butter in short supply. In doing so, we put many hundreds of thousands of small farmers out of business, mainly in western Canada. We got rid of the butter surplus and now we are buying butter. We will have to decide whether that is the way we want to operate our business.
I am of the opinion that if we are to subsidize the dairy industry to a greater extent, then we will have to nationalize Kraft. The hon. member who moved this motion is well aware that a very great percentage of the cheese consumed in Canada is produced and sold by Granby Co-op. That company sells 80 per cent to 90 per cent of all cheese manufactured in the province of Quebec and produces almost 90 per cent that is bought by Kraft.


Mr. Cote:: Good!


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member says good; in my opinion he is being irrational. Kraft is rooking him, is rooking the Co-op, is rooking everybody in this country because they are usually selling it to the consumer at twice the price. Maybe the hon. member does not know that the floor price on cheese is something like 54 cents and that the consumer is paying between $1.09 and $1.29 for that product; that Kraft has cornered the market, put a label on the product and doubled the price. I know the hon. member is a farmer but he is willing to settle for less than half the proper
March 22, 1974

return for that commodity, even when it goes into the Granby Co-op, because he is allowing Granby Co-op to operate in conjunction with Kraft, a monopoly.
The minister will have to look at some of those monopolies in the food chain. He will have to look at the international control of the food chains and how the monopolies control the distribution of products which results in the consumer paying far more for them than is justified by the returns the producer receives. The hon. member opposite, who I am sure is going to reply, should keep something else in mind. If the farmers do not get enough money for the products they are selling, more and more of them will go out of business. I agree with the minister when he said that it is damned hard to get up in the morning and milk those cows, seven days a week, 365 days a year. We have not yet developed a good cow that will take Saturday and Sunday off or one that will give you a regular two week holiday. In fact, it will be a hardship for the milk industry if such a cow ever is developed!
It is all right for the people in the dairy. They can cut out all the frills. They can work a five day week. They do not have to milk the cow on the farm. But that does not mean that the farmer does not have to put the milk into the bulk tank after he has milked the cow. We must make sure that the farmer earns the kind of money which will enable him to live a totally different kind of life from the one farmers now live. The farmer of today is perhaps 65 or 70 years old. The next generation of would-be farmers has already opted out. Those young people are not going on the farm; they have already gone into the factories. We must talk about the second generation, the grandchildren of the man on the farm. We must make sure they can live a totally different kind of life and we must guarantee them a standard of living which will be high enough to convince the wife and family that they should live in the rural community and work the farm in a way which will guarantee Canadians supplies of food.
No matter at which segment of farming you look, you will find the farming population has been declining over the past few years. If, in the next few years, this trend is not reversed, we will not be able to choose whether or not we want to be self-sufficient. We will be forced to sell our capital assets, our non-renewable resources, and we shall find it difficult to get people to take up farming again or to resume production of renewable resources, because we shall not have the experts, the farm units or the other conditions in this country under which it was possible for farmers in previous generations to provide Canadians with cheap food.
I suggest to my hon. friends opposite that we must provide the farmer with the standard of living which will induce him to remain on the farm. We must guarantee it; otherwise, he will move off the farm. Furthermore, if the farmer is forced to provide, say, Granby Co-op or Kraft Industries with his product, and those firms sell this food in Canada at much higher prices than they pay the farmer it will be extremely difficult to convince the consumer that he ought to pay subsidies to keep the farmer on the farm. The farmer produces industrial milk, which he sells to the Kraft company. The company sells it at a very much greater price. That transfer from the farmer to the con-
Dairy Policy
sumer, with Kraft company acting as middle man, is made with no major expense to the company.


Mr. Whittaker:: Does the hon. member know what he is talking about?


William Arnold Peters: Well now, my hon. friend sitting in the back row is making noises, yet I assume he knows absolutely nothing about the cheese industry. If he did, he would realize that the making of cheese and butter involves a very simple process. Actually, those foods are about the simplest to transfer from the farm into the showcase. So simple are they to handle that for many years farmers used to put those products into the store and look after the counter. The mark-up in the grocery store normally was about 2 per cent or 3 per cent, considerably lower than that on other items handled by the retail grocery trade. I suggest that I have raised an important question. The problem cannot be met merely with the continuation of subsidies.
The minister, in my opinion, faces terrible trouble in the beef industry. We must make sure that the beef producer is kept in business because, once he goes out of business, it will take many years before beef production is in full swing in this country again. With producers out of business the price of beef will go sky-high because there will be a shortage. On the other hand, if we ask the taxpayer to subsidize the beef producer but do nothing to bring down the price in the store, the consumer will decide pretty soon that he is no longer willing to pay the subsidy for that commodity and will demand a totally different system for the handling of such commodities.
As I said previously, for 20 years, long before I came to this House, we faced agricultural surpluses. We designed many programs to dispose of agricultural surpluses, whether they were in wheat, butter, skim milk powder or casein. All such products, with the exception of fluid milk, have been handled on an emergency basis, because we had accumulated surpluses we could not handle. It cost too much to keep them. That situation no longer holds true. In many fields we have reached the limits on production. We have, under the present system, reached those limits in the dairy industry, as is evident if you look at the rate of production.
The minister paid a tribute to farmers for the type of cattle they are producing in this country. This has been a fabulous development of which Canada should be exceedingly proud. I can remember when I milked cows as a young lad. We had a large farm and we milked lots of cows. I can remember when we were producing a large volume of milk, but the butter fat content was less than 2.8 per cent. At that time the regulations provided for a minimum of 3.2 per cent, or you would be eliminated as a supplier. My father had to go to southern Ontario and buy two Jersey cows so that we could stay in the fluid milk business. We could not get our Holstein cows to produce milk with the required butter fat level. Today, Holstein cattle are producing milk with as much as 5 per cent butter fat. This is a great tribute to the farming community, to agricultural schools and colleges, and to farmers who have been willing to take advice with regard to ROP. They have listened, and the result has been a long period of technical development.

March 22, 1974
Dairy Policy
The farmer has done his share and often the government has been helpful. We are under an obligation to tackle monopoly concerns such as Kraft, which put little or nothing into the system, but sure as hell take out a whole lot more than their share. Unless we tackle this situation, we will find that levels of production will decrease and costs to the consumer will rise.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, the motion of the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) is a timely one. It answers the desire of the Canadian dairy producers who want the Canadian parliamentarians to seriously study this grave problem which is now facing the dairy industry in order to help the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the federal cabinet to improve the lot of the farmers who work in this industry, the dairy industry, which is generally called the primary industry, especially in Quebec.
I would have liked myself to move a motion concerning agriculture during these opposition days, but it was impossible because of the way the time is allotted between the parties in this House. However, I wish to congratulate the mover of this motion. He has given an excellent description of the dairy problem and I am very happy to see that he supports the justified requests of the producers.
I should also like to say that I listened most attentively to the speech given by the hon. Minister of Agriculture, at least the major part of it. He dealt quite seriously with the problem and with great competence. I was impressed above all by the fact that he had the courage to say that dairy farmers are of those who cannot allow themselves holidays. If they do, they run the risk of seeing their production diminish, as well as their income, because their animals are very sensitive and must be disturbed as little as possible. They must always have the same master, and be taken care of by the same man everyday, because, when disturbed, they produce less milk; a herd of 50, 60 or 75 cows can soon lose 100 or 200 pounds of milk.
Without blaming anyone in particular, I feel that the minister does not have enough support in the cabinet. I am convinced he has done all he can and that today's debate will help find a more satisfactory solution to the dairy farmers' problems.
The situation is nothing new: as repeated time and time again in this House, the farming industry has always had many problems. It is the most important industry of all because it feeds the people.
This industry has always been the most neglected one by governments and produced the smallest income to those engaged in it. If a number of farmers can still be found today it is because they are convinced of their mission, confident that the future will bring improvements.
This industry's survival is due to the courage and steadfastness of those workers of the soil who wanted to carry out their task and who are still determined to do so but who become increasingly demanding, and rightly so, since they want their fair share of national income. In 1974 I

think it is quite fair that the farmers get the return they are entitled to.
Dairy producers have been facing the same problem for several years. They are constantly caught in the "cost-price" squeeze.
I remember that in 1967 the dairy producers of Quebec and Ontario organized a march on the Canadian Parliament so as to make the federal cabinet and parliament aware of their problems. Since I participated in this march, I remember it as if it had taken place yesterday. I was glad to be among them but at that time I was far from thinking that one day I would sit in the House and in a position to help those workers obtain justice. If I am sitting here today it is because certain reasons led me to take a more active part in the political life of my country and to accomplish as far as possible what can be expected from a dedicated member of the House who wants to improve the lot of his constituents.
Government intervention came at a certain time and mainly from 1967 but quite slowly. Progress has been slow. In 1967, the support price of butter was then amounting to 63 cents a pound. There was a slight increase in 1969 to 65 cents a pound. There was no progress in 1970. In 1971, the support price was 65 cents a pound and 68 cents in 1972. In 1973, it skyrocketted to 71 cents. It has gone up very slowly which means that dairy farmers are certainly not responsible for the cost of living increase.
In the light of the figures I have just quoted and because of the replies the Chairman of the Food Prices Review Board made to the Committee of Miscellaneous Estimates on March 14, 1974 when I asked her this: Madam, concerning the prices of dairy products, for instance, have you received any communication from consumers complaining about the excessively high prices for Canadian manufactured goods? Have you examined the situation to find out whether dairy farmers get a reasonable return, or do they in turn abuse consumers? Have you had the opportunity to go to the root of the problem?
The Chairman answered as follows, and I quote:
Yes. We expect to publish soon a very interesting brief on this industry that was presented to us. We expect to publish it as soon as the council has considered it. It is now being translated; we have already reached this stage. We keep a close look on dairy products and we have had very few complaints. I will just quote the figures: three, very few complaints; nine about all dairy products.
This means that consumers do realize that dairy farmers are not responsible for the increase in the cost of living and that they are not the ones by whom they are being gouged.
Therefore, I hope that consumers will be reassured at least in this regard, because I wanted to know whether gouging was actually exercised by producers. If consumers are being gouged, it has nothing to do with producers. Therefore, we will have to investigate that matter in order to determine whether it might be possible to improve the producers' situation without harming too much the consumer.
As I said earlier, the producer always finds himself in a bind which is called a cost, production and cost price squeeze. Over the last three years, there has been a tremendous increase in the price of machinery and spare parts. This is nonsense because users, those who must
March 22, 1974

get these spare parts, have to pay prohibitive prices, and the year 1974 is expected to be even more difficult for them.
The same applies to dairy farmers who are affected as well when they must make new construction works or repair existing buildings. For them as well as for others, the cost of materials has substantially increased.
What about labour! We have had, in February, a two day conference in Ottawa with officials of all farming organizations of this country and officials of the Department of Agriculture, and we came to realize that qualified farm labour has become scarce. It is difficult to obtain the services of skilled farm labour because young people are quite wise and are not interested in working in a sector of the economy which does not yield at least the same return as the industrial sector for instance. They are turning away from farming and this has resulted in a gradual decrease in the number of operators which in turn will very soon cause very serious food problems.
We have lived through a phoney oil shortage, but that will be nothing compared to the problems that a shortage of food products will create, if we are not determined to act now.
With regard to feed grains, it is one of the reasons for the rise in production costs. I had set nonetheless high hopes on the measures announced by the Minister of Justice on September 14, 1973, but the results have yet to come. We still experience difficulties in that respect in the province of Quebec and in the eastern provinces. Therefore I invite once more the government to study very seriously the problem, or rather to put an end to the studies and act without delay, so that the Canadian Wheat Board and the Livestock Feed Board come under the jurisdiction of the same government department, so that decisions taken in one department are not overruled by the other.
And I am convinced that our suggestion, which I am repeating again today, is worthwhile because this same minister would thus have authority to make decisions and this would settle the transportation problems.
I would also like to talk about fertilizer prices. It is a colossal disgrace. While they were set last year at $80.00 a ton, now they have reached $156, almost twice the amount.
How can farmers look to the year 1974 with optimism? And here again we wonder whether supplies will be adequate. Concerning seeds, we have the same phenomenon. I notice that even the price of every day commodities- electrical power, insurance, union fees, transportation rates-is zooming up. And accordingly dairy producers must now pay $10.15 per hundredweight to produce their milk. And at the present time producers are lucky if they can can get $7.70 per hundredweight for their industrial milk. Their deficit is therefore considerable. The farmers are asking a $2 increase. But at the time they filed their request, production costs had not reached today's level. By asking a $2 increase per cwt., they are trying to avoid what happened in the past. When the government authorized increases, the producers pocketed only part of them because, instead of getting all of the increases, a mere 25 to 30 per cent of them managed to reach them.
Dairy Policy
If possible, I should like to make a few suggestions to the minister. If the Constitution does not allow it-silly Constitution that is blocking us at everytime-why can we not amend it? It is made by people. We are no more stupid than those who drafted it in 1867. They made it in 1867 to suit them, their weight, their height. The country has grown, its population as well, and new problems have come up. And so, the Constitution should be revised so that it might not paralyze us constantly, that our administrations might become more efficient and that, in short, we might, as intelligent citizens, solve our problems.
Mr. Speaker, given the difficulties encountered by the dairy producers, the Minister of Agriculture, the federal cabinet and hon. members cannot say they were not made aware of the problem. Mr. Speaker, I will dispense from reading those briefs but I have one here dated November 20, 1973, which was submitted at an extraordinary meeting of Dairy Farmers of Canada. The attention of the authorities was drawn to the serious problem faced by milk producers. They are quite tenacious, and I congratulate them for it because they are fulfilling their mission. They look after their business and if we looked after ours in the same way they look after theirs, we would be performing very well together.
A brief submitted again to the authorities in December 1973 reads in part, and I quote:
The announcement of assistance levels well ahead of decisions regarding production is undoubtedly necessary but it must be pointed out that the further ahead the announcement is made, the more risk there is that the level of assistance itself will prove inadequate when the crop reaches the market. This makes it necessary to include in assistance levels announced ahead of time a provision allowing for a further adjustment to offset changing cost conditions. In the cattle industry, developments over the past year have made producers quite aware of the need for such a requirement.
I think that was a practical piece of advice, a quite valid suggestion so that during the year the Minister of Agriculture might say to his colleagues in the cabinet that, as regards such or such a decision, the situation has changed during the year. That is why I am respectfully submitting the necessary change so producers will not be forced to wait month after month and run into heavy debts.
In January 1974, one month later, as they do month after month, Dairy Farmers of Canada came back charging with another brief containing valid suggestions. They asked what policy should be followed and said once again, hurry up, this is an urgent matter. People are quitting production. That area is on the downgrade. On March 7, 1973, the Dairy Council of Canada submitted a paper on the problems of the dairy industry. In March 1974, another paper was submitted to the federal ministers and the Liberal members of Quebec, drawing the attention of the authorities. The farmers were told: "Hurry up." They were asked something which is never asked to large corporations which increase their prices rightly or wrongly, but according to their whims. The milk producers were asked: "Prove that you are right, show us your production costs." I am pleased to see that the dairy farmers of Canada acceded to that request and gave specific figures-


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

March 22, 1974
Dairy Policy


Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in today's debate which concerns a very current issue, that of the Canadian dairy industry.
Mr. Speaker, in 1973-74, the dairy industry is going through a regression period which is due to several factors of which I shall try to enumerate a few.
As concerns a first valuable solution, we know that the dairy producer needed a substantial increase, Mr. Speaker, because dairy policies are traditionally announced on March 31 of each year; as there are only a few days left to learn about these policies, I repeat that I place all my confidence in those who are in charge of making decisions in this respect and I can assure the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) that the Canadian farmers will once more be satisfied with these new policies.
The hon. member for Joliette is worried about the threatened dairy industry. I shall leave it up to my colleagues to compare today's dairy industry with the one that existed when the Conservative party was in power. I should like to ask the hon. member for Joliette if he consulted his leader before moving this motion in the House today-the hon. member for Joliette indicates that he did consult his leader-to ask that the hundredweight of milk be increased by $2 immediately, since we know that his leader may right now be telling at a press conference or on television that if he was in power, he would freeze prices for maybe 90 days.
I therefore wonder if he did consult his colleagues.
How does the federal government support the farmers in their efforts to produce at full capacity? Last year, several basic changes were made to the income tax legislation and regulations. All were designed to leave the farmer more money so that he may invest it to increase his production. Someone made a special study of those changes and made his findings known at a meeting I attended. He figured that the taxes on farm income had been reduced by almost half through those government measures. Moreover, the Farm Credit Corporation has more than doubled the amounts of loans granted last year to farmers and the government maintained a 7 per cent interest rate although the loans cost more. In addition, the federal government has increased the subsidies on certain products, has more than doubled its subsidies to the dairy industry, has increased its spendings in support of crop insurance, and has increased by more than 70 per cent its support to wheat for domestic consumption.
Finally, and what is most important, the government did not apply any price controls which would have restricted the farmers' income. In spite of this increased support, additional price increases will, of course, be necessary if dairy farmers are to meet increased production cost. I understand why the producers are considering other possibilities and are wondering whether they should sell their herds and turn to commercial farming or other farming ventures with higher incomes and less work, and yet demand for dairy products is increasing and the long-term outlook for dairy farmers has never been so good in years.
The United States have increased their imports of butter, cheese and skimmed milk powder as their produc-
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger).]
tion was decreasing. It keeps on decreasing in the United States and the demand for our milk powder and cheese is increasing there. Total American imports amount to the equivalent of 6.5 billion pounds of milk, or 60 per cent of the milk processed in Canada. No doubt that a market does exist in Canada and elsewhere and that it is expanding. It is also obvious that Canada will not be able to rely on low-price imports to meet its domestic needs, surely not in any case while demand is rising so fast south of the border. In a few years the United States will be prepared to buy all the dairy products available on international markets.
Our milk producers will require higher prices to maintain their operations and increase production. Although prices are of basic importance, there are other factors which affect dairy production, notably manpower shortages and quotas. The federal government is acting to solve these two problems. This year we intend to create farm manpower centres throughout Canada. In the beginning, we will set up 30 on a trial basis. These centres will be run by retired farmers or by people who know and understand agriculture. There will be three persons in charge of those centres: a farmer as manager, an accountant, a secretary and an assistant manager, if necessary.
The farmers who will need assistance will obtain it from those centres and the workers looking for a job can register there. The farmer hiring a worker will no longer have to bother about administrative problems such as unemployment insurance deductions, Canada Pension Plan, income tax and other paperwork since the accountant and the secretary of the centre willl handle these problems. The only thing the farmer will be required to do is send a cheque every week or every two weeks to the Manpower Centre which will take care of the rest.
If the manpower centres for farmers work as we hope they do, they will enable us to establish the number and the kind of workers we need in a specific area. If there is no manpower available in the area, we can then import workers from elsewhere, or train local people for the kind of work to be done.
The Canadian Dairy Commission will amend its regulations so that dairy producers may incorporate, which will enable them to go away for a week end, to have a holiday from time to time or to look after the herd of one of the partners who is ill or injured. The quota portion which can be subsidized has been restricted up to now to 700,000 pounds of milk. That limit was entirely sufficient for a family farm; it is not, however, for two or three families willing to pool their resources in a joint venture. The Commission will amend that regulation in order to increase this maximum for joint ventures and corporations. In order to avoid that some cunning person use an old aunt, a cat or a dog as a pretense to increase his quota, thus contravening the purpose of the regulation, the Commission will require each of the partners to be a full time producer and to have a fair amount of the capital of the joint venture. Each partner will also have to do some part of the work. We do not want this amendment to be profitable to some rich lawyers or doctors who try to evade income tax through false corporations or cooperatives. We want it to be beneficial to the real milk producers of Canada.

For too long now, the farmer has been at the bottom of the economic pyramid. The Canadian consumer has always had the cheapest food in the world. This bargain can go on under the sole condition that farmers be enabled to improve their chances of a fair and reasonable return.
It is a fact that very few people are aware of the primary role played by agriculture in the Canadian economy. Canadian dairy cattle producers now have a large export market. The exports of pure breed cattle have reached a record figure, to which a large number of non registered dairy cattle are added each year. Canadian dairy cattle are in great demand abroad.
The federal government has established a certain number of programs aiming at subsidizing our agriculture and our farmers, and these programs are largely responsible for the very low prices of food products in Canada at the present time. I do not intend to examine all of them, but I should like to give a few examples, if I may.
Through our Health of Animals Branch, we have kept our cattle free from a number of foreign diseases. The federal government has led the way by ridding Canadian cattle of tuberculosis and keeping them relatively free from brucellosis. Our cattle are among the healthiest in the world, which has contributed in reducing to the minimum the production cost and administration problems.
Our government intends to continue helping farmers meet in an objective and competent way the competition on international markets.
That is why we have insisted so much on marketing. Results are beginning to show. Farmers naturally want to take the best advantage from their relatively good position in the production of many farm commodities.
I would like to add that the Canadian Dairy Commission is constantly looking for export markets. When the United States asked for 25 million pounds of powdered skim milk, the commission was first in taking action and calling for tenders. We did all we could to obtain this market and as a result half the American demand has been supplied with the stocks of the Canadian Dairy Commission and those earmarked for trade, at competitive prices on w^rld markets. On January 25, 1974, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) announced in Ottawa the sale to Mexico of over 35,000 metric tons of Canadian powdered skim milk worth $4 million.
Here is a minister who wants to help agriculture, who does not intend to slow down his efforts to help farmers get an adequate standard of living.
That is the most important sale of skim milk powder ever achieved between Canada and Mexico. The deal was signed by the representatives of the Canadian Dairy Commission and Conasupo, the Mexican government agency in charge of purchases. That is the type of quick action that can be expected from a national marketing agency and it should give those who oppose such boards another good reason to dispute those boards' ability to co-ordinate export development efforts.
Our aim is to make the Canadian Dairy Commission the best agency in the world. It is a great challenge, but we surely intend to meet it.
Dairy Policy
The Department of Agriculture of Canada co-operates with provincial representatives in setting a better and more complete program of establishment inspection.
The federal government worked very hard behind the scenes to open the new markets we have today. Those valuable achievements have contributed to improve the status of farmers. And it is only a beginning. But now, we should certainly not rest on our laurels.
On the contrary, we are decided to continue our work even harder because we think there are even greater opportunities. Yet, I am convinced that Canadian farmers deserve at least 100 per cent of our efforts. I know that we shall have to be tenacious in order to get new and expanded markets for the benefit of Canadian farmers at home and in other countries.
Mr. Speaker, we did not dare interfere with the farm products business. We have merely passed legislation allowing provinces to co-operate in marketing in order to prevent confusion in the sale of farm commodities at the national level.
Our farmers know how to increase their output and improve the efficiency of their farm but they need sufficient incomes to invest in equipment, buildings, fertilizers and the management systems required for optimum efficiency.
For at least ten years now the dairy industry has been asking the federal government to pass measures to ensure the future of producers and stabilize their production.
In his very famous book entitled: Future Shock Alvin Toffler foretells that the pace of change will steadily increase. According to him, people, institutions, businesses and even nations that will be able to adapt themselves to change and orient it towards their own interests will be the ones that will succeed.
In the last months, we had cause to lose all our illusions about the possibilities of creating a stable dairy industry, economically independent, protected as it were against the disruption affecting other farm sectors as well as the economy as a whole. The changes that took place with regard to feed grain and protein additives were a blow to the very heart of our industry. Beef production now seems more attractive to some dairy farmers. The increasingly obvious shortage of skilled labour has checked expansion and has caused some farmers to go out of business altogether. Finally, the energy crisis affects all farmers.
The dairy industry cannot, must not be and is not immunized against change, whether it likes it or not. As a matter of fact, it even showed in the past that what mattered above all was to accept change and profit by it.
More than 40 per cent of the dairy farmers have actually gone out of business during the last five years. Still more important changes took place in the consolidation of factories and creameries. Within 20 years, the yield of a cow increased by 57 per cent in Ontario. Five years ago, only 32 per cent of the cream and milk suppliers had at least 18 producing cows. That percentage has gone up to 44 now. The rate of change increases steadily. It can still be increased. For instance, the yield per cow, which amounts to 8,000 lbs. per year in Ontario at the present time, has still not reached West Germany's figure of 8,600 lbs., that of Denmark, of 8,800 lbs., nor that of the Netherlands, of

March 22, 1974
Dairy Policy
9,400 lbs., and I must add that our own average is still far from the 20,000 lbs. registered by some Canadian producers.
The farmers' lot has also improved compared to other sectors of the economy. In ten years, the farm cost index has surely increased by 49 per cent, but during the same period, incomes have increased by 168 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that in 1962-63-


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


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all sure where my hon. friend lives, but I know that what he has been saying does not reflect the problems of the dairy farmers in eastern Ontario; that is for very sure. As has happened a number of times in the past, once again the Conservative Party is acting as the conscience of the Canadian people. If the present government were carrying out its duly constituted responsibilities, there would be no need for the motion introduced by my colleague the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle).
The motion is couched in the very proper terms normally used in this august assembly, asking that the House consider reform of the dairy industry, requesting that it immediately introduce its policy and also requesting that it announce an increase of $2 in the price per hundred weight of industrial milk. That language is very fine for the heady atmosphere of the House of Commons, but in fact the farmers in my riding are the more earthy type and they want no part of that highfalutin' language. They are demanding, and rightly so, a dairy policy and saying with the conviction of years of hard labour that if it is not damn soon coming, there will be no dairy industry to worry about.
It is not very long ago that the big majority of the members of this House, and in fact the majority of the members in every provincial legislature in Canada, were either farmers or farm-oriented. This is no longer the case, and more's the pity. In those days the problems that exist now were unheard of. Simple policies made sense then. A farmer had to be allowed to earn a decent living and, as a result of his hard work, a reasonable profit-not a big profit, by a long shot. Food reached the tables of all Canadians at a price they could afford.
A product of the urban environment myself, I have made a point of becoming aware of the problems of the farmers in Hastings county. It is interesting to note that from a purely statistical point of view, the number of people on farms is down to a mere 5,000 out of a total of
65,000	in the federal riding of Hastings. This is a riding where milk and milk products form a major part of the farming area. Cheddar cheese from Hastings county, whether it is from Mapledale, Foxboro, Buelah, Eldorado Cheese factories, or as marketed by the world famous Black Diamond Cheese Company in Belleville, is without question known to be the finest Cheddar cheese in the world. Yet politically speaking, the clout of the dairy farmer has dwindled to very little, and so it is that a city

boy like myself joins with all my colleagues to demand action on behalf of the dairy farmers.
Members of the government ridicule a policy of controls and sometimes it is hard for a rightwing, free enterprise conservative like myself to accept a principle of greater government intervention. Let me show you some of the costs that the farmers in my riding are encountering now, unreasonable costs and even more unreasonable increases. If these were not in fact actually foisted upon them by an uncaring federal government, at least there is no evidence of any sympathy or assistance from that same government.
I dislike the reading of bare-bone statistics, but the numbers which I intend to quote now are more than just bare-bones; they could be the death-rattle of the entire industry. During the recent recess I made it a point, with some of my colleagues, to get even more deeply involved in the problems of the dairy industry, and the prices that I intend to quote now for 1974 are current as of four weeks ago. I have a long list of figures here and I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if I might have permission to table the list and then merely comment on it. This is a full page of statistics.


An hon. Member:: We want to verify them.


John Raymond Ellis: I will give them so that you may verify them. Let us look at some of the figures. The price of cob corn increased from $61 per ton between 1973 and 1974 to $112, an increase of 84 per cent; 16 per cent dairy ration increased from $73 per ton in 1972 to $138 a ton in 1974, an increase of 90 per cent; soybeans have increased in price 100 per cent from 1972 to 1974; corn gluten, which sold at $54 per ton in 1972, now sells for $106 a ton, an increase of 96 per cent; binder twine increased from $7.50 per bale in 1973 to $23.25 in 1974, an increase of 210 per cent.
Then in respect of seed-and farmers need to seed their pasture land-vernal alfalfa increased from $42.50 per 50 pounds in 1973 to 92.50 in 1974, an increase of 118 per cent. Other types increased in this period from $46.50 to $100, an increase of 115 per cent. Hay pasture mixtures increased from 77 cents per pound to $1.45 in the period between 1973 and 1974, an increase to 88 per cent. The Canadian dairy farm type of pasture mixture increased from 72 cents in 1973 to $1.35 in 1974, an increase of 87.5 per cent. Spring grains increased from $2.75 to $4.95 per bushel in this period, an increase of 80 per cent. That is for certified No. 1 Rodney oats. Certified Herta barley, which sold for $2.85 per bushel, now sells for $5.75 per bushel, an increase of 102 per cent.
Considering the impact of those price increases, is there any wonder that the farmers are demanding an increase in the price of industrial milk? The price increase that was requested a few months ago was in consideration of the prices in effect at that time. What will be necessary to even meet costs, never mind show a small profit, is hard to estimate from day to day.
Is it any wonder that dairy farmers are going out of business? The production of milk is nothing like building widgits in a factory. If the government were to suddenly say that they would be prepared to pay a price, any price, fantastically high, for all the milk that every farmer could produce at the present time, it would not increase milk production by a single drop. It takes time and planning

and careful management. Cows are bred, the strain is improved and they grow to maturity and begin to produce milk. Barn facilities have to be prepared or reactivated. The gleaming, stainless-steel receptacles for milk fully refrigerated-cost a small fortune to install and maintain. The milking parlour of today bears absolutely no resemblance to the stable of even 25 years ago. How can we possibly expect farmers to plan three year in advance?
Here we are, on the 22nd day of March, and the dairy year begins exactly five working days from now. If the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) knows what the policy for the year 1974-75 is to be, it is a big secret and he is not telling anyone, least of all the farmers who must have some information on which to base their forecasts for the coming year. It is absolutely imperative that the federal government come up with a long-term policy, fair to the farmers, one that they can bank on and one where they will know where they will be in the years to come, instead of going from hand to mouth. I ask hon. members in this House today, if they had the information that the dairy farmers of Canada have right now with regard to their future, would they invest $100,000 to a quarter of a million dollars? Would they be prepared to put their entire future in hock based on the information that has been given to us by the Minister of Agriculture so far this year?
At one of the many meetings I attended during the recess I spoke to a young farmer. Luckier than most, he had inherited some of his father's milk quotas and had a bit of a head start on some, but at 24 years of age he was looking forward to a debt that would last him beyond the year 2000, with no real certainty that it would be paid off by then. That takes a tremendous amount of courage, a lot of guts and a lot of daring considering the flimsy promises he has from the federal Minister of Agriculture with regard to any assistance for his future.
We heard the airy promises of the throne speech some weeks ago. But farmers cannot build on promises. I have letters on file too numerous to mention, from farmers of all sorts, who point out that they are actually locked in with an investment of over $150,000 and a rate of return far less than 1 per cent. They are actually struggling to make ends meet, when some of the giant corporations who market the foodstuffs that they produce are showing increasingly larger profits. I want no one to misunderstand me. I am not taking up the "corporate-bum" cry of my left wing friends, nor have I anything against profits. As I stated earlier I am, and will continue to be, a strong free enterpriser; but there is an obvious need for controls.
I am pleased that the policy of my party with regard to agriculture is also a free enterprise policy. It is a policy that demands that this government ease restrictions on lending to farmers of all ages, that will allow part-time farmers to qualify under the Farm Credit Act and the Farm Improvement Loans Act. It is not unusual in my riding to have a man who sincerely wants to become a full-time farmer get up at 4 a.m., work on the farm until seven, drive to a factory where he has to work in order to keep his family alive, and after a full day in the factory return to the farm to work until nine o'clock at night.
Dairy Policy
The ARDA program must be vigorously expanded. An area within my riding and the surrounding ridings that is of considerable concern, and has been for the past few years, is the problem of the disposal of whey, a by-product of the cheese industry. At present, it is a pollutant on the land and in the streams. We have known for a long time that this material contains tremendous quantities of protein and other valuable ingredients, but despite all efforts I have not been able to persuade the federal government to participate and assist in the extraction of these nutrients for the benefit of all Canadians.
Fortunately, the provincial government of Ontario is working toward this end. I know that at least one plant adjacent to my riding is being established which I hope, by dint of the ingenuity of private enterprise and with some government assistance, will be able to produce a worth while and needed product and remove a threat to our environment. As I have said in earlier speeches on the subject, the resource material will come to around a quarter of a billion pounds annually. Certainly it is a quantity to reckon with.
Probably the most important facet of our policy is our willingness to ensure the farmer a stable price for his product provided he is willing to produce the commodities in demand. We firmly believe that farmers will produce at the maximum if they have some assurance that they will not be forced out of production during periods of high input cost and unstable world market conditions.
A strong commitment must be made by this government to a national policy of meeting Canada's dairy product needs from Canadian production, and it must be made at once. The fact that we are having to import butter in millions of pounds, and do not have enough of our fine Cheddar cheese to meet export demands, is nothing short of scandalous. In order to get this production to where it should be, there must be a sharp upward revision in present thinking in government on the level of return that is required in the dairy industry today compared with other occupations both farm and non-farm.
One of the very real costs of production is in the labour force. Recently, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) recommended that pools be formed of high school and university-age youths to meet the seasonal demands of farming. This perhaps would be an excellent suggestion, but the dairy farmer who must milk his cows morning and night, 365 days a year if he is a fluid milk producer, and almost that long if he is an industrial milk producer, needs help to provide a stable labour force where the hours of work can be shortened and the pay improved so that wages are more in line with income available from alternative employment.
We talk about energy shortages and other international problems. These are serious problems. But does anyone have any idea what the crisis would be like if the housewife in the supermarket, no matter how much money she has in her hands, could not purchase enough food? This is a very real possibility if the farmer is not assisted to remain on the land. Frankly, I do not know how to state this dread possibility strongly enough.

March 22, 1974
Dairy Policy
At one of the many meetings I have referred to, a veterinary not too many years old, but with a wisdom well beyond his years, stated the problem in a way that no city boy representing the farmers could ever do. I shall try to quote Dr. Murray to the best of my ability. This is what he said: "All the statistics, the input costs, the marketing schemes probably completely miss the point. We are no longer dealing with an old-timer who came through the depression when milk was 50 cents a hundred weight. No matter how tough times get, he can always refer back to those days and decide that the present situation is at least better than that. Those farmers were patriotic, but they were only a couple of generations removed from the old country. During the war they produced food out of patriotism. Ceilings were removed from labour costs after the war, but not on food. The old-timer took the attitude that times were worse during the depression and he went on producing."
"In the past some organizations have tried farm strikes, but they failed because of the dedicated old-timer's patriotism. But these men are quietly fading from the scene. The educated sons are taking over, and if our educational system has done nothing else it has taught this generation that you don't do one damn thing unless you get paid for it. They'll try farming, but unless you lay some of that green stuff on the palm of their hand they quit and do something else. You and 1 have got to show these young men that they can make a living, plus interest on their investment, and if not we will have no farmers tomorrow. This is what has to be done." Those words, from one of the wisest men in the dairy industry whom I have ever encountered, sum up the situation pretty well.
We must have new and aggressive policies that will reverse the trend of Canadians leaving the farms. The aim must be to bring the terms and conditions of life in the agricultural sector up to par with the financial and other returns of urban existence. The Canadian agricultural industry and all its allies and subsidiary components basically require two ingredients for economic stability. These are: a constant market for its product and a fair margin of profit on the labour and capital invested. If today's evidence of the problem of uncertainties in rural food production and in the world economy teaches anything, it must be that we must have a regular and dependable supply of food products from Canadian production. Not to utilize the great agricultural resource base of Canada to produce our own dairy products would be a tragedy.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean).


John Angus MacLean: Madame Speaker, although I have been in this House for some time, this is the first time that I have had the pleasure to address a Madame Speaker in the chair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Angus MacLean: I think it is a very important resolution that is the subject matter of this debate, but it has wider ramifications than just the production or the cost to the consumer of one particular product. Of course, what we are referring to chiefly in the motion is manufactured milk, and for a few moments, I wish to refer to the

problem with regard to its special application in Prince Edward Island, the area from which I come, where the agricultural industry consists mainly of mixed farming, a very important element of the success of which is the dairy industry. This is true in many of the older and more settled parts of Canada. I believe the same is true in the province of Quebec. The income from dairying is an important factor in the life of an agricultural area. I can imagine urban people who have been cut off from the countryside for a generation or two becoming a little tired of hearing farmers like myself and others in the House- we are diminishing breed both in the House and in the country-complain about what they think is our particular problem.
Madame Speaker, in my opinion this is not just a problem of dairy farmers; it is not just a problem of farmers; it is not even just a problem of rural Canada. It is a problem that has far wider ramifications and implications than that. This problem concerns all Canadians. It concerns urban people, and I hope they realize this, even more than rural people who are the producers of dairy products. Although the first impact may be felt by the producer, a worse impact will inevitably fall upon the urban dweller if we do not have national policies that make good sense.
Recently, a royal commission in Prince Edward Island known as the Adams royal commission made a report on the dairy industry in that province. I should like to quote from the introduction and observations as follows:
While there can be little need to remind dairy farmers of the fact, it is worth making the point for those who have never had the pleasure, that dairying is a particularly demanding occupation. In a society becoming increasingly leisure conscious that seven day a week nature of the business is not one that is accepted lightly. This fact has two very important implications which are frequently overlooked. Firstly, those in the business have a particularly clear right to fair and stable prices and that, secondly, if this is not forthcoming and they leave it, there is no endless queue waiting to fill the vacancies. Given this and the fact that dairying brings in about one-fifth of total agricultural income in P.E.I., and failure on political, partisan or prevaricatory ground to take the steps which are necessary to resolve the industry's problems will be especially unforgivable and extract a price which will be heavy and shared ultimately by every citizen of the province.
I believe that these remarks apply nationally as well, because many people, including the minister, have said this is not an industry that can be turned on and off at will. This is an industry in which there has to be a reasonable expectation of security before young men will enter it and produce dairy goods in the years ahead; I was going to say "for future generations" but that is looking unnecessarily far into the future. If we do not ensure this, the dairy products required for the nutrition of Canadians will not be available within the next decade. We are already importing large amounts of butter and some other dairy products.
There is another very important side effect, and this is especially true in the mixed farming areas of Canada, the backbone of rural Canada in a way; and that is not to deprecate the one-crop experts who frequently operate large areas growing specialty crops such as wheat and tobacco. I refer to the family farm, what we think of as the rural life of Canada, for whom a stable market for dairy
March 22, 1974

products is a necessity, just as the products themselves are a necessity for Canadians.
The royal commission report continues:
The dairy industry is of very considerable significance in the total agricultural picture in P.E.I. Although over the last decade there has been a steady decline in both cow numbers and total output, cash income from dairy producers has remained fairly stable at around 15 per cent of total cash income from farming. Its importance, in fact, goes much beyond the actual cash receipts which show up in statistics. This arises from the fact that the year-round income from dairy cattle is a very important stabilizing factor to both the cash flow and general economic health of many farmers and the fact that the further processing of the product takes place on P.E.I. results in the creation of many more jobs and increased economic activity.
Over the last ten years there has been a fairly steady decline in the numbers of dairy cattle on farms in P.E.I. In 1971 the number was down to approximately 28,000 cows and heifers of two years and older, which compares with a figure of 35,000 in 1967 and 39,600 in 1961. Over the same ten-year period, total production of milk declined from 227 million pounds to 198 million pounds.
The report goes on:
Thus in 1967 no less than 66 per cent of all census farmers in Prince Edward Island ... were deriving part of their income from the sale of either cream or milk.
Possibly of even greater significance is the fact that while between 1967 and 1972 the number of census farms declined by approximately one-third, over the same period the number of milk producers was halved and fell to 48 per cent of all census farmers.
The dairy aspect of farming in my province has been so unsatisfactory that those engaged in it are leaving at a greater rate than people in other types of farming. The criticism that I am about to make is not a partisan one, but for many years I have felt that the machinery of government is terribly deficient in evolving agricultural policy and rural policy in general. The reasons for this are difficult to pinpoint. I think it is because governments take most of their advice from experts in economics, in statistics, finance or some related field and they do not really understand the implications when they try to apply this advice to agriculture or to the rural philosophy of society in Canada. There is not enough input from rural Canada.
Time and time again governments, with the best intentions in the world, evolve policies which have a bias in favour of urban Canada written all over them. I think one of the greatest tragedies that history will show, and indeed it is still happening, is that Canada has become so urbanized over such a short period of time in a few large centres. This has created, and will continue to create, great problems for us as a nation in all areas, from crime to pollution, food prices to the price of land for homes, and everything else.


Mr. Reid:: Madame Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Does the hon. member for Malpeque agree?


John Angus MacLean: Yes, Madame Speaker.


John Mercer Reid: Madame Speaker, I agree with the hon. member's premise that the continued urbanization of Canada has unfortunate effects on employment. Does he suggest that the motion put forward by his party will slow down the urbanization of Canada, or is that merely one aspect of
Dairy Policy
the general policy thrust which the hon. member is suggesting?


John Angus MacLean: Madame Speaker, this is one small aspect of the general problem. People, especially young people, have been driven off farms and out of rural Canada and have crowded into cities. Often they have created problems with regard to employment. Those problems do not affect them, as usually those who migrate have attained an educational standard and standards of health, ability, intelligence and responsibility which enable them to find employment. Nevertheless, their migration increases competition for jobs available in urban centres. That is only one factor which must be considered if we are to maintain a healthy rural society which will be attractive, especially to young people who are growing up and being educated on farms.
Part of our mistake has been that in the past few years we have worshipped false gods, or golden calves: perhaps I had better say that since we are talking about the dairy industry. We have been sold a bill of goods. We have been told that size is equivalent to what is desirable, that progress is synonymous with growth and that a healthy economy must grow rapidly. It is elementary to observe that nothing can grow indefinitely. Things which grow too large and too long collapse under their own weight and become extinct, like the dinosaur.
It is obvious that Canadians, both urban and rural-dwelling, want a high quality of life in a suitable environment. They want to be reasonably free from pollution and from anxieties created by crime. If they can look forward to reasonably priced housing on land which can be bought for reasonable prices, instead of for prices which are so high because demand is greater than supply and they are being gouged, and if they can look forward to a reasonable diet at a reasonable cost, the prerequisites for the good life will have been met.
Yet, as someone else said, man does not live by bread alone. We must consider the sociological aspects of this rural and urban problem. One aspect, of course, has to do with the dairy industry's troubles which we are considering at present. We must look at the whole picture and make sure we act in such a way as to lessen the economic difficulties of farmers, especially dairy farmers, so that there will not be the continued migration of people from agriculture generally and from dairy farming in particular. If present trends continue much longer, the countryside will be almost totally depopulated. Cities will be overcrowded and their inhabitants will pay exorbitant prices for food much of which probably will be imported from other countries. That situation is totally unnecessary.
I believe, Madame Speaker, that my time is nearly up; I did not notice the clock when I started. May I conclude by quoting something written by a former constituent of mine, Dr. Gordon A. MacEachern. Writing in Reader's Digest of October, 1973, he said in part:
When I was a boy in Prince Edward Island, our village, Appin Road, was a happy farm community like hundreds of others in rural Canada. It had a church, school, two small stores, and some 30 families in and around it. Three miles away at Bonshaw were more stores, two churches, a dance hall-

March 22, 1974
Dairy Policy


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I regret to advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


Florian Côté: Madame Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise for the first time with the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) in the chair.
Some members have probably noted that I do not often rise to speak in the House. This is not because I do not see the problems in my country and in certain classes of society, but rather because of a kind of philosophy inherent in some people as a result of which each person conducts his business in his own way. I have always thought that good opinions are fine and can be expressed very strongly, but I am much more interested in the possibility of influencing those who make the decisions than in making long speeches.
As for the motion before the House, I just had to say a few words about it since my constituency is the one most affected in Canada by the changes in the dairy industry. Like my colleague from Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), I can boast that I have lived from this dairy industry, and we can both use something else besides figures or words like those used in connection with this motion.
I was very disappointed that the motion introduced by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), which I feel is very important, received so little support from the members of his party, who have all left the House. Because this problem concerns the eastern provinces, at one time there were only three Progressive Conservatives in the House to listen to the only French-speaking member who can speak knowingly about the dairy industry. They all left the House, and I thought that maybe his motion was considered-


Mr. McKinley:: I rise on a point of order, Madame Speaker. Having listened to what the hon. member has said, I think it should be brought to the attention of the House that when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was speaking there were no cabinet members here to listen to him. This is typical: he talks and the government turns a deaf ear.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: How many members of the hon. member's party are present in the House?


Florian Côté: Madame Speaker, it is understandable that no ministers were here to listen to the Minister of Agriculture, because within the party that governs the country the dairy policy and what it will become are common knowledge, while the opposition which does not know what the dairy industry is all about should at least listen to the member for Joliette.
For me, the motion of the hon. member for Joliette is like the oscillating piece of a clock that goes tick-tock. As the clock, the hon. member is making a little bit of noise. There has been no fundamental explanation of the motion nor of the way in which the people should consider the $2 increase that the hon. member has suggested. I thought at
[Mr. MacLean.1
one time that the motion might have been introduced to allow the hon. member for Joliette to make some kind of a stand. He knew government members were in a very good mood for it, knowing the situation and aware that the policy would be announced in the near future. The hon. member had to boost his credit somewhat, as with the motion on the French language which was introduced at the Progressive Conservative convention and put off indefinitely. That was a great disappointment to me because on a subject so important members of his party might have given him some support.
I will now turn to certain criticisms which were made. The hon. member for Joliette says that in the past five years this government failed to understand the needs and demands of farmers. Here again, he should have kept in closer touch with farmers and studied with more depth the explanations given by farm associations. He could also realize through the statistics that in the past five years the situation changed a great deal which I think is not yet enough for the farmer. At least the situation changed. Prices in five years rose from $4.98 to $7.16.


Roch La Salle: Yes, but milk costs $10.


Florian Côté: It is unfortunate. Madame Speaker, that the hon. member tor Joliette was not lucky enough to be in the same position as I was at the time when he was selling tobacco. I was milking cows and I knew what it was like to be faced with understanding governments. And I will give an example. If the hon. member for Joliette wants to understand, because he needs to be informed, I am prepared to give him a refresher course whenever he feels the need for it but for the time being he could listen to me. He might realize that I understand his motion a lot better than he does but he is going to help me as well as his colleagues to try and implement what I ask.
In five years, there has been such an increase but I remember, as I mentioned earlier, that at the time he was selling tobacco and I was milking cows, I was making representations on behalf of the farmers associations, as a member of UCC, as a leader of the UCC confederation of the Nicolet diocese and of the Cooperative federee. I have been a little upset by the fact that the hon. member for Temiscaming (Mr. Peters) did not recognize a few minutes ago the true values of the Cooperative federee du Quebec, the only agency in the world who is "setting" prices. No agency in Canada or in the world can give the farmer a definite price as such and there is no company able to do that. Therefore, I find it a pity that such a thing has been said.
So, Madame Speaker, I was making those recommendations in 1956-57. We no longer live in that period but I gave them for comparison purposes.
I do not merely want to utter words, but I shall confine myself to the philosophy of an individual, of a group or a political party, so that words take on more weight.
I was pointing out that we were selling our milk $3.25 per hundredweight. I also made representations to Quebec. At the same time in the sixties, the Progressive Conservative leader in Quebec, who should have been here today since he represents a dairy area and his constituents have to come and see me to solve their problems, namely the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) was min-
March 22, 1974

ister in a Liberal government and was compelled to pay. It was the only time since Confederation that the province had to pay something because the Conservative government in Ottawa did not understand the dairy policy. Madame Speaker, the price paid is different after six years of a Liberal administration. I sold milk for $3.25 per hundredweight in 1961-62 and I hope that the hon. member for Joliette will accept those figures-


Roch La Salle: I was then selling cigarettes for 25 cents a pack.


Florian Côté: -I could send them to him so that he may let his Progressive Conservative colleagues know that the price of milk was set at $2.53. For six years there had been a reduction and, at that time, there was also an increase in production costs. Everybody was moving to the cities. I say to the hon. member who spoke before me and who was complaining about farmers leaving their lands, that he is himself contributed to that as a member of the government of the day which demonstrated what it meant to do with the milk industry in Eastern Canada.
I used to compile figures at the time I was a member of the UCC, figures which I should like the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) to explain to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) who also needs to understand the situation. At the time I compiled these figures in 1963, a Liberal administration was elected in the province of Quebec which had really been had for believing the Conservative government.
At that time, the government invested 75 per cent of the agriculture budget in the three Prairie provinces where there are only 35 per cent of the farmers. This means that British Columbia, Ontario and the Eastern provinces which account for 65 per cent of the farmers shared 25 per cent of the budget.
Let us consider if in 1972 the government was fair towards all farmers in Canada. I have come to the conclusion that net income of Western as well as Eastern farmers has not decreased but rather increased, with nothing being taken from one to be given to the other.
However, if the hon. member for Joliette does not believe it, he only has to refer to La Voix Metropolitaine of March 12 which reports that the hon. member was introduced by the former Minister of Agriculture in the province of Quebec, also formerly in this House, and who, like a pendulum, went from one side to the other and was eventually beaten.
I do not wish anything like that to the member for Joliette, but that is what is going to happen to him. When he was introduced by the former Quebec minister, the member for Joliette said in my own region, in Sorel, that the 56 Liberal members from Quebec are good for nothing, that they have no sense of representation and give everything away to westerners. If that is not true. I ask him to read an article published about this in La Voix Metropolitaine and demand a retraction from the editor; and if it is true, how can he feel at home in a party that blames us and prevented us from passing specific measures for the marketing of farm products, at the very moment when he left that party. And now he joins that party again, perhaps hoping to be appointed minister, something I do
Dairy Policy
not wish him because unfortunately he is not able to fill that position. But he comes to Quebec to make such statements; that is wrong and I resent it; it is fostering separatism to pretend in Quebec that Quebec members give everything away to westerners. How will he go about convincing members of his party of such things?
Unfortunately, Madame Speaker, there were not very many people at the meeting; I should have liked to have seen a better attendance; the criticism would then have been of greater value. But the damage was not really serious because hardly anyone listened to him, which made the representative of the former minister say that he could certainly give a retraining course to the hon. member for Joliette.
Madame Speaker, I do not want either to speak beyond the time allotted me, and although this does not happen to me often, I wish I had had time to express of a few more thoughts. The hon. member for Joliette forgot that some farmers' groups have said publicly that the Liberal party was the only one that understood them to some extent, although not as much as they could have wished perhaps. They said: We will go also to the opposition parties because they too have members in the House who represent the authority. And so they went to see them. But when they came to me last Saturday, they said: Had this been a majority government, we would not have to make representations this year.
In a minority government, you are obliged to "push" a lot, because of the obstruction of the opposition member.
The hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), Madame Speaker, could really have said something in his speech, and in the first place, he should have made suggestions as all my colleagues who are concerned with agriculture have done. There are many of them on the Liberal side and we all made suggestions in private to the minister.
We know that when this policy is announced, it will be meaningful! We too would like to get a maximum. If we suggest to increase the subsidy on milk, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) will be blamed by Progressive Conservative members for increasing the cost of living.
If I ask the Minister of Agriculture to increase the subsidy on butter, the opposition immediately will blame the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for allowing costs to increase and they will go and cry on the consumer's shoulder.
As far as we are concerned, we are going to run a risk, not a political one, but a risk that will be announced in due time. The hon. member for Joliette will not understand a thing but I will then give him a retraining course. We are going to run a risk. I wish the government would carefully consider the very important matter the hon. member for Joliette did not think of, namely that portions of money that should be spent on the marketing quota that was not covered previously and which hopefully, will be covered this year. He had not even anticipated this, and I challenge him to tell me what return this would bring to the province of Quebec in terms of millions of dollars, if we followed that course of action.

March 22, 1974
Dairy Policy
As for me, I have all the calculations before me and I gave my views to the minister. My colleagues did it: they expressed their views to the minister. This will result in a series of quite generous ideas but maybe we will be again stopped by the opposition.
So as not to overinflate his budget the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) will not be able to respond as generously as he wishes because he knows that he has to face a party which states one thing in one area of the country and something else again in another.
There is one thing I would like to mention in concluding and that is the manpower problem referred to by the hon. member for Joliette. But the hon. member forgot to think it over and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Corriveau) made him understand.
I would like him to be able to say that if a certain small meeting should be held in the province of Quebec he should do a bit of campaigning because his plans are about to fail. But to avoid complete failure in his campaign he should at least say that an agreement has been reached between Ottawa and the provinces so that some of the students may work on farms.
And I think the hon. member for Joliette should mention this to the member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) who did not seem to understand himself. Madame Speaker, I can see that my time is over and I would like to leave a few minutes to my colleagues. But I would reiterate my offer to the hon. member for Joliette and I am willing to give him and his colleagues a retraining course so that they may understand his motion.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Madame Speaker, may I say at the outset what a privilege it is to have the opportunity to say a few words while Your Honour graces the chair? For the record, might I say the chair is occupied by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Elgin McKinley: I should like to take the opportunity to place on record some of the thoughts which came out of a meeting we held with members of all commodity groups in Huron county a short time ago. It was a valuable meeting. One is held every year and members of parliament are brought up to date with regard to the problems facing people engaged in agriculture, which are varied and many.
There has never been a time in recent years when there has been greater need for clearcut and decisive action by government in the field of dairy policy.
It will not be good enough in 1974 simply to carry on existing programs or to make only minor changes in them. What is needed are major policy commitments and initiatives. Figures issued by the Canadian Dairy Commission show that between September, 1972, and September, 1973, 2,179 producers left the dairy industry in Ontario alone. That represents 8 per cent of the producers in this one province. In Quebec, 3,174 left the dairy industry, representing 10 per cent of the producers in the province. These two provinces account for the majority of the production of dairy products in Canada.

Dairy farmers all over Canada face similar problems regardless of where they live. They have to put up with long hours and a seven-day work week. The cost of all their inputs has greatly increased. They are faced with demands for higher wages, increased unemployment premiums and higher compensation premiums in an industry where it is almost impossible to find reliable help, partly because the government pays people more not to work than the dairy farmer can afford to pay them for working.
Feed costs have risen beyond the range of a dairy farmer who does not benefit by a big acreage on which to grow his own grain. Mixed grain is selling at almost $105 a ton, and corn at $3 a bushel. Soybean meal costs more than $200 a ton and can be grown only in a few parts of Canada. Prices of all the other feeds are in the same range. The ratio of industrial milk returns to 24 per cent dairy supplement in Ontario dropped from a level of 1.87 in November, 1971, to a low of .85 in July of 1973.
The lack of confidence which has contributed to this massive exodus from the industry must be dispelled by the creation of a long-range dairy policy in which producers will be reassured as to their future. We heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) suggest today that the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. LaSalle) was playing politics when he introduced his motion, because the minister had told the House in answer to a question a day or two ago that he was planning a long-term dairy policy.
Over a year ago, as reported in Hansard for March 26, 1973, I asked the Minister of Agriculture when he would be announcing his dairy policy and whether he would extend it for more than one year in order for producers to plan their production better. Further than that, I believe the records of the Standing Committee on Agriculture in past years will show that I have suggested that this be done when the Canadian Dairy Commission or former ministers have come before the committee.
My people suggest a five-year program in dairying which would be announced in advance and updated annually, coupled with a program to develop and use an economic return formula for industrial milk. This would ensure an adequate level of returns and a greater degree of confidence and stability in the industry to both producer and processor, as well as providing the consumer with an adequate supply at all times.
There is need for an immediate increase in returns to producers of industrial milk. The dairy farmers' convention in Regina voted a $2 per hundredweight increase for industrial producers, suggesting approximately $1 per hundred come from the trade and a $1 per hundred subsidy. If the consumer subsidy on fluid milk of five cents a quart is not a long-term government policy, then perhaps it should be phased out in such a way that it has a minimum market impact. We are all aware, as has been mentioned previously in this debate, that imports of milk products, particularly butter, have been increasing. In the last dairy year we imported more than 50 million pounds of butter. For a country like Canada this seems wrong and only indicates that past policies have not been adequate to encourage producers to stay in production in order to meet the demand of consumers.
March 22, 1974

Another problem that arises is that when the production of milk gets low, processing plants that process milk powder and butter are only able to operate a few days a week rather than full time. This inevitably raises the cost to consumers, while the producer receives nothing in terms of compensation.
Another matter I should like to mention is the recent seven cents subsidy provided to beef cattle producers. This is harmful to the dairy cattle producers. I say that because we all know that half of the cattle that are calved in the dairy industry do not produce any milk but inevitably are used for beef and a few are used for breeding. The seven cents subsidy announced a week ago today is of no advantage to most dairy cattle farmers because their cattle do not fall within the A-l, A-2, A-3 or A-4 category but, generally speaking, would be marketed as grade B or grade C cattle, or in other words commercial cattle.
I do not know whether the Minister of Agriculture gave any consideration to this fact, but I suggest this is discrimination. These dairy farmers feel they are beef producers just as much as anyone else. Further to that, when the seven cents subsidy was put on, the market dropped by over half of this seven cents subsidy, so one can easily see that those who could take advantage of the subsidy immediately lost half of it, about 3.5 cents a pound. This is probably one consideration that the Minister of Agriculture and the government did not take into account before the subsidy was announced.
Since the subsidy was announced we have seen great havoc in the cattle industry and in the marketplace. I am advised today that in some markets in Canada, cattle are being sold with the seven cents a pound being added after the sale; and other markets cattle are sold with the seven cents a pound included in the price. I ask, how can an industry operate in such a fashion? It seems to me some consideration should have been given to farmers with dairy cattle such as Holsteins, Guernseys and Jerseys that are sent to market and form a large part of the income of our dairy farmers.
The loss of 3V4 cents a pound to the cattle producers has generally come about as a result of the lack of thought given to the situation before the announcement was made. This has caused great difficulty but is typical of some of the actions the government takes. It would have been much better for the industry had the government provided some protection from imports, which I believe is what the industry asked for. Certainly this is where the original problem arose. The minister said the government did not want to take action against imports since it had put a tariff on imports previously and had been charged for the damage suffered by United States producers. This was damage suffered as a result of the tariff put on by the government a few months ago as a short-term measure to assist the beef producers of Canada.
I suggest that that is a very poor excuse. If the government is being billed for any damage done to U.S. producers from the surcharge the government imposed, then I hope it will refuse to pay the charge levied against it. If it does not, then it will appear to be just as uninformed and to have the lack of business knowledge that a lot of people in this country think it has.
Dairy Policy
May I also point out that many milk producers in this country also raise hogs. According to letters I have received lately, the hog producers are in a similar situation to the beef producers and are faring just as poorly in terms of returns from the marketplace. The cost of their feed is equally as high. We all know that beef and pork compete for the same market and you cannot lower the price of beef without this also having some effect on the price of pork. People are wondering what the government is going to do to assist the pork producers similar to the way the beef producers have been assisted, even though the assistance was given in a way that did not do the most good.
Let me read from a letter I received recently in regard to the cost of producing hogs. Perhaps I could put a few of these costs on the record so that our consumer friends may realize that the production of pork is not all roses. This gentleman states in his letter:
In regards to our phone conversation of this evening I am enclosing some figures on our cost of production. We have a farrow to finish operation. It takes 14 bushels of corn and 200 lb. of soyameal and mineral pre-mix to produce a pig-this includes feed for the sow, boar, and starter and finishing. With corn at $3.20 per bushel and soya at $200 per ton and pre-mix at $270 a ton, our cost for feed totals $66 for each hog we produce. The market at present in Toronto is $45 per hundred pounds of dressed weight-which is returning approximately $70 a pig. We are now faced with the position of having $4 per head for labour, interest, building, equipment, medication, insurance, profit, marketing, hydro and fuel-leaving us with a loss of approximately $12 per head. We market about 1,200 a year.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should suggest that this man is never going to become a millionaire when you consider those costs of production. He goes on to say:
As I stated on the phone, I don't mind competing with any producer, whether beef or pork, but when it comes to competing with the government and its treasury, I am afraid I just don't have that kind of money.
I suggest that the hog producer requires some kind of protection and I do not think it should be provided by lowering the price through government subsidy, and that is actually what has happened as a result of government subsidy, although many consumers are not willing to admit it. This man then says in his letter:
I have the plans for a new building, and the contractor ready to go, but I just can't justify going ahead if I have to work against these odds.
Thank you for your phone call-it was much appreciated. I have enclosed these figures so that you could see our position more clearly.
I hope the minister will consider that situation and will see what he can do in respect of hog production. I hope we will make some change in the method he adopted in his attempt to help beef producers.
There are one or two suggestions I wish to put on the record in the hope that the minister will give them further consideration before making his policy announcement in respect of the dairy industry. I listened to the words of the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cote) and noted that he did not make many suggestions but spent most of his time condemning the hon. member for Joliette. A similar situation existed yesterday at the meeting of the miscellaneous estimates committee: members from Quebec seemed to spend much of their time ridiculing Conservative members rather than trying to obtain opinions from the wit-
798

March 22, 1974
Dairy Policy
nesses or express policies of their own. It became obvious to me that some members across the way from Quebec have been stung a little bit and do not have things the way they used to have them. They do not have their own way all the time, as they once did. I apologize for those remarks and must say that I am very seldom political, because that is not my nature; but I could not help noticing these things.
The Canadian dairy producers have stated that they require an immediate commitment from the government of Canada to a national policy in order to meet Canadian dairy production, and that three essentials are required. They require an over-all increase in returns to industrial milk and cream production equivalent to at least $2 per hundred pounds of milk. This is a figure that seems to be agreed to by everyone, but we do not know whether it has been agreed to by the government.
In addition, the dairy industry requires a commitment by the federal government, preferably by parliament in legislative form, to the future maintenance of income for milk production at fully adequate levels. I suppose that will have some reference to the ten-year program about which the minister has spoken, and I hope this is taken into account when he makes his announcement.
The industry suggests that it needs a single quota system for industrial milk and cream, in place of the present two-part market share quota and subsidy eligibility quota system.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for having to interrupt him, but his time has expired. He will be recognized for a few more remarks, with the consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate very much the indulgence of the House. I should like to close by suggesting that a national dairy policy for Canada should be designed so that the requirements of the Canadian consumer for milk and milk products is met, with few exceptions, by Canadian production. Such a policy must be maintained in view of today's uncertainties in world food production. If evidence of these uncertainties in world food production and in world economic conditions teaches us anything, it is that it would be the worst kind of mistake to sacrifice a policy of regular and dependable supply from Canadian production for the imagined and, to say the least, highly uncertain benefits of a policy allowing the Canadian industry to decline, with increased reliance on imports. Not to utilize the great agricultural resource base of Canada to produce our dairy product needs would be a tragedy indeed.


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to note on a quiet day like today that hon. members of the House of Commons are finally united in one fact, namely, that farmers have to work seven days a week and cows have to be milked twice a day, including Christmas day, Easter and all the other holidays that other people normally enjoy.


An hon. Member:: Including June 24.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: It is nice to note, also, that we are united in the fact that no one in our society works harder than those in the agricultural industry, and this means not only the man of the house but the mother and the children, in many instances. The farmers of Canada, not just those in the dairy industry, work as a family unit, with the result that in many instances the mothers work harder than many fathers in other branches of society.
I am sorry that the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis) is not present to hear what I have to say. In his enthusiasm in pointing out the fact that he places so much importance on the agricultural industry, he overdid himself by suggesting that the Conservative Party acts as the conscience of the Canadian people in respect of the dairy industry. Let me suggest that for the first time in our history we have the conscience of the people of Canada, in respect of the agricultural industry, sitting in the House of Commons. I would be the first to admit that inasmuch as the Liberals have been in government more than any other party, we have had more Liberal ministers of agriculture than any other party. But having said that, let me point out that for the first time since 1867 we have a Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) who is the real conscience of the agricultural industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I could not help thinking the other day when I was watching on television, listening on the radio and reading in the press about the great annual meeting of our Conservative friends in the Chateau Laurier who were saying they were all ready for an election, that if they had the present Minister of Agriculture in their group it might be possible that they would be ready for an election, because never in Canada's history have we had a Minister of Agriculture who has stood up so well for Canadian agriculture and Canadian farmers as the present minister who is away at this time fighting for the agricultural community. The minister does not talk politics at all. He calls a spade a spade.


Mr. Baker:: You mean a shovel.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: He does not happen to be a lawyer, as the assistant House leader of the Conservative Party is who will be telling us in a few minutes how to run the farming business. That is the problem with the agricultural industry in Canada; we have too many lawyers telling us how to do things.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: But now we have a Minister of Agriculture who knows how to milk cows, unlike the assistant House leader of the Conservative Party who does not know one end of a cow from another.


Walter David Baker: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I may have some difficulty knowing much about cows, which I am prepared to admit, but I want to say to the hon. member that I can recognize anywhere the north end of a cow going south.


An hon. Member:: 
Ross Mackenzie Whicher: We will let that remark rest where it deserves, Mr. Speaker. Just this morning the Minister of Agriculture said, "the dairy industry in Canada is in a bind". He admits it quite frankly. There are no politics in that. He says that the dairy farmers in Canada at present are not getting a square deal. He has travelled across Canada from Vancouver to Newfoundland and told the vegetable growers, "You do not have a square deal". He told beef farmers, "You do not have a square deal, but I will get you one". He told the tobacco farmers, "You do not have a square deal". This morning in the House he told the dairy farmers, "You do not have a square deal, you are in a bind; but I will see that you get a square deal".
Granted, if you want to play politics all down the line, the minister has not been 100 per cent, successful. Granted, as my friend the hon. member for Huron (Mr. McKinley) pointed out, the seven-cent beef subsidy that was initiated one week ago today has not been 100 per cent sucessful. But one thing the farmers of Canada know is that the seven cents subsidy is a whole lot better than nothing; and it was given by the Minister of Agriculture who convinced his cabinet colleagues that this was good for the beef farming industry, and he will do exactly the same for the dairy farming industry, as will be announced in the next few days. Have no doubt about that whatsoever.
The minister does not intend to see go down the drain this great industry that is so necessary to all of us as Canadians. This morning he told us many of the problems that he has and that the dairy industry has in Canada. He pointed out, and rightly so-this has been emphasized by every hon. member who has spoken-that the number of dairy farmers in Canada is decreasing. One of the reasons for this is, not the price of dairy products even though the price should be upgraded but that all farmers have not decided that from now until they go to their natural graves they will work seven days a week. In fact, they have decided not to do it. This is not a peculiarity of Canadian farmers; it has happened all over the world. As was pointed out this morning, in New Zealand the rate of decrease in the dairy industry is more substantial than in Canada. However, we have enough problems here in Canada without thinking about our New Zealand friends, although it is always good to make comparisons.
Something must be done about the dairy industry in Canada, and much has been done in the past by the present government. But the time has come when even more must be done and will be done, I hope, within the next week or ten days or so. As has been pointed out by members of the opposition and members of my own party, it is not right that a country as huge as Canada, the second largest in the world, as sparsely populated as we are, should have to import 56 million pounds of butter as it did last year, particularly when we remember that five years ago we had so much butter that we did not know what to do with it, and we had so much powdered milk in storage that we did not know what to do with it. We were trying to give it away or to sell it at six cents a pound. But today the price has increased substantially and we can sell it at a good profit.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: But you drove the small dairy producer out of business.
Dairy Policy


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: It is still not right that we have to import large amounts of butter. People who are not engaged in the agricultural industry should remember that last year, if my figures are correct, we imported butter from New Zealand and Australia at 58 cents a pound f.o.b. Vancouver. It came in huge blocks. From there it was taken out to various dairies, put into one-pound packages and distributed across Canada. The significance lies, not in the fact that the butter went for 58 cents a pound but in the fact that the year before the price was substantially lower, and that next year it will probably be substantially higher.
I say to all the armchair critics, particularly to people who quoted the Minister of Agriculture this morning, such as the famous Tory paper, the Ottawa Journal which stated that so far as farming is concerned we should have greater efficiency, that if the Ottawa Journal had the efficiency of our farmers it would have a larger subscription rate than the Toronto Star and, as my friend here says, they would not be printing such silly editorials indicating that we must have greater efficiency in the agricultural field. Of course we can do better, but the fact is that we are the best in the world in so far as efficiency in agriculture is concerned. Our farmers demand that they be paid for it, and at the same time some of them go out of business because they feel it is easier to be an electrician, a politician, a preacher or a teacher. From what I can see, coming as I do from an agricultural area, any one of those professions is somewhat easier.
My friends who brought in this motion today did so possibly with good judgment, because we all admit that the dairy business is not the best in the world. However, it is the most efficient and the cheapest. The Minister of Agriculture indicated some prices. This is a fact that I wish the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) would remember. Unfortunately, he is not here this afternoon. The minister pointed out that last year butter cost, on the average, 77 cents a pound. In Copenhagen, the capital of one of the greatest dairy producing countries in the world, Denmark, it is approximately $1.50 a pound. The only nation that could approach us in the price of butter was Ireland, which was two cents higher, 79 cents. The United States was about 89 cents a pound, and in Rome, Berlin and Paris butter was almost twice the price it was in Canada. When people say that the farmer or the industry is making too much money, let me tell them that compared to the rest of the world we can hold our heads very high.
Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take up much time this afternoon. Like most other members who have spoken, and the Minister of Agriculture who spoke this morning, I agree that much more must be done in order to keep our dairy farmers happy and in business so that we as consumers can enjoy Canadian dairy products in the years to come.
The hon. member for Hastings is not here, but when he spoke he was quoting the prices that dairy farmers were having to pay for the things they need, such as hay. He said hay has gone up by 87 per cent or so. Where does he think hay comes from? It comes from the farmers. So I think he picked a very poor product for an example. I know many hay farmers in the province of Ontario who
800

March 22, 1974
Dairy Policy
are very pleased that it has gone up 87 per cent. He quoted the price of seed as an example of farmers' increased costs. I know many farmers in Ontario and the western provinces who are pleased that the price of seed has gone up. There are many things that we can be critical of, but when farmers are feeding produce to their dairy cattle I do not think they should be too serious in their condemnation of such things as hay and seed.
I am content to leave myself in the hands of the fighting Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, he could not be here this afternoon. He is away fighting for farmers and agriculture this afternoon and will make two speeches tonight. My advice to my hon. friend is, read those speeches and see what it is like to have a man who when he walks along that fence is not afraid of falling off. Every farmer in Canada knows whose side the minister is on. He is on the side of the farmer, including the dairy producer whose battle all of us are fighting this afternoon.


Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity that this motion presents to make some comments and suggestions to the government on the importance of the dairy industry in Canada, and more particularly as it relates to the highly productive area of southwestern Ontario. It is interesting to hear my colleague from Bruce (Mr. Whicher) relate how well the government understands the industry. I hope he stays and listens to what I have to say.
My riding can claim the second highest production of No. 1 milk in Ontario, with somewhat over 150 million pounds annually. We also have a very high dollar value of industrial milk shipments, as well as sending dairy replacement stock all over Canada and the world. I was interested in what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) had to say to the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) this afternoon. The minister severely criticized our party, trying to make us believe that it should have been unthinkable for us to even suggest devoting an opposition day to a subject that we should know his department has well in hand.
We are well aware that the minister is obligated to present his dairy policy by the first of the month, but we are also well aware of the disastrous results of the minister's current announcement respecting the beef qualify premium program. We just could not sit idly by, merely keeping our fingers crossed and hoping that when the first of the month comes we will hear a dairy policy from the minister that does not leave a lot to be desired.
The minister claims that nothing said today will change the policy which is expected to be announced next week. But remember, he had the nerve to come into this House a week ago and make a statement on a beef policy and then come back three days later with the guidelines to accompany that statement. I say, Mr. Speaker, that his department might well take into account what is said in this debate because they still have a week to go before making the dairy policy statement.
When the government recognized that the farmers of this country would listen to and accept the statements of the Minister of Agriculture he was encouraged to travel back and forth across the country, covering many thousands of miles. Being a great ambassador for the govern-(Mr. Whicher ]
ment, I am sure he enjoyed it. But I am also sure that the farmers are beginning to wonder, particularly the beef producers, just who or what went wrong in his department. There could not have been much research or forethought before the minister made his brief announcement last Friday afternoon. It immediately started the phones ringing in every rural riding. The big question is, where do we go from here? I am willing to believe that the first announcement was all the department intended to release, but when they started to get the flak, the minister then agreed on Monday that he would have a set of guidelines hopefully before the day was out.
There could be a whole debate on this one point alone, Mr. Speaker, but I do not intend to dwell on the confusion of not only the beef producers and retailers but urban consumers as well when they see the millions of dollars that are being spent on the program. My reason for mentioning this example is to emphasize to the government and to the minister that with the representation this party enjoys right across rural Canada, we could not sit idly by and keep our fingers crossed that yet another subsidy program will be announced without attempting to impress the government of its importance.
In his remarks the minister said that he hopes this motion is not just for straight political purposes. That kind of statement reminds me of one made in similar vein by the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) in committee the other day when he tried to give the impression that the official opposition was the only party that resorted to political trickery. Mr. Speaker, I hope my friend had his tongue in his cheek when he said that. All anyone has to do is read some of the records of parliament the last time the Liberals were in opposition. Any so-called political trickery that our party might be accused of would look like a Sunday school picnic compared with those days.
I should like to contain my remarks, in the time I have left, to refer to some of the problems of dairy producers in Ontario and more particularly southwestern Ontario, the area I know best. First of all, I should like to say something about the cream producers. I am given to understand that there are around 4,500 cream producers in the province. Perhaps the on-the-farm cream producer did not modernize as years went by and enlarge his production from the time when the majority of milk production was handled by separating the cream on the farm.
Statistics Canada reported that production of creamery butter fell by 2.4 per cent in February to 10.2 million pounds from 10.5 million pounds a year earlier. Mr. Speaker, the cream producers are asking for about the equivalent of $1 per hundred pounds over the $2 already asked for by the industrial shippers or, in reality 30 cents per pound of butterfat. I can see where some concentrated effort to encourage cream production can be very important in order to supplement the income of a family living in the country, with the breadwinner working in town in the daytime but coming home at night to milk a few cows. He would not have to do it by hand either, as there are all kinds of used milking machines on the market today. He would then only have to separate the milk, which would give him the most natural protein supplement which is available-skim milk. He could keep a few sows, which in
March 22, 1974

turn would produce litters that he could fatten with very little more than home grown grain plus the very valuable skim milk.
Even though the minister is, or has been, a practical farmer, as important as any increase which farmers can get for their product, be it cream, milk or any other product, is the fact that more stress should be put on more practical approaches. Let us have such approaches instead of the grandiose plans that economists have dreamed up in some departments in order to justify the huge salaries that we have seen included in the estimates in the last few days.
I listened with interest to the minister's remarks this afternoon. I agree wholeheartedly with many of his comments, particularly those in which he compared what we pay for cheese and butter in Canada with what people in other dairy producing countries pay. I also agree that many Canadians do not realize the high level of subsidies paid to producers in other dairy producing countries. What is bothering most of us in the opposition and most of our socialist friends to my left who are partners in a coalition caucus is the fact that the Minister of Agriculture is not putting his message across to the rest of the cabinet. They do not seem to recognize the importance of agriculture.
Today in his speech the minister asked how many of his international colleagues who attended the agricultural congress in Italy were farmers. The answer, of course, is that none of them were. Instead of worrying about how many of his colleagues who attended from around the world are farmers, he should be trying to convince other cabinet members of this government of the long-term importance of agriculture for Canada. In particular, he should be trying to convince the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray). Further, how the government can justify making one minister responsible for the Department of Justice and the Canadian Wheat Board is beyond me. Of course, we must not forget the congenial Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand). He, too, should be thoroughly aware of what agriculture means to this country.
As I said earlier, I want to make suggestions as to how the dairy industry can be improved in Ontario, particularly in my own area. First and foremost, of course, we must consider the price of milk. It must be sufficiently high to enable the farmer to carry on. Sometimes, the farmer's net income can be affected by factors which may be far more important than the price he receives per hundredweight of milk. He must consider the price he pays for dairy equipment and machinery necessary for feeding his cows. He must make a sizeable investment in all sorts of equipment if he is to carry on the dairy farm.
Dairy Policy
As I say, what he has to pay for equipment and for his total investment may affect his income in a direct way.
Let us consider what the average dairy farmer must invest. There has been much talk of the expertise in this country in the area of dairy farming. What do you need to operate a dairy farm? My people have operated a dairy farm for a long time. We were in the business a long time before I became involved in politics. Let us look at some of the investment necessary to enable the dairy farmer to operate a dairy farm. First, he needs between 300 and 400 acres of land. In Ontario that land will usually be near urban areas. This situation has arisen from the fact that in earlier days dairy farmers had to be close to urban centres because of difficulties of transportation. Consequently, such land today is very expensive. Being near an urban area, it could cost between $400 and $500 an acre, so his land would cost in the neighborhood of $140,000.
In addition, the farmer will maintain between 35 and 45 cows, each costing $1,000. The possible investment for that item could be $40,000. He will need machinery, if he can afford it, and tractors which could cost between $5,000 and $15,000. Let us take the figure of $25,000 for that item. His total machinery costs could easily be $100,000 higher. Then he will need some silos on the farm. Add $20,000 for that item.
The dairy farmer is not like another farmer who can spend between $15,000 and $25,000 for a combine which can do a lot of work. The dairy farmer needs sophisticated equipment such as milking machines and tanks, on which he could easily spend between $15,000 and $20,000. As well, he will need a milking house and other buildings, which will add another few thousand dollars to his investment. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, we are looking at an investment well in excess of $300,000.
I suggest that the government should consider allowing the dairy farmer to write off equipment quickly. The dairy farmer and his sons would be encouraged to stay in the business if they could be assured of being able to update their equipment and thus save time and labour. The question of labour is also important. I know that important advances have been made in making good labour available, but we have a long way to go. The government should also look at the farm credit situation and do what it can to help the farmer save money. I know that the ceiling on loans was raised last year to $100,000. That is an improvement over the previous situation, but I feel that the present ceiling is too low and ought to be raised to a far higher level.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock, the proceedings under Standing Order 58 (11) having expired, this House accordingly stands adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock.
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, March 25, 1974