1974-11-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the second report of the Clerk of Petitions.


Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind the importance of the statement made this morning that a settlement of the land claims of the native people of James Bay had been reached involving expenditures, programs and constitutional commitments by the federal government, I would like to ask whether it is the intention of the Prime Minister or one of his colleagues to make a statement on motions outlining the terms of this settlement in order that the House may be informed of the precise nature of the federal commitment.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that the Prime Minister or anybody else for that matter can be asked a question by an hon. member speaking on a point of order. Perhaps it may be regarded as a request that the Prime Minister make a statement on motions.



NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT


Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano) moved: to introduce Bill C-363, to amend the National Defence Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: The purpose of this bill is to guarantee the equality of status of young females who may wish to serve in cadet organizations controlled and supervised by the Canadian forces. Over the Armistice weekend a great deal of interest was expressed to me by parents in my riding and in the Vancouver area concerning this bill. In addition, I have received letters from my constituents pertaining to it.


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


Hon. John N. Turner (for the Minister of Justice) moved: the first reading of Bill S-2, (from the Senate) to amend the Supreme Court Act and to make related amendments to the Federal Court Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



STATUTE REVISION ACT


John Napier Turner: the first reading of Bill S-3, (from the Senate) to provide for a continuing revision and consolidation of the statutes and regulations of Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PROPRIETARY OR PATENT MEDICINE AND TRADE MARKS ACTS


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: for leave to introduce Bill S-9, (from the Senate) to repeal the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act and to amend the Trade Marks Act.


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


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Yesterday outside the House the Minister of
1352

November 15, 1974
Oral Questions
National Health and Welfare stated that the possibility of a trip to Israel in the Bronfman jet was first raised in a discussion between himself and Mr. Bronfman. In view of this possibility of accompanying Mr. Bronfman to Israel, the health minister then turned to the Israeli ambassador and asked whether it would be convenient for the minister to visit Israel officially in such circumstances. The minister added that he had asked the Israeli ambassador to make the necessary formal travel and business arrangements if, in fact such a visit were convenient.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he was aware of all those circumstances when he stated in this House on November 5, as reported at page 1053 of Hansard: I was aware, of course, that the minister had been invited to Israel by the Israeli government and that the Israeli ambassador had arranged transportation on this particular aircraft.
The Prime Minister thereby gave the impression that the Minister of National Health and Welfare was simply going to Israel in a way arranged by the Israeli government. When the Prime Minister made that statement in the House, was he aware of the circumstances that the minister disclosed outside the House yesterday as to what actually took place?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Not the
details of them, Mr. Speaker, but I was aware of what I told the House, that the arrangements were made by the Israeli ambassador. I was not aware of the exact timing as to when the matter had actually been raised.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was the Prime Minister aware of the fact that arrangements had been made between the minister of health and Mr. Bronfman, as disclosed by the minister outside the House yesterday, and that the Minister of National Health and Welfare had asked the Israeli ambassador to make arrangements for the trip on that basis?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the minister said yesterday outside the House. My understanding of the facts is not that the minister asked the Israeli ambassador to make the arrangements, but that at a meeting between them the offer of an aircraft was made and that the minister suggested to the ambassador that he make the arrangements for the trip.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition may put a final supplementary.


TRAVEL ARRANGEMENTS OF MINISTER OF NATIONAL
Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister of health told this House on November 12, as reported at page 1221:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the hon. member that all the arrangements for my trip to Israel, which was an official visit at the invitation of the government of Israel, were made by the Israeli embassy.
In view of the fact that it now appears that the arrangements were first made by the minister himself with Mr. Bronfman, and that the minister asked the Israeli ambassador to make the arrangements on that basis, I would ask the Prime Minister whether he will personally conduct an

investigation, not merely into the question of conflict of interest, but as to whether the minister has been frank and open with the Prime Minister and with the House, and if after the Prime Minister makes that investigation he finds the minister has not been frank with him and with the House will he ask for that minister's resignation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in so far as being frank with the House is concerned, from my reading of yesterday's Hansard it is exactly along the lines of what the Leader of the Opposition says the minister was saying outside the House.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No, it is not.


Mr. Hees:: You haven't been reading very well, Pierre.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think it might be worthwhile reading what the minister said yesterday, as reported at page 1316 of Hansard:
The matter was raised for the first time in the presence of the Israeli ambassador-
He has admitted it was raised in the presence of the Israeli ambassador. He then said:
-and since for several months I have had a standing invitation to go to Israel, I said that if the time were convenient to the Israeli ambassador and the Israeli government, and if this means of transport was convenient I would leave the matter of the arrangements to the Israeli embassy.
Subject to further discussion, I do not see that there is anything there that is in conflict with what the minister said outside the House.
In so far as being frank with me, Mr. Speaker, I can say unequivocably that the minister answered the questions I asked him in this regard. The main point I tried to ascertain was whether the minister had derived any personal benefits of any kind from this trip, and I am satisfied that he did not. I am not saying that there are not some disadvantages, and that is why I referred to the practice which we would be following in the future. In so far as benefits are concerned, the only benefit I can see would be the benefit to the Canadian taxpayer in the sense that the minister did not have to pay for the trip out of public funds.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I must say that I am shocked by where this all leads. In view of the circumstances that have come out inside and outside the House, and the nature of the discussions that took place between the minister and Mr. Bronfman, I would ask the Prime Minister whether he felt justified in saying what he said in the House on November 5? He now says that the minister was completely frank and that he knew of these circumstances, so I am wondering if he feels he was justified in what he said in the House on that occasion which gave the impression that the Minister of National Health and Welfare was simply going to Israel in a conveyance that had been arranged by the ambassador of Israel, and that was only the polite thing for the minister to do? I think the very least the Prime Minister owes this House is a full explanation of what he said on November 5, and a full explanation also as to the standard of behaviour and frankness that is expected in the House. In view of the statement made by the minister on November
November 15, 1974

12, and the impression he tried to leave with the House at that time, this has gone far beyond a conflict of interest, although that is a very vital aspect of it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Leader of the Opposition misinterpreted what I said. I did not say that before November 5 I had had these discussions with the minister. Indeed, I could not have had. I had been in France and Belgium and the minister had not .returned, so I could not have had this discussion with him. On the contrary, I indicated to the House very frankly that I had not been made aware of the means by which the minister was going to Israel. I had approved his trip but had not discussed the means of transportation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You had approved the trip?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, I approve all trips.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Had the minister discussed the method of transportation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The matter has been raised by way of a question and two supplementaries, and now under the guise of a point of order a further question has been raised. I certainly do not want to restrict the questioning in any way but I feel we have to keep the matter on track. The right hon. Prime Minister.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary-all right; let the Prime Minister go ahead if he has something more to say.



Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. On November 5 the Prime Minister, in a reply to a question by me stated:
I take it the hon. member knows of no better way of having a minister accept an invitation than by doing it in a way the inviting government proposes.
Would the Prime Minister indicate why, when he learned this was the means of transportation proposed at a meeting between Mr. Bronfman and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, he did not at least attempt to correct the impression he left on November 5 that this was a proposal which originated from the Government of Israel as opposed to something that was acceded to at a later date?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must remind the hon. member as I was telling the Leader of the Opposition that I had approved the trip but I told the House clearly I did not know what means of transportation was envisaged but approved it on the basis that the inviting government usually makes proposals for means of transportation. I would go further and say, had I known it would be by private aircraft I probably would have advised him to take other means.


Mr. Alexander:: You were misled.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I did not discuss the means of transportation with the minister. I learned about it, as other members of the House learned about it, and I indicated that in the future we would not be using that type of transportation. But I must make it quite clear to the Leader of the Opposition and hon. members that I said to the House that I did not know the means of transportation and approved the trip. That is what I said and that is what I repeat.


KNOWLEDGE OF SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS OF TRAVEL ARRANGEMENTS OF MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE FOR TRIP TO ISRAEL
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. This being an official visit according to the statement of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, was the minister's department consulted about the official visit? Did they make the arrangements for the official visit and if so did they know about the use of the private jet and did they question it?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I knew about the visit. The Miinister of National Health and Welfare and I exchanged correspondence on the visit. But to my recollection, and I am sure my recollection is correct, the mode of transportation was not involved.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hast-ings on a final supplementary.


PROPRIETY OF TRAVEL ARRANGEMENTS OF MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE FOR TRIP TO ISRAEL
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare recently publicly criticized and lectured one branch of the liquor industry, the brewing industry, on how it should conduct its business-and if it followed his suggestion this could seriously affect its business-does the Prime Minister consider it right and proper that following that the minister should accept a favour from the president of the largest liquor industry in this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member does not seem to understand is that the minister was not accepting a favour from the liquor industry.


An hon. Member:: Of course he was.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He was being invited by the government with which we have friendly relations, the government of a country to which many other members of this House have travelled, including members of the opposition. He was going by means which had been arranged, obviously with his knowledge, by the Israeli government. I have made it quite clear in the House that this is a practice which I do not encourage ministers to follow, and I am sure that in the future they will not. I have ascertained that the minister has derived no personal advantage, apart

November 15, 1974
Oral Questions
perhaps from travelling with people he knew on the same aircraft, but that certainly could have been derived travelling commercially. Those are the facts as I know them. I am certain that there is no conflict of interest. I agree that there is a question as to whether this is the best way of doing it, and that is why I indicated that that is not the way we should follow in the future. I suppose that in future ministers will consult the Secretary of State for External Affairs and myself on their means of transportation if there is any doubt.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In view of the fact that he said outside the House yesterday that Roy Atkinson, president of the National Farmers' Union, had been under surveillance at one time by the RCMP, and this has been verified by a journalist who has a statement on tape from the travel agency to that effect, would the minister inform the House at this time of the reasons Mr. Atkinson was under surveillance at one time by the RCMP?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I checked on this matter and I find that the RCMP did check with the Saskatoon travel agency to see if Mr. Atkinson was to travel to Prince Edward Island. At that time there was an interest in his activities, not on the basis of subversion or security but on the basis of information received that the National Farmers' Union were planning to illegally disrupt certain peaceful activities in PEI, such as the Charlottetown Old Home Week.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: The RCMP had been asked to find out if this information was correct and, if so, how many people were travelling from Saskatchewan to participate in these particular illegal activities.
I might say that the National Farmers' Union had previously been involved in certain massive tractor blockades in PEI and certain arrests had taken place and charges laid. So at the time the RCMP did check with this agency with respect to this possible disruption of peaceful activities in PEI. I might say that whatever was to take place did not take place and there have been no further checks on Mr. Atkinson since that time. That was the only time.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The minister said in the House yesterday, as recorded on page 1312 of Hansard, that the only time someone would be under surveillance would be if they were suspected of committing a criminal offence or if there were serious suspicions about breaches of the security of this nation. I should like to know whether or not the incident to which the minister referred is the reason Mr. Atkinson was put under surveillance. There was a tractor demonstration in August of 1971, and I found, on checking with Mr. Atkinson's lawyer this morning, that the charge against him under section 381 of the Criminal Code was conspiracy to intimidate the public from the

lawful use of a highway for no valid reason. The case was dismissed at a preliminary hearing in magistrate's court. I should like to know from the minister whether or not the only reason Mr. Atkinson was put under surveillance, was subversion or whether it was the intention to commit a criminal offence, to which he referred in the House. That is a very serious question and we want an answer to it.


William Warren Allmand: As I mentioned a few minutes ago, the RCMP received information that the National Farmers' Union were planning certain illegal activities to disrupt peaceful activities in PEI. The police had an obligation to check this out to see if the stories were correct, and that is what they did. When they found out that they were not correct, they stopped any further checking on Mr. Atkinson.


REASON FOR SURVEILLANCE OF LEADERS OF NATIVE GROUPS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, in the House the Solicitor General made a commitment to check into the possibility that certain native leaders in Saskatchewan were under RCMP surveillance. I wonder whether he can now provide that information.


William Warren Allmand: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Prior to the arrival of the Indian caravan, the RCMP had received information that certain individuals associated with it were considering the use of violence and other illegal activities in Ottawa. As result of this information, the RCMP tried to determine through buslines, rent-a-car agencies and travel agencies, how many participants were coming to Ottawa and whc they were so that they could perhaps take preventive measures against the use of violence and anti-legal activity. They did contact this travel agency to find out if any of the Indian leaders were coming to Ottawa with the caravan.


GROUND BEEF-REGULATION OF FAT CONTENT AND IMPROVEMENT OF INSPECTION
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In June 1974, the Food Prices Review Board made a report and recommendations to the government concerning the passing of regulations requiring that ground beef sold by retailers be labelled to indicate the maximum fat content. Can the minister say whether or not he intends to implement the recommendation of the board?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, we are now looking into the possibility of passing regulations to that effect. I trust I shall be in a position to announce them in the very near future.
November 15, 1974


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Is the minister also considering the possibility of improving the meat inspection system, especially where less expensive meats are concerned such as ground meat and others? We recently heard disquieting reports in this regard.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I made a statement to that effect in the House around fifteen days ago.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The first question must naturally be why the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is not in his place to inform the House of the federal government's commitment, participation and constitutional responsibility in the James Bay settlement, particularly in view of the fact that he is divulging this information to forums outside the House. I would ask the Prime Minister personally to tell the House if it is his government's intention to use this settlement, as the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has stated, as a benchmark or model in negotiating all other outstanding land claims?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, this is an historic day of agreement-


An hon. Member:: Where is the minister?


Iona Campagnolo: I am going to tell you if you have time to listen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iona Campagnolo: This is an historic day of agreement in principle between-


Some hon. Members:: Motions.


Iona Campagnolo: -the James Bay Cree, the northern Quebec Innuit, the province of Quebec and the federal government.


Some hon. Members:: Motions.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Sit down!


An hon. Member:: Just listen.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Rocky Mountain on a point of order.
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that the parliamentary secretary to the minister is attempting to bootleg into this House-


An hon. Member:: She was asked a question.


Charles Joseph Clark: -a statement which bears no relation to the question asked. It constitutes a statement on motions which the government refused to deliver during the appropriate period of this House, but instead sent the minister away to make an announcement outside this House. The minister was here at 10.30 last night. This indicates a clear contempt of the practices and privileges of this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The point of order is not without some merit-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: -not because it relates to the presence or absence of the minister but because the question that was posed really was to the Prime Minister and not to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As I recall, the first part of the question to the Prime Minister was, why is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development not present in the House at this time? The point of order may be valid, not because the parliamentary secretary is proposing to give information on behalf of her minister which, as I think I have said on previous occasions, is a very important aspect of the work of parliamentary secretaries-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Motions.


Mr. Speaker:: -but simply because the original question was to the Prime Minister.
However, in fairness the question also sought information on the nature and whether the government proposed to use this as a "benchmark" I think the word was. I believe that information was sought and was what the parliamentary secretary was trying to give. However, to keep it in order perhaps the Prime Minister might like to answer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will need guidance from you. Members of the opposition generally direct questions to me if a minister is not in the House, and my practice in such cases is to turn either to the acting minister or the parliamentary secretary. If we agree that parliamentary secretaries should play some role-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -it is obvious that this parliamentary secretary was going to explain why the minister is not in the House. It is because he is in Montreal doing certain things. I could obviously answer the question, Mr. Speaker, but the House would be better informed if it were prepared to listen to the answer of the hon. parliamentary secretary.

November 15, 1974
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: On motions!


Mr. Speaker:: In the absence of further points of order I have to consider that the Prime Minister has answered the first part of the question but the second part ought to be answered by the hon. parliamentary secretary.


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, on that particular question-


Mr. Beatty:: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo on a point of order.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I think there would be a disposition on this side of the House, if it were agreeable to the government, to give unanimous consent to revert to motions so that there could be a proper response to-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. parliamentary secretary.


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, the minister is not reporting in the House today as he has accepted the signing time and place at the behest of the two native groups and their schedule has prevented him from being here.


An hon. Member:: Bourassa's schedule.


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, the good faith of those involved has been amply demonstrated for all to see. However, specific details of the agreement cannot be made known at this time as the signing does not take place until noon today. I therefore feel, Your Honour, that further comment might be reserved to be placed before the House on the return of the minister. It should be noted that this is an agreement in principle only and is subject to further negotiation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. In view of the information provided by the parliamentary secretary, I wonder if the House would give unanimous consent to revert to motions at two o'clock this afternoon so that all parties would be given the opportunity to respond to the information on a matter of highest priority.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Central Nova.


John Napier Turner: There won't be enough of you guys around.


George Harris Hees: Same old rotten gang!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In light of avowed Canadian needs for policing and servicing in the Arctic both to protect our sovereignty and to foster economic development, can the minister tell the House whether he will study proposals for an Arctic Canadian base as proposed by the Naval Officers' Association of Canada?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


ADEQUACY OF ARMED FORCES TO PATROL COASTS AND PROTECT SOVEREIGNTY
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister still hold to his position, as stated in this chamber on November 13 in response to a question by the Leader of the Opposition that the job of protecting Canadian sovereignty and coastal surveillance is being done adequately at the present time and does he plan to take action on the recommendation for nuclear submarines and icebreakers made by the Naval Officers' Association of Canada?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question of the Leader of the Opposition I stated that surveillance of our coasts was taking place. I did not at any time suggest that we could not continue to improve our capability. I have made it known that we are actively studying the acquisition of a new long range patrol aircraft which would greatly increase our capability to survey Canadian coastal waters.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the importance of this matter, especially for Quebecers, in view of the fact that yesterday the Prime Minister received a call from Mgr. Gregoire on the deportation of a certain number of Haitians, and since the Minister of Communications has stated to the press in a telephone interview that the cabinet has indeed undertaken to examine the possibility of deciding favourably on the Haitians' condition, could the Prime Minister advise us today whether the cabinet is still examining this matter and hoping to come with a solution which, as everybody is hoping, will protect completely the security of those Haitians?
November 15, 1974


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as to the first part of the question, we certainly want the federal government to take the right solution to protect all the people involved, that is Haitians as well as Canadians themselves. We do not feel that we have ruled in any but a favourable manner. I think the Minister of Manpower and Immigration reported to the House yesterday a statement made by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. As to the other part of the question, Mr. Speaker, I would say that we are still reviewing it. The minister is always watching for new methods to solve this problem in a fair and humanitarian fashion and he is always in touch with his colleagues.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Does the Prime Minister's reply mean that there are no changes possible to the decision already rendered and announced by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration? Since the act contains a special clause dealing with the persons concerning whom there are reasonable grounds to believe that they are likely to come to serious harm, could not the government avail itself of this clause, out of pity and for humanitarian reasons, to grant days of grace to the Haitians concerned, should it deem it necessary?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is precisely because of this clause that the minister and the government have made sure that each case will be heard and decided on its own merit. We do not intend to render global and collective judgments but find out whether the humanitarian or refugee aspect could be invoked in respect of each and every one of these cases. I do not understand what the hon. member means by more global solutions. If he really wants to change the spirit and the letter of the law, he will quickly realize that a lot of those who come to Canada as tourists eventually try to stay here on a permanent basis. The issue we are dealing with now is likely to come up over and over again, so that it is essential that the government and opposition members agree on procedures which are both fair and humanitarian.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister also relates to the general question of conflict of interest of cabinet ministers. Before putting my question, I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister, even though it is a year late, on finally setting up the simple administrative procedures which resulted this morning in the opening of a public registry which, I am told, indicates the holdings of some of his cabinet ministers. My question relates to some cabinet ministers only. Why does the public registry opened this morning relate only to the holdings of those cabinet ministers who were cabinet ministers on July 8? Why is it taking so long to indicate the holdings of the newer cabi-
Oral Questions
net ministers? Has the Prime Minister set a deadline for them to indicate their holdings?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe I indicated to the newer ministers in a general way that I expected them to comply by the end of this calendar year, but I must check on the facts. Insofar as I am aware, I thought that every minister except one, including the new ones, had complied, but I will look at the facts. I am sure they will all comply by the end of the year with the possible exception of one minister who will be in a more difficult situation in resolving this problem in a way which will be satisfactory to the House. It is not a question of conflict. It is a way of finding a just method of divesting himself of any interest he might have in ongoing contracts.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Now that this principle has been accepted by the government for cabinet ministers and knowing the propensities of this government in many cases where senior civil servants have more to do with setting policy than even the cabinet, will the Prime Minister advise when we may expect the same principle, machinery and public registry to be set up for senior civil servants?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recall that when I made the announcement on guidelines, I covered not only cabinet ministers but senior civil servants, order-in-council appointments and, indeed, we took dispositions to regulate every member of this House, the latter part having been referred to a committee of this House in the last session. Insofar as the registry may be applicable to any other persons other than cabinet ministers, I will have to ascertain the date which was fixed for them. If my memory is not incorrect, it was some time in the early spring, but I will check that out.
[DOT] * *


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Prior to the minister and his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, departing for Rome, the Minister of Agriculture was sent a telegram by the National Farmers Union requesting the government to set up a special program for the purchase and processing of beef as an important means of providing aid to many countries of the world which are in need of such foodstuffs. It would also provide assistance to Canadian farmers and producers who will be confronted with a particularly serious situation this winter. Was such a program considered by the Canadian delegation prior to going to Rome? If so, what conclusion was reached on this proposal?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge I cannot say that such a program had been explicitly considered by the delegation. There is a provision in our proposals made
1358

November 15, 1974
Oral Questions
in Rome under which we can increase non-grain food aid. Presumably it would be under that umbrella such a proposal could be considered. My understanding is that the possibility of using canned beef, for example, in developing countries for the relief of starvation is not an easy one because of food habits, particularly cultural practices with respect to the consumption of food. With that qualification, I am sure that the Canadian International Development Agency, in its food program, will be searching out every possible way to provide non-grain food aid. If appropriate, it will consider that possibility as well.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, this request was made by the National Farmers Union. The governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan have indicated agreement in principle to take part in such a program. If I understand the minister correctly, the federal government has not taken that position. The minister is simply saying they might consider doing that, but as far as he is aware, there is no active consideration of the policy taking place at this time. I would like the minister to clarify that all he is saying is the government might consider such an approach. Is that correct?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Where the use of such foodstuffs in the food program is appropriate, it is always under consideration by CIDA. The hon. member referred to the desire of two provinces to take part in the program. I think this is a ) positive indication of the interest being taken in Canada, and we shall certainly be following up on our side the possibility of involving those provinces and others in the food aid program.


WILLINGNESS OF GOVERNMENTS OF SASKATCHEWAN AND ALBERTA TO PARTICIPATE IN PROGRAM TO SUPPLY PROCESSED BEEF TO NEEDY COUNTRIES-REASON FOR FAILURE OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO RESPOND
John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary for the Prime Minister. Since two provinces have indicated their willingness to put up dollars as part of their contribution could the Prime Minister explain why, given the urgency on the international scale and the problems producers are facing right now, the federal government has not responded to this proposal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The House will want to know that when I met with the premiers toward the end of last month at 24 Sussex Drive, I did bring up this question and I received a very favourable response not only from the two provinces which have been mentioned but from the provinces generally. They were disposed to help in any way they could. At that time our plans for the Rome Conference were well advanced and there was no question of involving the provinces in anything which might be said in Rome. The main thing is that we have their agreement to assist in some way and, as the minister has said repeatedly, our posture in Rome was not the final word on this question; there are other measures we are considering in cabinet and I am sure we shall find means of involving any provinces wishing to concern themselves in any way.


MANPOWER
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In connection with LIP projects, the department has asked us a few months ago to suggest the membership of advisory committees responsible for recommending projects to the department. Now I have been told that projects recommended by advisory committees in some constituencies are rejected by the department, while others recommended by political friends are accepted. I do not want to be partisan, but when it came to the membership of committees which we suggested, I did not ask myself whether they were Liberal, Progressive Conservative or Social Credit. I wanted them to be representative of all political parties.
Can the minister tell us whether projects recommended by an advisory committee are rejected while others which are not are accepted by the department?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am able to assure the hon. member that in principle this is not the case. When the department receives applications, some of them may not satisfy the initial criteria at all, that is, the criteria established for screening as to eligibility, but even those applications are forwarded, for information, to the constituency advisory group where such a group exists. The function of the advisory group is to examine these applications on the basis of community needs and of their suitability, and to recommend priorities within the budget allocation. I do not usually interfere if there is agreement that the project is eligible, if it has been approved by the constituency advisory group and if the hon. member involved has not made any particular or valid objection to it. In such a case it would be almost automatically approved subject to the budget available. If the hon. member has any instances of a specific nature to show there has been a departure from this process I would be very grateful if he would register them with me. I will follow through and find out what, and why, deviations, if any, have taken place.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council. In view of the extensive and regrettable loss of life in the recent crash of a Panarctic air liner near Melville Island, can the hon. gentleman inform us when the government will be bringing forward the legislation promised in the Speech from the Throne to establish an independent accident investigation board?
November 15, 1974

Oral Questions HOUSING


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: I cannot give an exact time. As the hon. member knows, a number of urgent measures are still before the House. I hope they can all be disposed of quickly so that we can get to legislation such as the hon. member has in mind, legislation which I, like himself, regard as important.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You can bring it in any time, you know that.


Mitchell William Sharp: We must get the other bills through first.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It relates to a letter sent by the Canadian embassy to the state department of the United States on October 23, 1973 and I would ask the hon. gentleman to bear in mind that this was one year, three weeks, one day, 22 hours and 58 minutes ago. In that letter, the government of Canada made an urgent request that the government of the United States should establish a moratorium on further construction of the Garrison diversion unit. Does the minister not consider that this has been a long time to wait for a reply to an urgent request? Will he tell us what is presently the status of this diversion scheme?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: One thing the hon. member has proved is that his question is certainly disqualified under the rules of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The policy of the government on that particular point is still unchanged.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: In view of the fact the construction has been speeded up, and that they are digging while all we are doing is hoping, may 1 ask what concrete action the minister is taking to ensure that this memorandum will be answered either affirmatively or otherwise?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am afraid the hon. member's facts may be out of line. However, I want to reassure him we have been in frequent communication with the United States government with respect to the proposed diversion. Studies have been conducted in collaboration with the province. The hon. member can be assured that the interests of Canada are being upheld at all times and that our point of view is fully understood by the United States government.


ALLEGED OFFER OF ARABIAN MONEY FOR INVESTMENT-PERSONS TAKING PART IN NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Would he inform the House as to the terms of the loans being offered by Arab oil concerns for investment in the Canadian Housing market? Who were the government officials and the other individuals, aside from government officials, involved in the negotiation of these investments?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I do not think there have been negotiations. I suppose I get a call a week from an individual representing concerns with large sums of foreign money to invest. I do not discriminate against money on the basis of its nationality; I am constantly concerned about there being a regular supply of mortgage money to the market. The fact is, if one tries to pursue these offers, nothing happens. I have not seen this one reach fruition, or a concrete stage. There are many things to be taken into consideration. I would have to be guided by my colleague the Minister of Finance. Certainly, this would have to be handled through proper financial intermediaries. I suggest that they speak to the banks and trust companies about this, or the mortgage investment corporations. Certainly CMHC is not directly involved in this respect.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am not really sure what happened to the government of Canada just a few moments ago. I do not know whether they had an offer or not, but considering the way this particular money is coming in would the minister express his opinion on whether or not he considers that the acceptance of Arabian funds in the housing market would jeopardize Canada's position with respect to international relations between either the Arabian countries or Israel?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member, with his long years of experience, knows well when he either hears or poses a hypothetical question.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister advise the House whether the government is considering, apart from the Rome conference milieu, some further special urgent measure of aid to that long suffering and anguished country, Bangladesh, where a situation exists so grave and perilous as to compel the compassion of mankind? Is the minister in consultation with the authorities of that government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member
28543-18>/2

November 15, 1974
Oral Questions
is aware that apart from the Rome conference the Canadian government has already extended assistance to the people of Bangladesh. I am sure that apart from our commitments made at Rome we would want to do anything further that would be justified in the circumstances. I do not think our commitment in Rome precludes action in other stricken areas.


REASON FOR FAILURE OF MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE TO REPORT ON TRIP TO ISRAEL
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government House leader and relates to the previous questions asked about the trip to Israel by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In light of the fact that it is established custom in this House that, when a minister represents Canada on an official visit to another country, upon his return to Canada he makes a full and complete report on what took place to the House of Commons, such as did the Minister of National Defence earlier this week, what is the reason that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has yet to report on his official visit to Israel.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that there is no such government policy, and I am sure that the House of Commons would resist ministers getting up and reporting every time they went abroad.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister inform the House whether a decision has yet been reached on the future of the railway freight rate freeze and the freeze on rail line abandonment; and if a decision has been reached, would he tell the House when an announcement will be made?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this question was studied last week at length. I will have to get in touch with the railways. As the House knows, under the kind of commitment that we have we never actually froze any rates; we asked the two railways not to increase rates. This commitment will, of course, terminate on December 31, and I am now trying to see what they intend to do. I hope that by next week I will be in a position to tell the hon. member what the exact situation will be.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Now that the Secretary

of State has appointed his former executive assistant as the new director of the Company of Young Canadians, will the Prime Minister tell the House how many other former executive assistants to ministers are now in the public service, and whether any guidelines have been established or instructions given regarding the appointment to the public service of personal assistants to partisan ministers. If the Prime Minister is not prepared to give the House that information now, would he make a specific reference of this question to the appropriate committee?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will appreciate that that kind of information is properly solicited in another way.


Charles Joseph Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, although I hesitate to rise I have tried to seek that information by way of a question on the order paper, and I was roadblocked in the attempt by a reply, which I would call misleading to say the least, from the President of the Privy Council. I think this should be brought to the attention of the House. At any rate, I will raise the matter at ten o'clock.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Jack  Marsha@: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that there is a thrust towards reducing the size of the Canadian Armed Forces, would the minister indicate to the House what his intentions are regarding the militia and reserve forces so far as either increasing or decreasing their strengths, since the regular forces are being reduced?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, although I do not accept the preamble to the question, it has been publicly stated on a number of occasions that we are strengthening the reserve forces and militia. They have more funds and more equipment and they will be increasing in numbers.


Mr. Marshall:: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. In view of the fact that General Waters indicated in a press release today that they were increasing, would the minister make a statement on motions later as to the feelings of the conference of defence associations regarding the status of the militia reserves and their deterioration?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I am quite frequently making statements on the reserve. I do not think it would be necessary to make one on motions in the near future.
November 15, 1974



HOUSING


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs responsible for housing. In view of the conclusions reached by a team of investigators of Ontario Hydro to the effect that aluminum wiring used in house building constitutes a dangerous fire hazard, what steps does the minister propose to take to protect Canadians against this hazard in view of the widespread use of aluminum wiring in house building in Canada?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of this report but I am sure that my officials in CMHC are. In any event I shall have to check with them and get a full report on the situation. They are right on top of these things as soon as they happen.



TRANSPORT


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Transport is supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Vegreville. In view of the fact that the January 1, 1975 date is approaching very rapidly and that on this date the abandonment of many railway lines in western Canada is possible under the National Transportation Act of 1967, and in view of the fact that in 1967 the minister promised parliament that before abandonment there would be public hearings in each case of request for abandonment and that the railways would be required to provide the public with figures on revenues, costs and traffic volumes, according to page 11780 of Hansard for January 12, 1967, has the minister received from the railways any indication that they have these figures ready for the public?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not have such a good memory that I can say that this is exactly what I said. I know that my colleague, the Minister of Justice, stated something along the same lines, but we told the western provinces that we would act very carefully in the field of abandonment of branch lines and that no branch lines would be abandoned unless we found a proper substitute or that our producers had proper service.



REQUEST FOR REPORT OF WHEAT POOLS GIVING FIGURES ON REVENUES, COSTS AND TRAFFIC VOLUMES OF RAILWAY BRANCH LINES

Francis Alvin George Hamilton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister, then, make available to interested members of this House the report received by his department from the western grain pools giving these figures from the years
World Food Crisis
1943 to 1965? I think the minister will find this report in his department.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have to make sure that I received the report and not the Minister of Justice, who is responsible for the Wheat Board, and I will tell the hon. member early next week.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise briefly on a point of order, which perhaps is a euphemism for a point of information. There has been a great deal of reference made in connection with the now celebrated trip of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), as an official visit or official trip. Without the benefit of the experience and knowledge of some of my more august colleagues as to the rules, I am puzzled as to what exactly constitutes an official trip or visit by a government minister to another country, that is what special qualities mark it as an official trip. I was wondering, as a matter of information, if perhaps someone on the other side of the House, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), could tell me briefly what marks it as an official trip, assuring me that it is, and the minister might then table the itinerary so that whatever qualities it has that constitutes it as an official trip could be then open to the scrutiny of the House.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond) moved:: That this House condemns the government for its failure, both before and during the World Food Conference in Rome, to provide leadership concerning the food crisis facing many developing nations, and calls on the government to give real leadership on this most acute problem of our time by increasing its commitment of food and other agricultural assistance to such nations and by adopting a trade policy favourable to their future development.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in opening this debate on the world's food crisis and Canada's responsibility, I want to quote from a group of scientists and economists who met on the eve of the World Food Conference. This group was led by economist Barbara Ward, and this part of their statement puts the problem in the urgent perspective from which we must not hide, despite the natural human desire to put such urgent, depressing and complex problems from our minds. As someone has said, there is no subject, however complex, which if studied with patience and intelligence will not become more complex. I quote from the statement:
Even if official development assistance almost doubled by 1980, the poorest countries containing at least 20 per cent of all the world's

November 15, 1974
World Food Crisis
people are threatened with an actual decline in their already precarious living standard.
A panel of experts addressing the United Nations-spon-sored gathering at Rome put the urgency of the problem in the very short run, for the next eight or nine months, in even starker terms that we can all understand:
The primary question before us is how many of the world's people may not survive until the next harvest.
The Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN estimates the shortage in food grains as between 7 million and 11 million tons, broken down in this way: India, 3.4 to 7.4 million; Bangladesh, 1.9 million; Pakistan, 1 million; Sri Lanka, 200,000; and 20 other nations, mainly African, including the sub-Saharan section, 1.3 million.
I now want to make an evaluation of Canada's response to this need. We are now well aware of the essential response of Canada, made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), at the World Food Conference. He promised, on behalf of Canada, one million tons of food grains for each of the next three years. The government House leader, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, told us in the House a week ago last Wednesday that the countries at the Rome conference were asked to pledge a total of ten million tons of grain annually for three years. Canada has consented to contribute 10 per cent of that total.
The House leader said on that occasion that this would mean an "enormous increase" in money for food aid. He did not mention, though, that for this country's 180,000 wheat farmers, the 36.7 million bushels-which is the equivalent of one million tons a year-is worth about $940 to each of them in income. He also neglected to tell the House, of course, that Canada had contributed some 1.3 million tons of food aid, worth about $90.8 million, in 1970 when the world food crisis was not nearly as threatening. Our GNP was then $85 billion, and today it is in the vicinity of $120 billion. He mentioned that Canada would be prepared to increase substantially the allocation of commodities other than food grains. He did not mention, however, the steady sag in food aid by this federal government in the past four years.
The government House leader seemed euphoric and boastful in the House about Canada's contribution, but many of us found his attitude somewhat narrow and parsimonious, depicting sort of a complacent attitude, especially in view of the desperate seriousness of the world's pressing poverty problem. After all, the amount of wheat promised to the poor countries by us at Rome represents only half the amount of wheat we Canadians eat each year. A million tons of wheat makes enough flour to produce some 1.5 billion loaves of bread, or about three loaves for each of the some one-half billion hungry people in the world. Indeed, Canada's emergency food grains pledge works out to about one slice of bread per person every five days. So much for the question of immediate aid. What about helping them in the long run?
I want to speak about Canada and the fertilizer problem in the developing countries. The House leader did not mention anything about providing fertilizer to these needy countries. At present we are giving none. Many concerned and knowledgeable people insist that if we are serious in wanting to help solve the longer term crisis, we

will have to contribute at least 150,000 tons of fertilizer to these countries for at least 10 to 15 years, if they are to learn to feed themselves. One ton of fertilizer can produce
10	to 15 additional tons of grain in India and Bangladesh. The extent of the catastrophe facing the fertilizer industry in developing countries is scarcely believable. During the period 1965-71 the fertilizer industry in Canada, Japan and many western countries was plagued with overcapacity. This turned out to be a blessing for the least developed countries: they could buy low-priced fertilizer on world markets and this helped to make the so-called "green revolution" a reality.
By 1972, world demand had caught up with supply. The
011	price crisis of 1973 made things much worse for the very poor countries. Certain petroleum products, especially naphtha, have become the principle feedstocks for nitrogen fertilizer. Price increases in these petroleum products have thus led to. further price increases in fertilizer products. Canada can really help these countries develop their own food capacity by supplying them with elemental sulphur and potash, both basic raw materials for potassic fertilizer. We are one of the largest producers and exporters of potash in the world, as I recently found out during a visit to Saskatchewan. We also have an abundance of elemental sulphur in Alberta. The federal government should, for purposes of helping the least developed countries, subsidize both of these abundant commodities for export to these very poor countries.
If I can ever get your attention, Mr. Speaker, this should be clearly kept in mind while the federal and provincial government of Saskatchewan-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Andrew Hogan: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. This should be clearly kept in mind while the federal and provincial government of Saskatchewan play tug-of-war over the question of taxation and royalties connected with the potash industry. Another alternative we can quickly look into, to help overcome the all but hopeless handicap of the poor nations with regard to fertilizers, is to use some of the extremely abundant, known coal reserves of Alberta- which compared to the reserves of Nova Scotia, from where I come, are minute-for the production of nitrogen fertilizer by means of a coal gasification process now being perfected in Alberta.
Alternatively, we can see if it is possible to help India test whether the Alberta technology for coal gasification can be used in turning India's large coal reserves to production of nitrogen fertilizer. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, if we are serious about helping these countries develop their own capacity to grow their own foods, we should sincerely and quickly consider these and other possible options.
Now I wish to speak for a few minutes about the priority in respect of food production-which should be present in this country and is not. It seems to me, though, as I mentioned in my maiden speech in the House, that over at least the next decade Canada has to build an almost new agricultural policy based on the premise that, while we cannot feed the world's starving, as one of the few grain exporting nations left we have to make a contribution that

is second only to the United States; unless, that is, we prefer to watch on our television sets the horror of hundreds of thousands dying because we, along with other nations, have failed to mount the massive, complex and extraordinary effort necessary to meet the problem of food aid to these impoverished human beings. They, regardless of colour or distance, are our human brothers and sisters under the skin.
As one with some specialized training in economics, I know that this may be very costly for us and may even mean notable changes in our life-style. But again, realistically speaking, do we have any other alternative, whether we call ourselves Christians, Jews or just humanists? If I am right, this should mean that this nation will have to give the highest priority, for at least the next decade and likely longer, to the production of food. The farmers, of course, will have to be guaranteed a just price so that they will not suffer from the surplus-shortage syndrome that they have had to carry in the past. Little wonder that they are cynical if they are asked to go all out. These and many other difficult problems must be solved within Canada and between the nations who in Rome pledged their support.
Our party does not want to take a "holier than thou" attitude, but we sincerely ask this government to take a strong lead in this, one of the most serious problems to face mankind in its history. After all, the United Nations, and especially the Food and Agricultural Organization, has been warning us of the day of reckoning since at least 1963. This country, and others, I repeat, must place the highest priority on food production. We must develop our latent food capacity and stop using prime agricultural land for non-farm uses. Of course, what we all must realize is that in pressing for very increased production, what the economists call the principle of diminishing marginal return on productivity enters into the picture. In everyday words, when you start seeding and planting new lands you increase the cost of production. Every new acre you bring into production will generally tend to increase the marginal and average price.
We must also improve our grain transportation facilities which all the western members of parliament deplored in debating the grain handlers' strike earlier in the session. It goes without saying that all the countries which pledged their commitment at Rome must also help the very poor countries to improve their delivery systems. Some estimates suggest that only 60 per cent of the grain sent to India ever gets inland to the hungry.
Now I want to talk for a few minutes about the food crisis and population growth in these poor countries. The food crisis is, of course, tied to some extent to their rapid population growth: 74 per cent of the world's population already lives in the Asian, African and Latin-American regions where poverty, poor health and malnutrition are widespread. By the year 2,000 these regions will account for between 81 per cent and 84 per cent, whether fertility declines or not. At the same time, the share of the world population living in the comparative luxury of North America and Europe will decrease from 26 per cent to between 16 per cent and 19 per cent.
I am quoting from the International Monetary Fund projection made in December, 1973. The recent population
World Food Crisis
conference in Bucharest, also sponsored by the United Nations, made clear, though, that the problems of these poor countries is not population growth as such. Population is, of course, a factor in development, but so is international economic equity. The opening paragraph of the "Plan of Action" adopted by consensus of the delegates at the Bucharest conference emphasized that-
The basis for an effective solution of population problems is above all socio-economic transformation.
That idea is recurrent in the document. High fertility rates cannot be lowered by the mere provision of family planning information and material, important as that is. Declines in birth rates and family size are associated with development and modernization, as our own history testifies. Population, moreover, is not the critical source of pressure on the earth's resources and environment. It is consumption that matters, whether by large populations of poor countries or by high per person consumption and waste in the rich countries. In this connection I wish to quote from The Scientific American of November, 1974, at page 49:
It is imperative that all countries, and within them all social sectors, should adapt themselves to more rational utilization of natural resources without excess so that some are not deprived of what others waste.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding these remarks I wish to summarize my thoughts by saying that in the short run the very poor countries with starving and near-starving people need our aid, and we should give it as generously and as efficiently as we can. There is, moreover, the question of trade, as well as aid, which the Canadian delegation at Rome-despite what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said-seemed to sidetrack by their filibustering methods. It should be evident to us that these poor countries need access to our markets at stable and decent prices. They also need help from all the better-off countries, in terms of technology and capital.
On the other hand, Canada, the United States and other donor countries should not be expected to do the following, and I quote Richard N. Garner, professor of law at Columbia University, the originator of the imaginative notion of a "global survival pact" who is referring to the United States but the same sentiment would hold for Canada:
-be willing to give endless amounts of food to an Indian government that cuts its family planning budget, mismanages food production and distribution and invests scarce resources in the testing of nuclear devices.
That quotation is from the New York Times of November 11, 1974, at page 1. In conclusion, I wish to speak on leadership and generosity. Surely we can all agree that the impoverished nations must in the long run feed themselves and must learn to control their population through family planning that does not seem to them to be destroying their dignity or smacking of an imperialistic and racial plot on our part.
It should now be obvious to all of us that it is very difficult to initiate the practice of birth control in a country in which there is little social and economic progress. Surely it behooves Canada and the other "fat cats" of this world to go an extra mile in helping them with very

November 15, 1974
World Food Crisis
generous aid in the short run. This will mean, if millions are not to starve over the next decade, that we and the other donor countries will have put together something much more extensive, in food terms, than a Marshall Plan. I submit that this is a frightening and complex challenge, but only then will we have time to witness new agricultural developments in these poor countries and the hope of adequate population control. I think that the Canadian people will show the depth of their generosity as never before, if they are given leadership on this acute problem of our human family. I say this, coming as I do from an area of Canada where poverty and near-poverty, in Canadian terms, is not unknown to us.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on the motion proposed by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan), I am pleased to have the opportunity again to take part in a debate on a major international crisis being faced in the year 1974. I am grateful that the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has presented this motion, and for the opportunity to speak again at length on this subject.
Hon. members may recall that on October 21 of this session of parliament I presented a private member's resolution with respect to the establishment of a world food authority. This gave hon. members a brief opportunity to consider the importance and dimensions of the present world food crisis. I think that of immediate concern to all hon. members, and surely to most Canadians, is the question: is there indeed a food crisis? Indeed, we have been inundated in the past few years with a variety of international crises. We have heard of the monetary crisis, the ecological or environmental crisis, the energy crisis, the population crisis and, more recently via the news media, we have heard of the food crisis.
I suppose it is part of the expression of the world in which we live that all of these crises in their turn-and they have considerable dimension-are not confined either within a national boundary or within a regional territory. In a very real sense, they have worldwide dimensions. I suppose we are faced with the situation that one of the problems in dealing with monetary, energy, ecological and population questions is that we have not yet evolved the kind of institutions which can satisfactorily deal with these problems. But I believe it can be said, without fear, of contradiction, that the basic necessity of food for human sustenance and survival is so elemental that no subject could take precedence over it.
We have been told repeatedly and increasingly that food shortages in parts of Africa and Asia and in other localized parts of the world are so acute as to cause severe malnutrition and death, and we realize that we are faced with the greatest crisis of all. It is a grave crisis by any stretch of the imagination, whether or not we talk about it in terms used recently in the New York Times, which indicated that 32 nations are close to starvation. Some of the nations mentioned were Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Ethiopia, a whole variety of countries in the northern part of Africa, and specific countries in this hemisphere such as Haita, Honduras, El Salvador and Guyana. These 32 nations which account for hundreds of millions of the world's population have reached such a low-nutrition level that it's becoming increasingly certain that we are on the 
brink, or are already in a situation of the gravest possible nature.
I should like to read the opening paragraph of the preparatory document put forward at the World Food Conference, which perhaps better than any other document presents the situation in which we find ourselves. It reads:
The present world food crisis, originating from a combination of longer term problems and temporary setbacks, suddenly emerged in a pronounced form in 1972. In that year the output of food in the world declined for the first time in more than 20 years.
That indicates to us that we are not dealing with the age-old problem of an insufficient amount of food for specific groups of people related to poor harvests and weather conditions, inadequate trade, or a whole variety of events, some man-made and some that are not within the control of man. We have been told repeatedly in this century that more people in this world go to bed hungry every night than people who go to bed having had sufficient nourishment. That is not the problem to which the World Food Conference in Rome is addressing itself, it is not the problem that we are faced with in 1974, nor the problem that we are discussing today. We are discussing a crisis situation.
It is a well known fact that the year 1970 marded a kind of watershed in world food -production. Until 1970 there was a continual acceleration of food production which was marginally greater than the growth of the world's population. But we know that following 1970 there was a series of new factors which created a growing gap between the world's productivity and the necessity for the vital elements of food. These relate to a number of man-made factors, such as increased prices and cost of production, decreasing revenues for developing countries, more rapid expansion, in certain instances, of population growth, and a disastrous quadrupling of oil prices in a short period of time which subsequently caused shortage of fertilizers and pesticides so badly needed for improved agriculture in the world.
We are faced with, as a result of these factors-I should also include weather and climatic changes- the most serious kind of famine situation in more than 30 nations of the world. It is interesting to think of that situation vis-a-vis our own domestic situation, because 1970 was a peak year for food production in Canada. It was the year in which we had very large domestic production, so large that we had a large food aid program. I think one would have to say that those two went together. The production was so large that we instituted a program to induce farmers to stop producing. Hon. members will recall the now infamous Lower Inventories for Tomorrow program. It seems a shocking program, in light of what we are facing in 1974.
So there is a food crisis. We read the reports published a few months ago by the executive director of the Children's Fund, who warned that the threat of severe malnutrition or even starvation faces 400 million to 500 million children in poorer countries; and hon. members cannot look with equanimity on the fact that large numbers-in the hundreds of millions-of those who are most dependent, women and children, are near starvation. That, of course, is the background of the present World Food Conference
November 15, 1974

taking place in Rome. It is the reason we are being asked to address ourselves to the important question of food aid, changes in the distribution system in the world and in trade, and development programs that are currently locked into a whole range of international relations.
One of the most outstanding happenings, with respect to our country, at this conference is the commitment made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Eachen) for a million tons of food aid each year for the next three years: it was welcomed in Rome, and I believe it was welcomed in Canada, as an important move toward the alleviation of the immediate food shortage. I think all Canadians support this gesture. However, in the last two or three days there has been a disconcerting approach to the most immediate aspect of the problem, which is, of course, the next 12 months or even the next 8 months because this is the period of most elemental need in a number of countries.
Last Wednesday we were told that our government was prepared to make an announcement, on an immediate basis, of an additional .6 million tons of food aid to countries facing acute food shortages. Yesterday, however, in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) the Secretary of State for External Affairs backtracked. We have heard that the Secretary General of the Food and Agriculture Organization, has lashed out at countries like Canada who are refusing to respond to the most immediate aspect of the problem. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), in Rome, and here at home the Secretary of State for External Affairs, indicated that they are waiting, to put it in the vernacular, to see who else is going to put money on the table before Canada makes its move. In Rome, the Minister of Agriculture apparently expected to see some quid pro quo either from the oil producing nations or other nations who might make a financial contribution that would pay for the aid we are supposed to provide during the current year.
Apart from the commitment we have announced for the next three years, if you look at what has happened in Canadian food aid since 1970-71 you will see it is a sorry story in comparison to world food needs. In 1970-71 we gave 1,271,000 metric tons; in 1971-72, 1,663,000 metric tons; in 1972-73, 782,000 metric tons; in 1973-74, 637,000 metric tons; and the expectation for this year, before the commitment in Rome, was 570,000 metric tons. That is not a record to be proud of in light of the current food situation.
I wonder where the government stands, Mr. Speaker. If we can do nothing else in this debate today, hopefully the Secretary of State for External Affairs or some government spokesman will clarify the government's position with respect to immediate food needs. I think Canadians will be flabbergasted to realize that we have talked magnanimously about contributing a million tons a year for the next three years, and then have completely held off making a contribution when it is needed most, that is, during the next few months. It is monstrous to think that people who are starving can hold out in the expectation of food aid 12 months from now. They will not have the capacity to survive that long.
World Food Crisis
I do not want to speak only about that, Mr. Speaker, although I think it is vital that it be clarified in this debate, but I also want to speak about Canada's general attitude to the World Food Conference. It is an attitude which has depressed me and many members of this House.
I think we have seen very clearly, in this conference, a tremendous vacuum of leadership. Major world nations such as the Soviet Union, the United States and China have, for different or perhaps similar reasons, not been able to provide vital leadership to the conference. In potential, Canada has had a tremendous opportunity. In many ways we were the ideal country to provide leadership to the conference. In a sense, we straddle the fence in that we are one of the more developed nations and yet have many of the characteristics of the underdeveloped world, particularly in the utilization of our natural resources and our energy. We are undoubtedly a major world producer and exporter, as well as a major trading nation.
In view of the absence of leadership by the great nations at this forum, it would have been logical if our two ministers and our official delegation at Rome had worked both at the preparatory conferences and during the past two weeks at the final conference to provide leadership on key questions that have not yet been resolved. But what has our leadership done? We have said, in the first instance, that we are prepared to give food aid for the next three years but we are not prepared to commit ourselves for the immediate future. We have said that discussion on questions of trade and development is not appropriate at this forum and should be discussed under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
In answering questions that I put to the minister on Tuesday and Thursday of this week he seemed to be trying to assure me and other members that if I would only be patient, something beneficial for the developing countries would come out of GATT. If there had been representatives and observers from developing nations in the gallery, I think they would have been shaking their heads sadly to realize that Canada is still committed to an institution which has shown so little responsibility toward freer, fair trade practices in respect of the developing countries. Many years ago GATT was dubbed "the rich man's club". It is basically in response to the failure of GATT to develop appropriate trade relationships with the underdeveloped world that we have had three conferences sponsored by the United Nations Conference on Trade, Aid and Development. Often the shortcomings revealed by the UNCTAD meetings have been the result of the GATT nations only being willing to "talk turkey" in their own forum.
Why cannot this country recognize that we have not yet found an appropriate institutional arrangement through which the underdeveloped countries can develop satisfactory trading relations? The Secretary of State for External Affairs said that he did not think a discussion of these issues at the Rome conference was appropriate, and that we must wait. I find that difficult to understand, Mr. Speaker. The opening speech of the Secretary General of FAO, and the major documents that were prepared for the conference and for the preparatory meetings, offered not only an abundance of evidence of need for restructuring the international economic community, but a series of

November 15, 1974
World Food Crisis
very specific resolutions. The Third Committee, entitled National and International Programs of Action, recommended specific objectives and measures in the area of international trade and adjustment which are relevant to the food problem, including measures toward stabilization and expansion of markets for exports from developing countries.
Our responsibility at Rome was to provide some leadership, some link between the underdeveloped countries of the world, who often focused their presentations on the Group of Seventy-seven, the developed nations and those that are oil producing. Canada is almost unique, in that we have characteristics of an underdeveloped country because we export willy-nilly too many of our unprocessed resources as well as a great deal of energy, and we are heavily integrated with the economy of the United States; and, because of our oil producing capability, we have the opportunity to talk to the OPEC countries. But the Secretary of State for External Affairs has told us that in respect of this conference we will adopt a "wait and see" attitude. That is not international leadership, Mr. Speaker; it is the path of least resistance. Indeed, it is the path of the cowardly lion. I shudder to think that our response to the world food crisis so far has followed that path. Canadians will not hold their heads high in regard to our performance to date on the question of the world food challenge.
I hope it is not too late to take action. There will be conferences, in February of next year, of the United Nations Conference on Trade, Aid and Development- UNCTAD-and following Rome there will be ministerial meetings. I hope that our ministers and their officials will review what has been said in this country. I think there is a substantial and growing body of public opinion that is far ahead of this minister and this government with respect to the problem. I believe Canadians expect much more leadership on this problem than we have received to date. When the minister responds today, I hope he will indicate that he is taking the matter seriously. In the last few months there have been outstanding meetings of nongovernmental agencies in Ottawa and in regional centres. Meetings of agribusiness organizations have indicated they are prepared to make a commitment. The opportunities are immense for the minister to respond to the appetite for leadership, and I hope we shall see the first evidence of this in the debate today.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity I have to speak on the motion before us which seeks to blame the government and reads in part as follows:
-condemns the government for its failure, both before and during the World Food Conference in Rome, to provide leadership concerning the food crisis facing many developing nations, and calls on the government to give real leadership on this most acute problem of our time-
Mr. Speaker, our judgment of the proceedings at the latest World Food Conference in Rome must not be onesided. The first question we ask is what has Canada done until now and what should it have done. We must also ask what have and should have other countries done.

That is why it is said that Canada should give leadership or even take the initiative in those matters. Any ordinary and simple man must not aim at doing a giant's work. Without inferring that Canada has done all it could until now, we may assume that it certainly cannot accomplish as much as more powerful countries, because we must remember that its population is only 22 million people and its doings must be related to its size.
As for the needs of underdeveloped countries, no one will deny it is urgent that producing countries offer them help.
When I examine the whole situation, I can see that the main enemy to this aid that all producing countries should be offering to the population of underdeveloped countries is the profiteer. And there is quite a number of profiteers. Mr. Speaker, whether it is an individual, a cartel, a chief of state or even a nation, whoever wants to can find a way to use this aid to make what is known as big money, money which is the economic blood stream of all nations. I believe that in this as in other things, it is still he who controls finances who is often the cause of the atrocious famines which are devastating certain countries.
Mr. Speaker, Canada should concentrate more on the production side and lend a hand to the food industry, expecially agriculture. If we are really living in a favoured country, rich in produce of all kinds, we must stop going against the grain of nature by preventing production, even going to the length of paying farmers to prevent production with the excuse that we will have too much grain and too much beef. The western producers have been paid to prevent them from producing wheat for fear of having too much the next year. Subsidies were granted to egg producers and they were paid to kill chickens because there were too many eggs. Producers in almost every field in Canada are paid to prevent them from producing while two thirds of the world population is starving to death.
That is the ridiculous situation we are living in, here, in Canada. That is why the government should, in future, grant subsidies to that industry par excellence which is agriculture instead of allowing further slaughterings like those which have just been witnessed in my region as a protest against the government. The government should stop granting subsidies to the tune of $100 million and $200 million to multinational corporations and should rather give them to those who produce so that entire populations might live. That is the only way that Canada will be able to help the underdeveloped countries.
May I say that it is one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS
[Stage Direction]

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
November 15, 1974
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, before the House took recess, I was saying that if the government is to fulfill those promises they made at the World Food Conference, namely to supply underdeveloped countries with more grain, they should give Canadian producers some incentives. I know that if we want to double our production, the only way to encourage Canadian farmers to do so is to double farm aid, because we have to admit that if we are going to help underdeveloped countries, we shall only be sending them our surpluses. We know that Canada has production surpluses and can produce more provided production is not being stymied, and farmers are enabled to cultivate every tillable land in Canada.
Today, Mr. Speaker, 40 per cent of farm lands in my area are not being used for agricultural purposes. In view of world needs, I think this is a shameful situation. We are just behaving like cowards in respect of two thirds of the starving people of some countries who are awaiting their leaders' decisions.
Canada has provided them with grain and a certain amount of money, but I believe the greatest need of those countries is for technical help. I was just reading part of a statement in which the minister said, I quote:
It is therefore likely that the conference will concentrate on the means of increasing food production in developing countries. The conference will however also deal with the necessity to increase world food safety by improving medias and coordinating storage activities.
I believe the major problem of developing countries today simply lies with technical help. We agree that we have to send them food to help them survive until they are in a position to provide for their own needs by themselves. Not only do we have to feed populations for a few months or a few years, but above all to provide them with the means to ensure their own survival. I think we shall have to work harder in that direction in the next few years.
The minister announced in his report that to fertilize the lands in underdeveloped countries, our nation should provide fertilizers and expertise in drainage techniques. I agree with that.
I think that right now those countries are in greater need of water wells than oil wells.
Today all the money is devoted to the oil wells, forgetting the important thing, that is drilling water wells to fertilize the land and allow people to live in a country which can supply them with food and clothing, provided technology enters those countries.
That is what Canada has been doing and can do in the future. I was also wondering what the other industrialized or producing countries were doing. The minister mentioned in his report he would do everything possible as long as the other countries would do their share and also make a commitment, and that is normal. The oil producing countries today do not know what to do with their oil, even in areas of starvation. I suggest the leaders of those countries are criminals and the United Nations should bring them back to order and force them to produce not only oil and arms, but also and more particularly food. I have here an article of La Presse of November 12 entitled "I feel war is close." I quote:
Following the Rabat summit last week Saudi Arabia and a few other oil producing countries undertook to supply annually $1 billion to Syria and Egypt, $300 million to Jordan and $50 million to the PLO for
World Food Crisis
the purchase of arms. That led an observer (cf Times ll-XI-74) to say: "If the United States try to do as much for Israel, their balance of payments will remain in the red forever".
According to Mr. Arafat, the Pentagon intends to do as much for Israel and is currently making haste to deliver huge quantities of arms to them. Why so much money? Why so many arms? If eggs are broken it must be because there is an omelet in the offing.
Such articles, Mr. Speaker, make serious nations shiver. We all are aware of the feeding needs of some people and a war is being prepared with billions of dollars.
The nations which still believe in peace and justice in the world should rise and protest against these things. One will say that they are oil producing countries. If we wanted to use oil today for the sustenance of people, we could do fine things. I read in the Courrier de Vlnde in connection with the struggle against starvation:
Oil proteins should be sold on the market for feed grain, beginning in 1970. A synthetic meat is being developed in the United State from soya beans as well as synthetic milk for human consumption. The congress of the British Veterinary Association is discussing what is called the new era of food.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it would be much more profitable for those countries to get back into this new era of food and to stop playing war, because that is a very dangerous game.
Mr. Speaker, when we look at the other countries, we wonder what they have done with the aid that Canada has given them. Every one knows what has happened in Ethiopia where Canadian gifts have been used by financiers and members of government to line their own pockets.
As for Pakistan, Bangladesh and all those other countries, Canada has taken its responsibilities. The authorities of those countries also have great responsibilities.
I always think of India when it is suggested we send meat to those countries when the people of India still have beef walking around in city streets.


An hon. Member:: Sacred cows!


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Sacred cows!
Well, I, for one, think that the population should eat those sacred cows instead of letting them walk around in their cities.
I think that world organisations should warn those countries, help them technically and also give them the means to feed their populations.
Mr. Speaker, it is easy to see that in all countries, the governments are sacrificing production to improve their finances and the position of their financial backers.
As I said before, the greatest enemy of all is still financial interests. There will always be people who will think of their financial interests before thinking of saving human lives. While two thirds of the world population are starving to death, those who are holding the purse strings are playing games. The international fat-cat financiers, although they are protected by governments, know that it cannot last. That is why they are looking for an opportunity to provoke a world war to serve their financial interests once again with a deluge of human blood. That is the present situation!

November 15, 1974
World. Food Crisis
Mr. Speaker, some people say:"It's no use reasoning with a hungry man". The underdeveloped countries are ready to do anything to get a meal a day.
Mr. Speaker, my time is almost gone. In conclusion, I hope that the producing countries will awaken and become aware of the situation in the underdeveloped countries and provide them with assistance.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to particularly congratulate the mover of today's motion for a statement that set a very good level of debate in this Chamber. I listened to him with a great deal of attention, and there was very little in his speech-a very serious, but moderate speech-with which hon. members of this House could disagree. I think the second speaker for the official opposition, and the hon. member who followed him, also set the tone for this debate concerning a problem we all recognize as being most serious.
On this side of the House we often wonder what the opposition will choose as its subject to present against the government. I think it would have been equally in order for the opposition to have chosen a motion dealing with inflation; they could have talked at some length about the increasing cost of food production and the need for a subsidy on bread to keep the price within the limits of the people of Canada. Their motion could have called attention to the problems of agriculture, and they could have said that the government should do more to stabilize prices to consumers in Canada. That would have been a good and realistic case requiring an answer.
The case of our international responsibility has also been put-that Canada should take the lead in pledging more food to other countries of the world, especially those which have been described in such startling terms as facing famine in our generation. There is no question that the case is good, and convincing. The responsibility of the government is to balance priorities-priorities on the domestic front and on the international front-to meet the total program that is to be presented.
The hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) asked a rhetorical question, "Is there a crisis of food production?" Of course, he was very well able to document the fact that there is a crisis. I did not hear him, in the course of this debate-and I regret that I did not hear his previous statement on a private member's motion-amplify his reference to climatological changes which are taking place. This is a subject that has disturbed me and, I am sure, other members of this House. Those of us who have read the works of Professor Reid Bryson, director of the Institute of Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin, would have very grave reason to be concerned if just a small fraction of what he is predicting is true.
I should like to call the attention of hon. members to an article that appeared in Science on May 17 of this year, volume 184, No. 4138. It is called "The Perspective of Climatic Change," by Professor Reid Bryson. It is written in fairly technical terms and is a paper presented to the American Association for the Advancement of Science. It is not the kind of article which the average reader would be able to digest in terms of the technical discussion, the

data, charts and evidence. A much more popular version appeared in Fortune magazine in February of this year, by Mr. Tom Alexander. It is entitled "Ominous Changes in the World's Weather". I know there have been prophets of doom from the day of Thomas Robert Malthus, and there have been grave predictions about what is happening in relation to problems of food supply; but many of us have learned that these prophesies of gloom have been grossly exaggerated.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: It started with Adam and Eve.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) suggests that perhaps these prophe-sis started in the days of Adam and Eve. I do not think we can dismiss the evidence lightly, and we have an obligation to look upon it. In quoting Bryson's findings, he suggests that we have always assumed in the past that changes in climate are a matter of geological record; they are in the deep and distant past and we do not have to take them very seriously. But Professor Bryson and his institute have, over a period of several decades, carried out very careful studies on changes in the climate in Iceland, careful probes of Greenland's ice-caps, and they have tried to assess over a long period what has happened to our climate.
If there is anything that will send shivers up your spine, it is the reading of some of their predictions. They say that for nearly half of the current century mankind was apparently blessed with the most benign climate of any period in at least 1,000 years. During this kindly era the human population more than doubled, and now there is good reason to believe that the world's climate is reverting rapidly to its less beneficent form. I know that somebody will say at this point, "We have heard that story before," but I suggest there is an obligation to look at the evidence-and the evidence is startling. One of the scholars associated with the team which was considering the longterm trends said:
One of climatology's more surprising recent conclusions, derived from investigations of sea-floor sediments, is that for at least the past 700,000 years, global mean temperatures have been as high as they are now only about 5 per cent of the time.
Then it is said:
-sometimes transistions from one major temperature regime to another have taken place with astounding rapidity, often within a century or so.
Bryson attempts something that many scientists say is still unproved; that is, to provide a global hypothesis of climatic change. I am not competent to do justice to it, but the essence of the forecast is that something is happening around the polar ice-cap which is disturbing wind patterns .on the surface of the globe. He refers to changes in the monsoon in northern India and to patterns in southern France and the northern deserts of the Sahara. He relates this to areas in which droughts are occurring where they did not occur before, and where floods are occurring where they did not occur before. He puts the thesis to us that we are indeed facing a major diminution in food supply areas of the world. If a fraction of what he says is true, the consequences are most serious. He predicts, for example, that the monsoon will not return to northern India in the foreseeable future. Such a prediction would have incalcu-
November 15, 1974

lable consequences to large numbers of people in all parts of the world, should it prove to be true or should it prove to be true for a few years only. There is a crisis. We all accept that. I simply call attention to these two articles because I have not heard reference to them, and the evidence presented is not of a nature that we can lightly or quickly brush aside.
The problems of world food production have been outlined by other hon. members. I have a brother who has spent most of his lifetime studying this matter. He is a professor of food technology in a United States institute. I can barely discuss nor can I read his articles and understand them. But in the course of fishing expeditions in the summer, when we get together, he has said that we should consider what is happening to a number of food exporting nations in the world, particularly those that export proteins. For example, Argentina has ceased to be a food exporter in recent years. What has happened there can only be construed as a tragedy. It cannot be construed by many people who know the field as anything but mismanagement of the food resources of that country.
The failure of the Soviet bloc to develop the agricultural technology which would permit it to take its place among the food exporting nations of the world is a tragedy of our times. The potential food producing areas within the political domination of that bloc are equivalent to those of North America. It is to the North American economy that the world is looking for leadership and for supplies of food. I do not think we in Canada should take a narrow, parochial view of the question of the supply of food on this continent. It is easy to say there are certain techniques in North America, and in so doing we may be accused of being continentalists. Every speaker mentions Canadian food production and agriculture as though this existed on its own without reference to patterns of food development on this continent.
I am proud, as I am sure all hon. members are, of the target pledged by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) when speaking on behalf of Canada at the World Food Conference. Members participating in this debate rightfully have said we should be able to do more. The emphasis clearly is on leadership. We accept that. I do not think anyone in this House would dispute it. We must recognize that there is a very close and intimate association, not only in respect of technology and the means of producing food but also the problems the world faces on a broader front, including the crisis in respect of energy and the crisis in respect of the balance of payments, which is a very serious question; it has caused dislocations in western Europe in countries such as Italy and the United Kingdom.
The spokesman for Canada at the World Food Council- the minister-said, very properly, that it is a matter of long-term, collective planning. We are prepared to accept more than our proportionate share of responsibility because we have the resources and the food capacity; we accept the responsibility because of these facts. We have the responsibility of making sure that our agricultural industry does not follow the lead of countries such as Argentina and others where there has been waste. We must continue to take our place with other food exporting
World. Food Crisis
nations of the world. However, I am sure we would be deluding everybody if we were to suggest that a permanent solution of the world's food problems can be found on the basis of the continuous support of large exporters of food to other areas dependent, as they are, in the short term.
I was particularly interested in the reference by opposition spokesmen to world population problems. The hon. member who introduced the subject was careful and I found myself in substantial agreement with everything he said. But he did make one remark which gave me a little concern. I think I know what he intended. He said that the problem is not population but, rather, consumption so far as large areas of the world are concerned. He said Canada should give the lead by consuming less and exporting more.
I think that is a fair statement of his position. Few of us could disagree with that. However, as a matter of practical politics and a balance of priorities which the government must face, I think we must say there is a very serious problem of population in many areas of the world. It is not just a matter of our consuming less. It was a matter of regret to me to read in the record of the world population conference at Bucharest of the failure by large sections of the world and many countries to accept the responsibility that they clearly must accept in our time. The hon. member who introduced the motion said social and economic development and population policies must go hand and hand. We agree, but these must both progress. There is no way in which the planet can continue to support the population being generated in some parts of the world without the most profound and distressing social consequences for millions and millions of people.
Recently I had the opportunity to visit the General Assembly of the United Nations, where I looked at the population commission forecasts. I believe the member who introduced the motion said that 80 per cent or 84 per cent of the really seriously underprivileged people of the world will be found in the Asiatic regions by the year 2000. I have seen forecasts that are even more shocking. Projections must be made on the assumption of increases in population in our country in our time. We have come very close to something like zero population growth in respect of those who are residents of Canada.
I hope we will always provide a haven for those who suffer from problems of persecution in other countries of the world. We have been a country which has welcomed people from other parts of the world and I am sure we will continue to do so, but I think most of us who have given thought to this matter are beginning to say, and some of my colleagues on this side of the House have said, that the world must relate certain things. It must think in terms of its numbers. It must think in terms of policies which relate to those numbers. It must think in terms of its food supply and must adopt-and the difficulties technologically and economically are immense-social and cultural measures which will lead us to a more rational development of our food supply. The world must plan, not only the use of this food technology but also its energy resources in such a way that there is not serious disruption in respect of other nations attempting to pursue the same goal.

November 15, 1974
World Food Crisis
I believe we can do more and I am sure we will do more: I am sure Canada will do more in the short-term and in the long-term. I am sure we will maintain an efficient agricultural industry which will be one of the finest examples to offer the rest of the world.
I am sure that in the councils of the nations of the world we will continue to call attention to the many fronts on which progress must be made before the spectre of hunger can be averted in our generation. It was the historian Toynbee, a very well read scholar, who said that the tragedy of the twentieth century was that it had the potential and technology to overcome the ancient scourges of illness, famine and lack of shelter, but it could not find the means to apply them.


Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today condemns the government for its failure to provide leadership in the food crisis facing us and asks the government to adopt a trade policy favourable to the future development of countries which are in distress. I am pleased to take part in this debate because I represent one of the great sunshine, food producing areas in Canada, namely, southwestern Saskatchewan. There is growing, worldwide respect for agriculture, and this is as it should be. In Canada we can produce enough food for 60 million people if we go full-out in respect of agriculture. However, in India alone there was an increase in population in the last four years of 70 million people.
We are all aware of the World Food Conference which just ended in Rome. I am sorry to note there were not more firm decisions taken. But now the major grain traders of the world have put off making a decision until they meet in London, England, on November 29 after the regular International Wheat Council meeting. It appears that the immediate need will be for between 185 million and 200 million bushels of wheat in the next 12 months. Canada will be giving away in the next 12 months almost 50 million bushels of wheat. So it is obvious that priority must be given to the agricultural industry and, most important of all, to the producers themselves.
As I said earlier, Canada's food contribution will be mainly in wheat, so I would like to say a few words about this grain. Canada is the largest exporter of high quality bread wheat in the world. Our American friends export more bushels, but it is mainly of the soft, winter variety which is not so well suited to bread-making. Wheat has been connected with the development of man as far back as we can go. A grain of wheat by itself is a small thing, and man by himself is also a small thing. Yet this tiny seed of the grass family changed man's world because, with wheat and bread, he moved out of the cave and was able to control his environment-not be controlled by it. Wheat gave him an everyday food from a grain he could store and plant in a field where he wanted it to grow. Then man went on to live in villages, develop a language and establish laws.
Some men hunted and others planted. With wheat in his hand, man literally walked out of the Stone Age. He went on to build cities and then civilizations. Wheat has a trait denied all other grains. The Egyptians discovered that

yeast made wheat dough rise, and this is how they produced bread. The value of wheat was well known in bygone days. In the days when Rome ruled the world, each legionnaire carried a ration of wheat on his back. Wheat was so greatly revered in China that the emperor made the first planting every season. "Bread" was the loudest cry in the French revolution, and Napoleon's generals wept when they discovered that the Russians had burned the wheat fields which lay ahead. Our young visitors in the gallery today will know that war was never started until the harvest was ripe.
I could go on and on, but with all the progress that our grain industry has made, it must be realized that it still starts from a tiny seed in a wheat field. It knows no race, no creed, no colour, no nationality and no politics. However, in Canada we have never been able to separate wheat from politics. I should like to quote the following words from a radio report of the largest grain handling organization in Canada, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool:
Recent federal government action in Canada-and in some cases lack of it-came under heavy fire November 12, from E. K. Turner, president of Saskatchewan Wheat Pool.
Speaking at the annual meeting, Mr. Turner said:
"I would like to see the federal budget introduce measures designed to curb inflation, but the interests and priorities of the government appear to lie in other direction."
The president also said pool members, as farmers and operators of a business, "must express our concern about the heavy-handed interference of the federal government".
Mr. Turner is further quoted as saying:
"Now we are finding that, increasingly, marketing decisions are being made by politicians and civil servants. Decisions relative to our own operations are being imposed from outside. Farmers' choices are being limited by government decree".
Those are strong words, but unfortunately they are true. Mr. Ira K. Mumford, general manager of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, in reviewing problems of concern to farm people said the following at the same meeting:
"Excessive public debate about the future grain handling and transportation system and new government grain programs are confusing and unsettling to say the least".
This government seems determined to keep our agricultural industry in a state of turmoil and confusion. Nobody seems to know where we are going. Over the past decade we have been subject to an ideological and political war in Canada over the future of this basic agricultural industry. On the one hand we heard economists conclude from their statistics and projections that agriculture was a poor yield investment and the agricultural industry a dispensable social problem. Quite dispassionately, and on what appeared to them to be perfectly logical economic grounds, they declared both the agricultural community and our wheat industry to be expendable. We know now that that was wrong.
On the other hand, just as scientific and dispassionate in their approach and their arguments were the nutritionists who looked mainly at projected increases in world food needs, and the demographers who studied the frightening rate of increase in the world's population. So on one hand we had a group of experts telling Canada, in effect, to get out of agriculture and into some other, more profitable sphere of industrial output, to cut our heavy social over-
November 15, 1974

head by guiding people off the farms and into urban centres of industry, and on the other hand we had another group of experts saying, "Make agriculture more technology-oriented, more productive, more widespread, more active, not only in the national interest but in the interest of all mankind." We know now that the latter approach is the correct one, but it took us a long time to get there.
We must make sure what this is all about because, after all, it is people and not institutions and systems that we should be worrying about. The problem in the world today is the widening gap between the demand for food and its production, especially in the developing world. The question is, how did we arrive at this situation, dnd for what reasons, because all the developing countries are predominantly agricultural and yet find they cannot produce to feed themselves? This, then, is the key question.
I notice that in the motion before us the government is being urged to adopt a trade policy favourable to the future development of these countries. I think the answer has its roots in the past 25 years or so in the western world when we stressed massive development and planning. Most of the money and effort in agriculture has been going into capital investment projects for cash crops for export, so as to earn foreign exchange to pay for imports. In the developing countries most of the staple foods are grown by peasants who were neglected in most of the aid and economic development plans. So the ineviatble happened: when you neglect the staple food producer, food production will stagnate and population and costs rise. Sooner or later the gap causes problems.
That is where we are now, and none of us can escape the worldwide consequences. Hundreds of millions of peasants were drawn into the world's market economy as consumers, not as producers. They were taught to want education, to become doctors and engineers, to want transistor radios, king sized cigarettes and Coca-Cola. Mr. Speaker, we should forget about trying to build up a middle-class hooked on our western standards. These people were not taught how to grow and produce more goods to pay for all the things they had learned to want, nor to feed all the extra mouths better health had brought them.
It is interesting that last night the Canadian Wheat Board stated that of the grain we give to Asian countries, about 20 per cent is spoiled by rodents and infestation. That means that if Canada is going to give up to 50 million bushels of grain per year, at least 7 or 8 million bushels will be spoiled. I assure that grain is worth about $7 per bushel laid down in those countries, which means that about $50 million of the taxpayers' money would be wasted every year. Surely there is an opportunity for the government to do something to correct this situation.
These are several attitudes toward foreign aid, Mr. Speaker. The cynical opinion, of course, is that it is an instrument of international exploitation on a grand scale. Another view is that the rich countries were genuinely committed to providing money to promote development in the rest of the world. We all like to think that the poor countries will seize the opportunities and resources offered and that there will be a dramatic eradication of
World Food Crisis
poverty, ignorance and disease in those countries. Surely the truth must be somewhere in between. The rich countries do have interests other than the welfare of far away people, and the governments of the poor countries are as interested in their own political survival as in economic change.
Only now we are beginning to realize the seriousness of the situation which was spelled out so well by the World Food Conference held in Rome. Farmers should not hesitate to speak out, because they have the biggest stake in the agricultural business. Grain policy must emanate from the farm. The misfortune of other people around the world has helped our agricultural industry in Canada, so we can take no credit for policies developed here. Our agricultural industry has survived in spite of the government's action.
A group of farmers, members of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers, attended the World Food Conference in Rome as official observers but as a non-governmental body. They announced that they were very upset at the way the view of producers were being ignored by the conference secretariat. Mr. Charles Munro, the Canadian president of this international federation, said there had been a marked lack of consultation with farming interests when the conference agenda was drawn up. He said that the people who actually produce food have more right than many governments or economists to make decisions.
The question now, Mr. Speaker, is whether the nations of the world will co-operate in this food crisis, or will each nation see its special advantages as a weapon? Canada must re-examine the priorities and practices of her food production. We have tended to pile more and more plans and papers for the solution of food and population crises on the desks of the overworked civil servants of these developing countries. We need more than glib moralizing. I repeat what the hon. member for Egmont (MacDonald) said earlier: there is a growing body of public opinion in this country whose thinking is far ahead of that of this government.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, in the short term, food grain must be rushed to the famine-threatened areas. In the long term, world grain production must increase dramatically. Canada must do her share, starting with some clearcut policies by this government.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to join in the debate on this important topic. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) has done us all a service by raising the matter for discussion. While I do not agree with his criticism of Canada's performance to date, I certainly support his concern that Canada's contribution be as effective as possible.
Canadians have always been deeply concerned with their moral and social responsibilities as world citizens, and have tried to give expression to that concern in ways that are practical, effective and acceptable to the other countries involved.
Our approaches to international aid have involved giving both immediate, practical aid and the kind of assistance toward long term planning that allows develop-

November 15, 1974
World Food Crisis
ing nations to improve their capability to handle their domestic food production, and so on.
One good example of this kind of broad approach is our assistance to the six countries of Africa's droughtstricken Sahel region following a study by CIDA. In addition to supplying food and transport trucks, our projects were aimed at solving problems in agriculture, transportation, food storage, stock raising, reforestation and the provision of fresh water to villages and grazing areas. The project to provide 85 wells in 85 villages in one region of Niger was tied in with existing development plans. I think this kind of careful long term planning may be one of our strengths.
The world food conference had a twofold aim, Mr. Speaker. The immediate problem was to deal with depleted world grain stocks, high prices for food grains, the shortage of fertilizers and so on, and next, to deal with the problems in the longer term.
Canada's response to the need for immediate assistance was prompt. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) announced a gift of one million tons of food grains annually for each of the next three years, and requested other nations to follow this example. A prompt, generous and direct gift of food is a necessary short term solution or answer to an emergency situation; the longer term answer is surely to help nations produce their own food. The $1 Vi million we granted to Bangladesh to help buy new crop seeds for fall planting, for farmers whose properties had been flooded, was useful. It would have been less useful had it not been made in relation to an ongoing program of Canadian food aid and a knowledge of local conditions, which made it possible to introduce new kinds of winter crops to areas normally left unplanted during the dry season.
I understand that Canada's aid program in 1974 will be about $733 million, including $100 million for food aid and fertilizer. I believe we have attempted to strike a responsible balance between direct aid and helping people to help themselves. Helping people to improve their competence will become increasingly important in the future. I believe this is a role particularly well suited to Canada. We are trusted by the developing nations because we are not a major power and because our commitment to human betterment is well known. Individual Canadians are usually well suited to this role. Anyone who observes this House will of course see that we are very modest and conciliatory people.
Seriously, I think our young people overseas with CUSO, and some of our retired people who have gone to lend their expertise in various projects have been very useful. They have shown their ability to accommodate to local conditions, a respect for local knowledge, and a capacity and willingness to work patiently with a situation rather than impose an alien technology. It has been said that we are going to be asked in the future to lend our best people for projects overseas. I would like to think that perhaps our greatest contribution in the future may be made by giving people expertise rather than direct aid, important though that may be.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) for reminding us, if indeed we needed reminding, that one of the most vital of the many conferences that seem to proliferate in the world these days is taking place in Rome.
We have a term of reference that I think is somewhat apt, by a great poet, Auden, who said wisely "When truly brothers, men don't sing in unison but in harmony." I hope very much that the results of this debate will mean just that. Although there may be political differences, the harmony that can come from such a debate is a will on the part of the government to do what other speakers have said is uniquely in the capacity of this country to do, that is, to provide the type of leadership the world must have if people are not to starve.
In another context I heard a reference to what must be one of the most cynical phrases of the age, that is, that the world is suffering from compassion fatigue. If I knew more about the method man uses to communicate with others, perhaps I could share with the House some observations about this. Some day it might be useful to have a debate on the fact that we are now almost shock proof. Statistics of death, destruction and famine come to us at such momentum that we somehow turn them off, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that is not deliberate. If it is, it is the end of civility as we know it.
The other what I think must be an obscene part of contemporary man is that although mankind is quite able to find cash for armament, we do not seem to have evolved any system of finding cash for those who hunger.
We have had a fairly careful analysis by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) and others of the immediate problem. The immediate problem is the real hunger of south-east Asia and the south Sahara region of Africa which, we understand, face a grain shortage of between seven and 11 million tons. We have also had the statistic that 15 per cent of the production of fertilizer in the United States is devoted to what might be called a trivial use, that is, for lawns, gardens and golf clubs. If that could be diverted to assist in growing crops a real impact could be made in countries where there is need.
We realize that those who have the most surely have the greatest obligation to sacrifice the most. Perhaps that is a trite observation, but no one taking part in this debate thinks that any solution can be found without personal sacrifice and also sacrifice by our government and the governments of the other developed countries.
My colleague, the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton), reminded us of another immorality of the last decade. That was a program known as LIFT. The interesting point is that two privy counsellors mentioned the immorality of LIFT, one a former Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), and the other, the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan).
In his former capacity the Minister of Agriculture-and I quote from a book "Hard to Swallow" by Walter Stewart-spoke or wrote to several members of the federal cabinet from his position in the back benches warning the government of the results of that wrong-headed policy.
November 15, 1974

The minister is deserving of a great deal of honour for his foresight.
In a debate about hunger we have to remember that wrong-headed policy. There is no point in sloughing it off and saying it did not happen. It was a deliberate policy of the government, which undoubtedly directly affected the lives of a great many of our brothers and sisters in the world.
I wish to comment on something rather unique that has been happening in Rome. Most of those involved perhaps would not wish me to mention them by name, but I want to mention a very helpful combination of the Canadian Council of Churches and the CCIC. They have provided a sort of latter day truth squad for the benefit of all members of this House.
This GATT-FLY organization went to the UNCTAD Three Conference in Santiago. However, at that time it had not developed a means of communicating quickly with members of parliament or, for that matter, ministers. This time the GATT-FLY group were supported by technical people who were the match of the public servants.
I have no reason to condemn the dedicated public servants who serve the government. The problem is that many of us do not have enough access to those public servants. However, access was provided by GATT-FLY. I commend them for their important addition to our knowledge of this subject. They have informed us on a daily basis of what the government of Canada is up to-they have urged us to commend when commendation is due, and they have urged us to get more information when more information was due us.
As a matter of fact, within the past few minutes they have been in touch with us about a rather negative decision made in the third committee in Rome. That went on just as this debate went on. It was, really, a retreat on the part of the developed nations, including Canada, in the face of the draft resolution presented by Mexico. Many of the requests contained therein were turned down by Canada and other developed countries. As a matter of fact, there was almost no reference to terms of trade.
The reference to just prices for exports in relation to imports was deleted. Deleted, too, was the reference to refunding customs duties, as was the specific reference to the maintenance of reserve stocks of basic cereals with the aim of improving market stability. Most of the references to UNCTAD were deleted, while GATT was played up-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What's wrong with GATT?


Mr. Fairweather:: Well, GATT is the rich man's club after all, isn't it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I wouldn't have said so.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: So, what has happened is this: there has been a weakening of international economic order, a weakening of the principles enunciated during the special conference on world economic order held by the United Nations last year.
World. Food Crisis
May I add that the GATT-FLY organization has been efficient, and I hope many other reports from time to time will give members of parliament on a cross-party basis the benefit of this latter-day truth squad, as I have described it.
It was my privilege last weekend to take part in a conference at Aurora, made up of churchmen and others, who tried to reflect on the Christian in politics and the theology of social change. We sent a telegram to Ottawa-I do not know whether the minister received it or whether the Minister of Agriculture received it. That telegram was sent as a result of unanimous agreement reached by a broad cross-section of this country.
It was our feeling that the government is to be commended for the initiative shown in the short term but that, having earned this commendation, the government cannot be allowed to hive off its responsibilities on a world food board, for instance. We also asked for long term solutions to be integrated into measures for economic reform, perhaps by the United Nations. Obviously, we lost that wicket because now we see what happened to the resolution proposed by Mexico. The result leaves much to be desired.
I suppose we all have various ways of manifesting our love for our country. I think it is right that each of us has an individual way of evoking what Canada means to us. The test I have for this country-and I hope many of my colleagues share this feeling-is how we treat our fellow men, or our fellow humans, to put it in the contemporary vernacular. Mr. Speaker, there has not yet come from the Rome Conference, and I am sorry to say this, any sign that Canada is able to meet the test of treating our fellow humans with civility and compassion. This, I regret very much.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, my intervention in the debate following that of the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) and the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) will make it rather ecumenical now. Perhaps, though it was not designed to be that way, it does have its own kind of symbolism, because what we are really talking about is not so much an agricultural, or even a food problem, supposed to be the substance of the debate today, but rather, a moral issue. In many ways it is the central moral issue of our times. The question is: to what extent are we as a people, as individuals, as a nation, prepared to move away from our own self-centredness and start thinking of others?
I was interested listening to the remarks made by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis). I always enjoy his contributions, and I would like to reply to some of the things he said in the serious way in which everyone is discussing these serious problems today. On the question of government priorities the hon. member pointed out, and it is true, that government has all kinds of priorities in the same way that people have all kinds of priorities. There is inflation that they are worried about; there are priorities with regard to employment. But how do those priorities really compare with the priorities being faced by millions of people in the world who are nearing starvation?

November 15, 1974
World Food Crisis
In our society we have become accustomed to taking each other apart about things which, at best, are merely increments to our already high standard or living. When you place the problems we face against those faced by much of the rest of the world, certainly our difficulties pale by comparison. Can there really be any question of juggling priorities when so much of the world is facing death from starvation? Is it not time we realized that there is one central priority-our responsibility to other human beings? If that means there must be some belt-tightening in this country, if that means we have to slow down somewhat the rise in our standard of living, surely this is what we as human beings, we as a nation, must be prepared to accept.
There has been a reference to Toynbee, a writer many of us have read, and his contention that though it is within our power to put an end to hunger and many of the diseases which afflict mankind, we have yet to devise an effective technique to achieve these ends. The great failure of modern society has been its failure to find this technique. Toynbee's solution is a return to religion. But if you want to take it in a broader sense, what Toynbee is really suggesting is a return to morality. Now, for many, religion has lost its hold, but surely the basis of religion, the idea of morality, has not lost its hold and should not lose its hold on the western world.
It is true we can do all these things mentioned by Toynbee, but we have to see this as a moral issue in order to meet the challenge we face. The hon. member for Ottawa West said that we had to plan the use of the resources of the world. We do not even plan the use of our own resources in this country, let alone plan the use of the resources of the world. We must make a start on planning within this country, particularly in the agricultural field.
Traditionally when we considered the problems of agriculture and food supply it was always in this kind of setting: either we have viewed them from the viewpoint of the consumer-how we can keep food prices down, or how we subsidize consumers; or we have viewed them from the point of view of the producer-will over production affect prices, will the producer be disadvantaged, what is the trade-off between the consumer and the producer?
It seems to me that a third element has now entered into this debate. We can no longer look at agriculture exclusively from the viewpoint of the price paid to the producers by the consumers. We have to look at it from the viewpoint of all out production in order to prevent a great many of the people of the world from starving. This is the kind of approach we should now take to agriculture. This is the kind of planning we must do in our own country before suggesting that the world should also plan.
When you look at agriculture in those terms, you get an entirely different perspective. I think we have made a decent gesture at the food conference in offering one million tons of grain a year. That is a start. But even if we give more-and I think we should give more-and start to plan now to bring more land under cultivation, and to employ our technology better, there are many people who say that we are too late, that regardless of what action we

take now the problem is so severe we will be unable to produce sufficient food to head off starvation.
Knowing that there is a distinct possibility that we may well be too late and that starvation will occur despite our best efforts, we are faced with a situation where we must do everything we possibly can, not because we alone can stave off starvation, not because we can eliminate it entirely, but because we have to live with ourselves and to ask ourselves what we did to alleviate the situation confronting humanity. And we must come up with an answer that does not offend against humanity.
In formulating a new agricultural policy we must think in terms of meeting the world's needs. I do not know that our traditional methods of farm or consumer subsidies are going to be appropriate. It seems to me we cannot ask the farmers to bear the cost of our generosity toward humanity. The farmer is, of course, a member of society and will bear his share, but this is a cost that has to be borne by all members of society, not one particular group.
We must guarantee to the farmer an orderly marketing system for his products, rather than let the farmer produce products he cannot sell and thus go into bankruptcy. Today there is a market for food, but there are not many people who can afford to pay the market price.
At the same time there must also be a willingness on the part of society to reduce consumption. The other day I introduced a private member's bill which would amend the Criminal Code to make the destruction of food a criminal offence. Many people have asked me where you stop. The bill appeared to be pointing at the farmer. I was not pointing at the farmer but to society in general. I was pointing to the fact that in a world where people are dying of starvation it is wrong to destroy food. It is wrong to destroy food in order to increase one's own benefit. That was the principle I was trying to establish.
People came to me and asked me what I was going to do to a man who orderd a huge dinner that he could not possibly eat, and then sent it back because the food did not have the right sauce on it. I was asked whether my bill would send that man to jail for destroying food. It is patently impossible either to send that man to jail or to send anybody else to jail in such a situation, but it is not impossible for society to say that such a man is committing a wrong. The fact that he can afford to send back his steak does not give him the right to destroy that food, food that would sustain life somewhere in the world.
This is one of the issues society has to face, and it is one of the lessons we must teach ourselves. In the course of debates on this subject people hesitantly ask, perhaps with the best of intentions, whether it is not their own damn fault that these countries are short of food. I do not think any member of parliament would make the point in quite those terms, but that was the implication of what was said. People would say; "These countries have too many children and are not practising birth control. They are ignoring the advice that we give them. They are letting food rot and spoil. There is a lot of corruption in their society, so isn't it their own damn fault?"
No doubt there is fault somewhere, but the point is that we are destroying much of the food that these people need. This is no time to lecture people. We used to do this with
November 15, 1974

our own poor. I can recall some hesitant ventures in this regard when we were talking about elderly people who reached their old age without a pile of money in the bank. It was said that it was their own fault because they did not save their money while they were earning. Or it was said of someone who was ill that he should have been more careful and not had his accident. Or it was said of someone who had more children than somebody else approved of that is was their own damn fault to have so many. Now we no longer point this kind of accusing finger.
We have now reached a level of understanding. We appreciate that when we eliminate some of the disadvantages experienced by these poor people we do not have to lecture them about birth control or about saving money; they respond in their own way.
The underdeveloped countries make the excellent argument that you cannot deal with their social problems by lecturing them; you can only deal with them by finding some way of giving them a sense of security and support. To some people who live in underdeveloped countries, having children is security in their old age, particularly when they know that famine might take some of their children away. To tell these people not to have so many children is to take away what to them is social security. Until we can tell those people that if they get sick, or that when they get old there will be support for them from the western world, we are not going to change the pattern regarding family size.
As much as we talk about what we are going to do for other people, we also talk about what we are going to do for ourselves. I do not really believe that our society is going to sleep well if it knows it has not taken action to prevent human starvation. I do not see how we are going to have a society of affection, respect and love when we narrow this to our own boundaries or our own families. Whatever we do, and it may appear on the surface as a form of generosity, we are really doing it for ourselves as well. We do have an obligation to others and to ourselves to do everything we can in food aid to stave off a disaster that is facing the world.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House is:
That this House condemns the government for its failure, both before and during the World Food Conference in Rome, to provide leadership concerning the food crisis facing many developing nations, and calls on the government to give real leadership on this most acute problem of our time by increasing its commitment of food and other agricultural assistance to such nations and by adopting a trade policy favourable to their future development.
I believe the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) deserves to be congratulated for bringing the question of the World Food Conference and the world food crisis before the House of Commons, and in that commendation I am sure I am supported by other members of the House. However, I must confess that I find the language of the motion in that context excessive, irresponsible and uninformed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
World Food Crisis


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Apart from the argumentation that may have been produced in the debate the resolution seems intended more to berate the government for its failure to feed the hungry. I do not accept the suggestion that the Canadian government, before the conference, did not pay appropriate attention to the seriousness of this issue. In fact, my predecessor, speaking this past winter before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, and again when he addressed the United Nations General Assembly in special session in April, identified the food crisis in the world as being of top priority.
From the first meeting of the preparatory committee of the World Food Conference last February, Canada has been very active and has participated in all of the important preparatory conferences. Our ambassador in Rome has been given special responsibilities in attending the preparatory meetings in order to express Canadian concern and advise the Canadian government as to developments.
A special task force was set up within the government in February to prepare for the conference. The deputy secretary general of the conference was in Ottawa in May for intensive discussions on how to get the best results out of the conference. I attended the final part of the agroindustry meeting in Toronto which took place under the auspices of the World Food Conference, consisting of a wide group of the executive and agro-industry people throughout the world, for the purpose of determining how they could contribute to the results of the World Food Conference.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) held discussions with all the provincial agriculture ministers on this problem in July, and out of that conference came a decision to name two provincial representatives to the World Food Conference as members of the delegation, one of whom is the minister of agriculture for Saskatchewan. I doubt whether he would share the language that is found in this motion as a commentary on the attitude of the Canadian government.
Federal officials have travelled from one end of Canada to the other to brief provincial governments on the issues, and to advise them on how we saw the conference developing. As hon. members know, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his provincial counterparts discussed the world food situation at the recent conference on inflation, and they agreed on the necessity of close federal-provincial co-operation in ensuring that Canada plays its full role in helping to meet the emergency and the long-term situation.
We did have a good delegation in Rome composed of representatives of the public service, ministers from the provincial governments, members of parliament who attended all delegation meetings and, as hon. members who spoke earlier know, persons from non-governmental organizations.
I did attend the first week of the conference in Rome, and I should like to convey to the House the impressions I formed during my short stay about problems of food and malnutrition in the world. We are all acutely aware of the dimensions of this problem in the world, and of the many difficulties in the way of solving the problem and elimi-

World Food Crisis
nating hunger in the world. If there is any doubt about the difficulties that have been implied and disclosed in the proceedings at the World Food Conference, I am ready to say that the week I spent in Rome has convinced me, beyond any doubt, that the problems are even more acute than we suspected, and I think now demand an unprecedented urgency.
When I left, the debate was still continuing in the plenary session and the committees had just begun their detailed work. But I can say, apart from reporting on the results of the detailed work, which I am unable to do, that a general consensus did emerge at the conference on the urgency of the problem and the necessity of immediate measures to deal with it.
Again on behalf of the Canadian government and the Canadian people, the Canadian statement at the conference outlined the measures Canada intends to adopt to share common endeavours toward a lasting freedom from want for all mankind.
Our position can be summarized in seven points, and I believe they ought to be put on the record in light of the importance of this debate.
First, Canada is prepared to accord a high priority in its assistance program to the agricultural development of countries which are mobilizing their own resources to increase food production. Let there be no doubt about it, Mr. Speaker, that even with the best of goodwill and with the most vigorous efforts on the part of the developed world there is no way by which starvation in the developing countries can be overcome without the acceleration of food production in the developing countries themselves. There is no doubt about that.
Even if we did have food in the developed world in millions of tons in the future there is doubt whether it can be transported or distributed to the needy people in light of projected population increases over the next period of time. The Chinese delegation, speaking at the conference, said, "Do as we have done; feed yourself". In a sense that was good advice, but it certainly was no answer to the critical short-term food shortage in the developing countries.
Second, Canada will do what it can to mitigate shortages of agricultural input in respect of such things as fertilizer, and will see to it that access to these is maintained internationally on an equitable and non-discriminatory basis. Reference has been made to fertilizer. It is an essential input. Earlier this year, before the Rome food conference, we did commit an additional $100 million to food and fertilizer. I think $43 million of that has been spent on providing fertilizer, but we are limited in what we can do because we do not have, for distribution abroad, the nitrogenous fertilizers which are needed in the developing countries.
Reference has been made to potash. Potash is not wanted. Therefore, we are not able to help in that direction. Rather, Canada intends to play its full part in the accelerated programs that we are asking the competent agencies to devise to make a sustained attack on the problem of malnutrition, particularly among children and other vulnerable groups.

It is to be underlined, as one of the saddest pieces of information emerging from the conference that 200 million children and nursing mothers are malnourished at the present time. That problem has not been highlighted very much, but we have said to the United Nations agencies, to UNICEF and others, please take note of this problem of malnutrition and we, as a government and as a country, will be prepared to support your efforts in tangible terms in order to reduce this problem of malnutrition.
Fourth, Canada has committed itself to making available, in each of the next three years, an average of one million tons of foodgrains toward a minimum world target of 10 million tons for food aid purposes. We have also committed ourselves to a significant increase in the non-foodgrain commodities which we allocate to food aid. We have agreed to channel some 20 per cent of our total food aid through multilateral food programs such as the World Food Program. All these were proposals put before the conference by the secretariat. I regret to say that in the first week of the conference relatively few countries made any effort to respond directly to the proposals that had been put before the conference by the Secretary General, the former minister of agriculture from Egypt.


Mr. Gillies:: Why?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Why? That is a good question. I wish I knew the answer. Very few countries did. I hope to reach what their commitments were and possibly compare them with the Canadian commitment. I agree with hon. members who have said we ought to be generous, forthcoming, and show our humility in Canada, but when we do that in a responsible way let us not denigrate what we have done.
Let us take the responsibility for telling the Canadian people what the Canadian response has been. In respect of the 3 million tons, 1 million each year, in volume terms not in dollar terms, the Secretary General pleaded with the world community at the conference to please commit 10 million tons per year in volume terms, as a minimum for the next three years. We committed one-tenth of that, which is more than our proportional share, in the expectation that that would induce other countries possibly to come forward and increase the total commitment beyond that 10 million tons. That is the benchmark against which we were working-the proposal made by those who prepared for the conference.
Let us not underestimate the financial consequences of that commitment. One million tons of wheat, at at least $200 a ton, each year will cost us at least $200 million. The reason we have asked to make it in dollar terms is to ensure that the wheat goes forward regardless of the possible increase in the price of wheat in the next few years.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Dollars or quantities?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am sorry; in quantities.


Andrew Hogan: Why do you say that the 10 per cent is more than our proportional share?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is very difficult to get an acceptable measurement for all. It seems to me that, when giving our initial response, we were entitled to consider the request
November 15, 1974

that had been put before the conference by the Secretary General who had asked all the world to please give, as a minimum, 10 million tons per year for the next three years. We took 10 per cent of that. Surely on any count that is more than proportional to the financial resources of Canada in its position in the world. This was so recognized by the conference itself.
It is reported in the press that the Australian delegates immediately sought instructions from Canberra, from their Prime Minister, to match the Canadian contribution. The Secretary General of the conference publicly stated that the statement made by the Canadian delegation was a turning point in the conference itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This statement was also made by the developing countries. I am talking about people who were in Rome, not people who have not been in Rome and who are judging the conference by a very fragmentary and, in some cases, inaccurate report.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Would the minister answer a
question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: When I finish my speech I shall be happy to permit a question. We are talking about Canada's commitment. We are talking about the fact that it was regarded as the turning point in the conference, so stated by the Secretary General, and so stated by the newpaper put out by the non-governmental organization to which my hon. friend gave such praise. This newspaper states about the Canadians:
They've come up trumps ...
Canada and Australia put their money on the line yesterday during speeches in the Plenary ...
The Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Allan J. MacEachen, started the ball rolling in the morning session...
I refer to another editorial comment that was made by the Christian Science Monitor, because it was referred to at the Rome conference by one of the most distinguished columnists. That editorial stated:
Canada is to be commended for its pledge at the World Food Conference to boost its food aid to hungry nations by 20 per cent in the next three years.
In fact, in terms of volume the commitment next year to the world food need is double the commitment we have made this year. The editorial went on to say:
Hopefully, this initiative will meet vigorous response from other nations as well.
If I may, I would like to refer to a very interesting report that was on the CBC this morning, made by a correspondent from the BBC, who is attending the conference in Rome, and who is on the spot. This commentator said:
Canada has succeeded in making a very favourable impression in spite of the criticism being voiced in the Canadian press at home. She has been one of the very few countries to make specific pledges, both of aid and cash. One million tons of grain a year for the next three years and $50 million for agricultural development. The Canadian agricultural minister, Eugene Whelan, has been one of the few ministers of cabinet rank to stay in Rome for the whole fortnight of the conference ... A
World. Food Crisis
group of 32 most seriously affected countries which got together earlier in the week, spoke approvingly of Canadian attitudes.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: So did we.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am delighted that the hon. gentleman disassociates himself from the resolution which seems to condemn the government for its performance at the Rome Food Conference.
Canada has endorsed the principle of a voluntary undertaking in world food security, and will become a party to it when the necessary arrangements have been worked out, Mr. Speaker.
Sixth, Canada supports, as it has long suggested, a general freeing of trade in food products and will press this objective and other benefits for the trade of developing countries in the forthcoming multilateral trade negotiations in Geneva.
I am happy to say that despite the charge levelled earlier today that the Canadian delegation was filibustering and that we were not taking a helpful attitude in committee III, today the world conference in committee III has completed its work and reached unanimous agreement on grain measures. It is a reasonable text, and the Canadian delegation has played an active part in reaching this good result which will lay a foundation for the detailed negotiation that will take place in the upcoming discussions at GATT.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: You don't even believe that yourself.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Surely the developing countries, which unanimously agreed to this resolution, are in a better position to determine their own interests than is the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald).
Finally, I want to conclude the point form presentation of our position by saying that Canada announced its decision to allocate at once $50 million of our development assistance to be used in ways that will make an effective impact on the present critical world food situation.
My hon. friend has asked: what about today, what about the current situation? Of course it is a critical situation. Up to the present we have committed more than 600,000 tons of grain for this year. The problem that has been bothering the people at the conference is the basic one of supply, the determination in the next months about what is available in the world in the way of supplies of grain in order to meet the requirements in the developing countries. We have participated in that exercise to determine what is required.
It is estimated that we have an amount of 1,300,000 tons which could be made available. It is obvious to hon. members that for Canada to finance in this current year, in addition to 600,000 tons, an additional 1,300,000 tons is an enormous commitment ot undertake at this stage. What we have said on this point is that we have already put forward $50 million that can be used for food aid in the current year, and I have been informed-but I would like to check this information further-that we have completed further allocations at the conference, among needy countries at present, from this amount. However, I would like to make sure that that is absolutely right.

November 15, 1974
World Food Crisis
So we are not finished yet, and I hope hon. members opposite will believe that there beats in our souls, as energetically as in theirs, an interest in this problem, and that the love of humanity does not only exist on the other side.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Nobody said it did.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We demonstrated our intentions, our proposals, in a more concrete way than any other nation in the world. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond asked, "But what is the standard?" Perhaps he would accept Sweden as a standard. The NDP has always been applauding the great social system that exists in Sweden. It is a country that has a higher per capita income than Canada, and yet I think that our contribution compares favourably with that country's. Sweden has committed to make available, on call each year, a substantial amount, 75,000 tons of grain.


An hon. Member:: How much grain do they produce?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would remind the hon. member that you can supply grain or you can finance it. There are two ways to do it. So let him not hedge the situation by that comment. If we go down the list of donors we find Iran, Saudi Arabia, Poland, the European Economic Community, Norway, Austria, and if you compare their creditable showing and ours-and I do not for a moment take anything away from them-Canada has shown leadership.
It is false to say that we have failed to give leadership at the conference. It is true to say that if the leadership provided by Canada had been followed, and its contribution matched by other countries, the conference would be adjourning tomorrow with a much greater message of hope to the starving people of the world then they will be given when it concludes tomorrow evening.
I want to say, as I said to the non-governmental organizations when I met them in Rome that this is only the beginning of the effort, because it is an effort that will engage the attention of mankind probably for the next decade, to feed the starving people of the world.
I regard the problem of hunger as great if not greater than any of the other global problems. I assure the House, particularly any hon. members who may have been uncertain, that the Canadian government is giving leadership and will continue to do so-leadership that might not be applauded by hon. members opposite but which has received plaudits around the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) wishes to ask a question. The minister completed his speech at the moment his allotted time expired, so the question can only be asked with unanimous consent. Is the minister willing to accept the question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to give the minister time to cool off.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am cool.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: There was no indication of it.


An hon. Member:: Somebody had to speak out for Canada.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: There are quite a few Pharisees here, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well fed ones, too.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to be sure that the minister had an opportunity to correct the impression which I think his speech left, that the GATT-FLY group here in Ottawa and in Rome did not give accurate information. That was the charge made by the minister, or at least that is what I took from his speech. I would hope that the minister would want to dispel that impression.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member giving me the opportunity to clarify the situation. I have no way of knowing what information the GATT-FLY group conveyed to Canada. I am not suggesting they were the source of any inaccuracies. I was referring to reports that have been made here and there-for example the report about filibustering by Canada in the third committee, which I regard as an inaccurate report. That is what I have in mind, not the NGOs.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, the World Food Conference in Rome has come and gone; previous to its commencement some 12,000 people per day were dying of starvation. With the conference over, 12,000 people per day will continue to die of starvation. While the government can accept some small pride for its efforts, it is cocooned in a notion that it really did something, that it took some small steps. I have to underline the word small because although the leadership it claims may be apparent to it, the fact of the matter is it did almost nothing to solve the world problem of hunger.
The pre-planning conference committee had three points on its agenda-first, to increase food production in developing countries by at least 35 per cent by 1985; second, to improve distribution to make consumption more equitable and third, to establish food reserves as insurance against crop failures and other disasters. United Nations Secretary General Kurt Waldheim opened the conference by asking for a double onslaught by all countries on world hunger. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that our contribution is nowhere near the kind of commitment requested, or the kind of commitment necessary to cope with the problem at hand.
We can note four or five points of criticism of Canada's participation at this conference, Mr. Speaker. First, there is not enough aid; second, there was no argument for an adequate structure for the distribution of aid throughout the world nor the leadership to encourage such structures; third, little was done in terms of helping developing coun-

November 15, 1974

tries to provide for themselves; fourth, little has been done to ask us to change our lifestyle in terms of food consumption; and fifth, there was little or no suggestion that Canada ought to be increasing her present food production.
Let us look at some of the things we have given the developing countries. It would seem we have given them one slice of bread every five days. According to international experts, by 1985 the poor countries of the world will need 85 million tons of grain per year from the developed world. It could well be they would require something in excess of 100 million tons of food or cereal grains per year in less than a decade.
Even if such an amount were available, it could not be moved, Mr. Speaker. One of the things this conference can be criticized for is the lack of planning for the transportation of foodstuff around the world. We should remember how our ports and railroads were fouled up when Russia bought 15 million tons of grain from us. Canada has failed to show leadership by not suggesting discussions on the problems of transportation, or giving any commitments in that area. Even if we had enough grain there would still be a problem because it cannot be transported.
Even before the problem of transportation, there comes the question of whether we can grow enough grain. Little has been done to encourage improved agricultural production in Canada or in the developed world. The minister did suggest that aid be given to those countries that have shown the greatest degree of mobility in agricultural production. That might seem like a good arrangement at first sight, but really those are the very countries that do not need the food as much as the less developed countries. Starvation is not occurring in those countries that have mobility in agricultural production. That is where the minister suggested our aid should go, but that is not at all really giving in the true sense of giving.
The minister also pointed out that we would be doing more trade with cereal grains under GATT arrangements. One has to question why GATT is involved in the situation at all in view of who the aid recipients are, Mr. Speaker. They are the peoples who spend 80 per cent of their dollar on the purchase of food. Should food be supplied by the developed countries under the protection of GATT? In a sense that is not giving anything at all; it is simply another ploy to use the poor to reap wealth for those who already have.
Kurt Waldheim said we have to double the onslaught on world hunger. We are a long way from that, Mr. Speaker. We are something in excess of 22 million tons short in food reserves at the present time. Food production must greatly increase, yet we see very few incentives for what ought to have taken place.
One of the real situations in which we must see a change is in the concept of world structure. We have talked about aid, but we really need to have a world structure that talks about food, distributed through a system such as a world food bank. Only to give aid away is simply a short-term plan, and not a leadership position. We need something like a world food bank that has a long-term assurance of
World Food Crisis
food and the other advantage, avoiding political ties on a bilateral basis.
If there is anything we need it is something that parallels the International Development Agency of the world bank which allows us to collect on a world basis foodstuffs to feed the hungry and distribute them without any political association on a priority basis according to the needs of people.
That was not the government's commitment at the conference in Rome. What it is telling us is that it is going to be giving food to those who have shown the highest degree of mobility in their own agriculture. I suggest that that will not do very much to lower the rate of starvation and malnutrition as it is presently experienced on the planet earth. The situation is extremely serious. In this debate today we are not just talking about the situation that exists at the Rome conference. The motion before us states:
That this House condemns the government for its failure, both before and during the World Food Conference in Rome-
The key words are "before and during." We have experienced LIFT. It would have been more appropriately called GOOF.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arnold John Malone: How in the world could we possibly have had an agricultural policy in this country within the past three or four years that talked about not growing grain? Surely the relevant figures have been before us for something in excess of two decades. Scientists have told us for a considerable period of time what was going to happen, yet in this country, in 1974, we find it acceptable to bury millions of surplus eggs and kill cattle in protest.
The government has not taken the full responsibility before or during the food conference in talking about the need for food and giving it to those who need it most. The situation is extremely serious.
Another area we heard nothing about at this conference, either before or after, concerns what is to be the Canadian or North American role in terms of our consumption of food. That is a question that needs a response. The fact of the matter is that one of the very critical factors that affects the supply of food in the world today is the amount in excess of their need that people in the developed countries are consuming.
One piece of research states that economists and food experts suggest that probably the central theme of the World Food Conference ought to be that Americans and other affluent people had better eat less or face the confrontation of half a billion hungry people.
To give an example, the United States spends more money on pet food than on foreign aid. And I am not going to suggest that Canada is very much better off. We also see other situations. More money is spent in North America putting fertilizer on lawns and golf courses than is used in the whole third world.
With these kinds of problems it is not enough to go to Rome and make a promise. This is a case where we must have a personal commitment; it has to be a commitment from us. We cannot maintain that our standard is right

November 15, 1974
World Food Crisis
and that we will help only to the extent of our own comfort. If we are to be at all giving, we must give of ourselves as well as giving tangible objects.
North Americans consume directly or indirectly five times as much cereal grain, a principal source of protein, as the average citizen of Latin America, Asia or Africa. When we talk about aid it is important that we do it in terms of reducing our own consumption of food. Putting it in perspective with the minister's statement today I wish to share with this House information that shows the smallness of our commitment in Rome.
It has been estimated that if Canadians ate one less hamburger per week, one million extra tons of grain would be available to feed an additional five million people. The commitment the Canadian people gave in Rome was equivalent to one hamburger per week. I suggest that is a pretty trifling contribution to make to a world that has needs that are so great.
I have tremendous respect for the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan). I respect him for bringing this motion before the House. I differ with him on one position he took. He said that population is not the problem, it is the people and their rate of consumption. To put it in a more correct perspective, consumption has to be seen as very important, but paralleled with it must be the population explosion.
If consumption is the problem, who is it that is consuming all this stuff except people? Obviously it has to be a people problem. The hon. member quoted from Scientific American to illustrate his point. Another article on page 43 states, and I quote:
In accordance with the same law of geometric progression, the human population has reached its present size through comparatively few doublings. Even if we again assume that humanity began with a hypothetical Adam and Eve, the population has doubled only 31 times, or an average of about once every 30,000 years.
The fact is we now know that population doubles every 28 years, even though the historical average is something like every 30,000 years.
I suggest that at the conference of Rome there is not enough talk about incentives for decreasing population, or at least stabilizing world population. There can be no hope for humanity if we do not reverse the trend of filling the earth plumb full of human beings. The balance of the ecology simply will not accept that kind of filling up. The earth cannot support it. One of the things that must happen is that we must accept a whole new attitude about food.
I have asked questions of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) about whether there was ever to be a guaranteed nutritive analysis attached to human foodstuffs. That question has relevance because of the fact that when we go into supermarkets today tc buy weiners or bologna, we assume we are buying protein. The fact is in many cases we could buy cheaper protein if we bought roasts or steaks.
It becomes important that we put nutritive values on foods because we need to start educating people to think differently about food. The sale of food products is based on taste, colour and style. We have to realize that the food shortage we talk about in the world is not really a general food shortage. There is enough carbohydrate to go around.

What this world is experiencing is a protein shortage, and a transportation shortage. There is not enough protein; there is not enough transportation.
The government must ask Canadians to set the example. Canadians should be asked to change the amount that they use in luxury foods for pets. The amount we throw away or waste each year is enough to feed a major portion of those who are starving. When I say we, I mean all North Americans. When you note that the United States spends more money on pet food than foreign aid, something is seriously wrong.
Something else that is critical when talking about the "before and after" of this motion is that the government has done virtually nothing to preserve the resources that allow us to produce food. There are only two sources for the production of food, soil and water.
All across this country we see the deplorable situation where acres upon acres of high quality food-producing soil are being taken out of production. The federal government may suggest that is a provincial responsibility and that it has no obligations in that field. However, that is not so.
I give just one example out of a large number which might have been chosen. A decision was taken to build a satellite airport encompassing 1,445 acres near the community of Villeneuve, North of Edmonton. Three sites were available. The site chosen covered 50 per cent class one soil and 45 per cent class two soil. Mr. Speaker, many countries in the world do not have class one or class two soil. An alternative site was available three miles to the west which would have used class five and class seven land only-class five soil is non-improvable pasture, and class seven is non-agricultural.
Every year in this country large tracts of agricultural land are being removed from production to the extent that by the turn of the century it is estimated 50 per cent of the highest grades of soil will have been destroyed. At the present time there are virtually no incentives forthcoming to reverse this trend. How serious is it? According to soil science professors at the University of Alberta it is serious to the extent that, if the present trend continues and if the Canadian population doubles by the year 2,000, as predicted, this country will have great difficulty in feeding itself, let alone building up reserves of grain to distribute to the developing countries.
To give another example. In the last seven years the City of Edmonton has expanded over agricultural land, 19,438 acres of which were in the top two soil classes. That amount of land would easily have raised 80 million bushels of wheat over the next hundred years. I speak in terms of a century, but the anthropologists tell us that man has been on this earth for some 50,000 years. I am sure that cities would not be allowed to spread over this kind of acreage if, underneath the land, were tarsands, nickel, iron ore or any of the other resources we consider to be of value today. There is simply not enough attention being given to food production in this country and in the world generally. This, also, is a subject which calls for leadership.
In summary, while I realize the government would like to take pleasure and pride in what has been achieved so far, I do not believe it can properly do so. The minister
November 15, 1974

said that the mover of this motion used language which was excessive, irresponsible and deplorable. I would reply by saying that anyone who reads today's Hansard will realize that a lot of information has been put on record today. It certainly was not irresponsible to show concern for those in the developing countries where between 400 million and 800 million people are suffering from malnutrition. And it can hardly be called excessive to ask that more should be given, when the pets of North America live in circumstances far better than any which exist for the greater part of the human community.
The cause is mankind; the need is great. The country must go beyond platitudes and talks concerning agreements on tariffs and trade, if it is to show leadership. We cannot expect people who have nothing to get their food through trade arrangements with the rich. I think that the government's position is deplorable, is excessive, and that it is irresponsible.


Mr. Ross Milne (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to put forward a few points of view in this debate. I had intended to begin by congratulating the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) for expressing his concern on this subject, and for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I must say, though, that I question how seriously he or his party are committed to this motion when I see Only one member of his group in attendance in the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How many Liberals are here?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Where is the cabinet?


William Ross Milne: I should like to make a few comments which may appear to be somewhat apart from the core of the question we have been considering. I believe the government should be commended on the stand it has taken, the concern it has shown and the commitment it has made in this situation where millions in the undeveloped countries of the world are facing starvation.
It appears to be the wish of many people that Canada should make a very large commitment of grain to help meet these circumstances. This, in my view, is commendable. After all, Canada grows a lot of grain. Grain is a product which has a long shelf life; it can be used almost directly for human consumption, or indirectly through livestock feeding. But this raises another issue.
We in this House are aware that from time to time food surpluses arise in this country, and there is a disposition to send these surpluses to under-developed countries should it be possible to do so. For example, in the riding I represent there was, recently, a surplus of potatoes which had been damaged by frost. These potatoes are unacceptable to the Canadian table trade. One of the solutions might be to have them made into flakes or instant mash, which might then be made available to the world food program. When I looked at the arithmetic involved, though, I realized how expensive it is to proceed with this type of approach.
Canada could, perhaps, be offering many of these other food items but it is not possible to do so because of the very high cost of processing and packaging-the packag-
World Food Crisis
ing is necessary in order that the product may be distributed without waste, spoilage, or, perhaps, pilferage, after it reaches its destination. When the government is considering making funds available for food relief programs I trust it will not ignore the need for storage refrigerators and an adequate distribution system within the countries we are trying to help. Without doing this we are restricted to commodities such as grain that require no refrigeration and can be distributed through very low quality systems.
I listened with interest last evening to the representative of the Canadian Wheat Board who appeared before the agricultural committee. He put forward a view I think we would do well to reflect upon, Mr. Speaker. He made the point that world population is increasing at the rate of 2.5 per cent to 3 per cent a year, as the hon. member opposite mentioned, but that world food production is increasing at only 2 per cent to 2.5 per cent a year. So it appears world food production is falling behind the gain in population.
This official put forward what I thought was a rather interesting viewpoint. He said the problem for the future will be related more to the cyclical nature of food production rather than the total amount of food production. It was his point of view, if I interpreted it correctly, that there would be periods of severe food shortage, as we are now experiencing, whereas at other times we may have a very high inventory as a result of good crop years. This leads me to agree with the previous speaker who said one of the things we should seriously consider is the establishment of a world food bank, so that when grain and other commodities are available in some quantity they can be stored and handled by a central agency, and be available in real time of need without disrupting the economies of the food producing countries.
One question has been avoided by a number of members who have addressed themselves to this problem, and now perhaps is the time to raise it, and I do so on a personal basis. It seems to me it would go a long way toward correcting some of the difficulties that have been referred to if refrigeration facilities, storage facilities, transportation facilities and distribution facilities were substantially funded.
Perhaps this might be a good investment for some of the countries today that are accumulating large amounts of world currency. Generally speaking, these countries-I speak particularly of the OPEC nations-are not major food producers, and through this medium they would offer direct assistance. In addition, many other countries could respond very vigorously in supplying expertise. I hope that in fulfilling our commitment of large grain shipments, both now and in the next three years, we will not ease up on sending to the needy countries those people in Canada who can do so much in helping them become more self-sufficient. In this regard I sincerely applaud the opening remarks of the minister; nothing could be more true.
Irrespective of the commitment of this country or any other country, the end solution has to be self-sufficiency in as many countries as possible. As I say, the best way of achieving this is to provide expertise, and I think in this
1382

November 15, 1974
World. Food Crisis
regard Canada has something to offer in terms of research into grain production, growing and harvesting.
The question was raised this morning of why we were not sending more fertilizer to the third world. In my past occupations I have had some experience with the fertilizer industry and its problems, and I have reservations about whether this is a very viable suggestion. I am surprised that the mover of the motion we are now debating did not make the point that we should contribute toward building fertilizer plants in countries of need. I think what escaped the hon. member was how very expensive fertilizer is, if it is manufactured in this country or the United States, by the time it gets to the third world. How much more economical it would be if they had their own fertilizer plants and we shipped the necessary ingredients to them.
This brings me to another area that is even wider. Any country that is hopeful of a real future must be self-sufficient both in energy and in food. Unfortunately, at the present time, with trends in pricing set by many factors of the sort we have been discussing during the last couple of weeks, the price of food and energy on the world markets is accelerating at a rapid rate. This puts the underdeveloped nations in a much less favourable position than they ever were before.
I am sure all Canadians, as most other people, sincerely want to do the best they can to assist in the present crisis, but what is so disheartening to them is that things are getting worse, and probably will continue to get worse since the underdeveloped countries are becoming increasingly incapable of purchasing food, fertilizer and energy. As I say, if they are to have any hope of a future we must address ourselves to the question of how we can narrow the gap.
I was quite impressed with the remarks of the previous speaker, not only with what he said and the manner in which he said it, but in terms of the attitude that he said some countries we are trying to help adopt in relation to population trends. This question embraces more than simply consumption of food and food availability; it is a question, addressed to the whole world, of the capability of the world to meet food demands.
Somewhere the two points of food production and world demand will meet on the graph and cross. A number of speakers have indicated that perhaps this point in time is not that far into the future and no amount of talk is going to change that. As we are approaching this point we must recognize that, if we want to live on this earth in peace and give the underdeveloped countries hope for the future, we must address ourselves to these two questions of world food demand and the capability of the world to produce that food.
I do not want to talk about energy today, but in relation to the food crisis there is an old saying which is quoted many times, that a hungry man knows no God and knows no boundary. If we cannot effectively solve the present problem and give these hungry people hope for a final resolution of their problem, then we will be facing a much larger problem some time in the future. That is why it is terribly important to take action now.
One very important point that the minister mentioned, and which I want to adopt, is that despite the crisis we are

facing today, and the very generous offer Canada has made to help to the best of our ability, the key to the problem is to make the third world as self-sufficient as possible in terms of food production. In this regard those nations too have some responsibility to do something about their population trends.


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, we have had a very good debate this afternoon on the World Food Conference and the situation in the world generally. The case has been very well put forth by the opposition parties, and we have heard a defence on the part of the government of what it has done and contributed.
I should like to say a little bit about what the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) has outlined as one of the concerns of the World Food Conference in Rome, and that is in respect of the supply of food, or the lack of it. This afternoon the minister was very thin skinned and felt that Canada had made a tremendous contribution. I do congratulate the government for what it has done, but I think it should do more in relation to the amount of agricultural production we have in Canada.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) in his speech in Rome, and I take this out of context, said that what is obviously needed now is a world agricultural policy, and there is not one. I would say the same thing to the government of Canada, and the producers in Canada have been saying this for a number of years. What is obviously needed in Canada is an agricultural policy, and there is not one.
In 1968 and 1969 we had an agricultural congress which was supposed to develop an agricultural policy for Canada. We still do not have an agricultural policy, due mainly to the lack of leadership on the part of the government over the years. I suggest that the agricultural congress was held as the result of producers in Canada saying the government had adopted a cheap food policy, a policy of bringing cheap food into the country from anywhere in the world to compete with our producers, putting them out of production. I suggest that that is what is taking place in the beef industry today, and as a result of this policy Canada is now a net importer of food.
We are only producing at about half throttle. We certainly should be concerned about lack of food supplies when countries such as Canada are not producing at full throttle, particularly in light of the present situation in the world in which the peoples of some countries have no food at all.
The argument that we are not really producing as much as we can in Canada can be well documented. We have had many programs in the past few years aimed at reducing or halting production. Whenever we have had a surplus of production we have faced a real problem in disposing of the surplus. I suggest that problem has been aggravated by the policy of this country to import cheap food. This has resulted in a lack of faith on the part of our producers, hence they are hesitant about going into high gear in the production of food. No one can argue with the suggestion that we are not producing as much food in Canada as we
November 15, 1974

couJd. If we are going to get production into high gear in Canada we must develop programs to take care of surpluses.
Some hon, members have referred to a world food bank. Such a program could not operate unless we had means to take care of surplus production. I have never felt it would be wrong to have a year's supply of grain in storage in Canada. Very often we see weather changes that inhibit production, and this is true of almost every farm commodity.
Very often shortages of supply can be related to programs that inhibit production. We must have a program to take care of over-production such as we have in beef at this time. Our production structure should not be such that it creates bad faith on the part of beef producers, and that is the situation today. Beef producers are reducing their basic herds, and before long this will result in an under-production which will do nothing at all in our effort to help feed the people of the world.
There are many people who will ask how we can afford to feed needy people, or if we can afford it at all. I suggest that we can to some extent by using the money that we are now using for programs such as LIP. The taxpayers of this country are paying a great deal of money in the way of unemployment insurance benefits because of high unemployment. If we adopted a program of constructing canneries and granaries to take care of agricultural surpluses we would put a lot of unemployed to work, cutting down on high unemployment and on taxes required for unemployment insurance benefits. Many people who are working on programs such as LIP could be put to work in more productive areas, and I suggest that what will precipitate such a change is a crisis such as the food shortage.
We hear a lot about change, and many books have been written about it, such as "Future Shock". We hear a great deal about how people will have to change because of manufacturing devices that put people out of work. The biggest change in our outlook in Canada and, indeed, on the North American continent, is the change in respect of producing enough food to feed the world. I suggest we will have to stop wasting fertilizer, sprays and that type of thing, and here I think of the waste in respect of lawns, gardens and golf courses. We will need that fertilizer to produce food.
The hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Milne) suggested that we should construct fertilizer manufacturing plants in other countries. I cannot subscribe to that idea. If we build more plants of this type we should build them in Canada, close to the source of the raw material. In this way we would create more jobs for our unemployed here.
If we have to give others the product I think that is much better than giving it to people in our own country and teaching them how not to work. For instance, Mr. Speaker, we have the raw material here. We know there is an abundant supply of potash. We also know that if energy is required in order to produce fertilizer, we have that energy.
We also know that when there was an increase in the manufacture of fertilizer in western Canada several years
World Food Crisis
ago, quite a lot of the increase was based on agricultural production of the day. However, just as companies were building plants in order to increase the production of fertilizer we had the LIFT program which took a lot of land out of the production of grain. Because the companies were building plants it was necessary for them to sell their production in order to have a source of income. Since the production of grain was being reduced, the product was exported out of Canada.
Last year the government told us that the way to beat inflation was to produce. When we asked about a shortage in fertilizer we were assured that there would not be a shortage, but of course we know from experience that there was a shortage. We also know that a large proportion of fertilizer production was exported from Canada. I do not blame the fertilizer companies because it is obvious they cannot pay for their plants if there is insufficient production.
We know that, because of the price of fertilizer over a number of years, it was really not profitable to develop some of the raw materials we had in Canada. These were imported into Canada more cheaply. However, with the price of fertilizer what it is today there should be programs to urge fertilizer manufacturers in Canada to use some of the basic minerals we have, and develop them so that there will be a greater supply of fertilizer products manufactured in Canada from basic materials within Canada.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am sure in the next few years a new outlook must be developed in this whole area. We can see ourselves having to accept a much lower standard of living, perhaps not too much lower, but certainly a lower standard of living. I believe we in Canada have an obligation to produce more in the agricultural field, and to do a better job than we are doing now in feeding the world.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, in the four remaining minutes-I just lost 30 seconds-I would also like to join with those who spoke before me in thanking the mover for the opportunity he gave the minister to right the impressions the World Food Conference had left in Rome.
It is quite obvious that the motion introduced by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) was based on doubtful information, information gathered from doubtful sources. Perhaps, he could have gone deeper into things and inquired of the personnel of the department about what really happened, instead of listening to the catch lines, as the minister called them, that spread all sorts of falsehoods about the position of the government of Canada in Rome. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, it is a clear improvement on the motion discussed Tuesday and introduced by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), and which was in fact another one of his witch hunts, and it is quite typical of that member to find dishonest people and criminals all over the place. Some were even found in this House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, the information and explanations given by the minister will nevertheless right the facts. Canada was the country which took a position of initiative, of leadership, about the problems facing developing countries. I am
1384

November 15, 1974
World Food Crisis
somewhat disappointed, Mr. Speaker. However, I would like to say in the remaining seconds what I would have liked to have enough time to say in a more specific and elaborate way. I was somewhat disappointed that nobody dealt with the cause of the problems facing those African countries. I am talking about countries faced with starvation, more particularly Niger, Mauritania, Upper Volta, Sahel, Bali, Chad, and Senegal.
Mr. Speaker, it is all a series of disasters after disasters which brought about that situation in those unfortunate countries. I heard hon. members of the opposition blame the government for its lack of planning. There is nothing more difficult to plan than agricultural production, food production, because one is always at the mercy of the elements. How can one be sure things will work out exactly as planned, as wanted, as foreseen if, as we have
noticed in the countries mentioned earlier, in that central strip of Africa there are calamities, floods and droughts?
Somehow, I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that those problems were not dealt with adequately. My colleague from Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) barely touched upon the subject when he mentioned the phenomenon of the weather which, in fact, cripples us in any serious undertaking. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but unfortunately it is five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. It being five o'clock it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 58, proceedings on the motion have expired. This House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.


Monday, November 18, 1974