1975-02-17

OFFICIAL REPORT

[Stage Direction]
FIRST SESSION-THIRTIETH PARLIAMENT 24 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada Available from Information Canada, Ottawa, Canada
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 17, 1975


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions:
December 17, 1974-Mr. McGrath-The following proposed motion:
That the first report of the Special Committee on Egg Marketing presented to the House on Monday, December 16, 1974, be concurred in.
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is the wish of hon. members on all sides of the House that this motion be taken under consideration as the first order of business under orders of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


SUGGESTED COMMITTEE STUDY OF STANDING ORDERS 43 AND 28-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, since the House gave unanimous consent authorizing the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) to present his motion under the terms of Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to present a motion of extreme urgency since it relates to the application of Standing Orders 43 and 28.
Considering that, under the terms of Standing Order 43, any member can request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an urgent matter and that, on the other hand, under Standing Order 28 any member who wishes to speak must rise in his place and address the Speaker designating him by his title, though it may be only to oppose the unanimity required under Standing Order 43, and that I have already pointed out this matter to Your Honour whereupon Your Honour said the ruling would be given later on in this regard, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That this House study without delay whether Standing Order 28 should apply even in the case of a motion presented under Standing Order 43, and that those two standing orders be deferred to the standing committee of the House for study and report.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


BROTHERHOOD WEEK
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a matter of urgent and pressing necessity inasmuch as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the provincial premiers, the mayor of Ottawa and numerous mayors across Canada have proclaimed the week of February 16, as Brotherhood Week, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis):
That all hon. members gather in the railway committee room on Thursday, February 20, during the evening for fellowship across the Canadian cultural barriers in Brotherhood under the Fatherhood of God and, furthermore inasmuch as Mrs. Betty Kennedy is the national chairman for Brotherhood Week during this International Women's Year, that an especially cordial invitation be extended to the sisterhood in this hon. House, realizing that in fellowship with the distaff side of the human family is the only basis for lasting brotherhood.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect to the hon. member who proposed his motion pursuant to Standing Order 43, partly out of a strict adherence to the rules regarding urgent and pressing necessity and partly, I must confess out of a desire not to put any hon. members of the House into the embarrassing position of withholding their consent for discussion of such an important topic, I would have to find that despite the extreme importance and interest of the matter to all members of the House and, I am sure, unanimous support of the idea, that I will withhold, in my discretion, putting it to the House because of the absence of the element of urgent and pressing necessity.

Alberta Representation HOUSE OF COMMONS


PROPOSED CHANGES IN PROCEDURE FOR ORAL QUESTION PERIOD-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask permission of the House to present a motion under Standing Order 43. In view of the urgent and pressing necessity for adequate opportunity for backbench members of the House to raise matters of importance during the daily question period, and in view of the fact that the present length of the question period does not adequately permit this, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke):
That immediate consideration should be given to lengthening the daily question period to one hour and furthermore consideration should also be given to designating two days per week on which 20 minutes of the one hour question period be reserved exclusively for members of the House who are not designated opposition critics and who do not sit on the front bench.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member raises a question of extreme importance and interest to all members of the House I am sure. A review of the procedures of the House, in so far as they relate to any opportunity any member may have, to put his views forward could be extremely important and of great interest. It is a matter of constant concern to all members, but I think in fairness the motion lacks the element of urgency or emergency which is contemplated by the rule.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS   PRIME MINISTER'S APPOINTMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE OF ALBERTA-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to propose a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. This matter concerns the ill-considered actions of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in appointing a member from the other place to represent without mandate the people of the province of Alberta. To deny a province its rightful channel of representation by election is obviously serious.
In recent days, however, the issue has developed to a state of urgency. May I remind this House that we are in a period of extremely tender federal-provincial relations. Nevertheless, the member from the other place who was appointed by the Prime Minister to act as a spokesman for the province of Alberta, has displayed incredibly weak judgment by making ridiculous and false statements in public about Albertans and the Alberta government. As an example, the pseudo representative has made statements such as the following-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am persuaded by the hon. member that his motion has an element of urgent and pressing necessity. Perhaps he would like to put it to the House.
February 17, 1975


Arnold John Malone: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That the Prime Minister repeal his appointment of the member from the other place as a spokesman for the province of Alberta, or alternatively, that he appoint him to a cabinet position so that he may be held responsible for his outlandish and false statements.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


NORTHWEST TERRITORIES REPRESENTATION ACT
Mitchell William Sharp: for leave to introduce Bill C-51, to increase the representation of the Northwest Territories in the House of Commons and to establish a commission to readjust the electoral boundaries of the Northwest Territories.


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

Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-52, to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act, the Diplomatic Service (Special) Superannuation Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, the Governor General's Retiring Annuity Act, the Judges Act, the Tax Review Board Act and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
ORDER OF REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEE On the Order: Government notices of motions:
February 13, 1975-The President of the Privy Council:
[Stage Direction]

That the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence be empowered to hear evidence on and to consider Canadian policy with respect to the question of continuing defence cooperation with the United States and in particular the future of the North American Air Defence agreement (NORAD); and
That the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence be empowered to hear reports from Canadian delegations which have met with delegations from foreign parliaments or attended inter-parliamentary assemblies.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21, this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 348, 361, 450, 465, 550, 780, 819, 871, 1,141, 1,153, 1,207, 1,213, 1,267, 1,284, 1,296, 1,348 and 1,349.
If questions Nos. 156, 276, 715 and 1,360 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred questions Nos. 1,098 and 1,121?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Gillies: 1.	(a) Over how many "off-main-line" trackage miles is grain normally moved (b) over how many of these trackage miles can a fully loaded hopper car move, with due regard for elevator loading clearances, track loading limits, etc. (c) over how many miles for a 3/4 and for a half loaded car respectively (d) when trackage is subject to safe load limits, can the loaded weight of the hopper car be accurately assessed, to avoid dangerous overloading?
2.	(a) Allowing for routine maintenance, how many car-days should these cars be expected to deliver over a normal season (b) how many car-days did they operate (c) on the average, how many cars would be sitting idle (i.e. not moving, not loading, not unloading) on a typical shipping day (d) for what reason would these cars be sitting idle?
3.	(a) For how many car-days were some of these cars diverted from moving prairie grain (b) what was the maximum number of cars diverted (c) what was the per diem rate (d) how much per diem rental was collected and what happened to it (e) what were the diversion dates?
4.	(a) For the in-service period of these cars, how many tons of wheat were moved (b) how many tons did these cars move (c) how many tons were moved by other cars (d) what are the comparable figures for all other grains (e) by best estimate, how many tons of wheat will have to be moved during each of the next five seasons (f) how many of these tons will move by other cars (g) how many tons will move via the 2,000 hopper cars (h) on a car-day basis, what per cent utilization will these 2,000 cars experience, by season?
Order Paper Questions


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: 1. (a) "Off-main-line" trackage: CN 2,529 miles, 263,000 maximum; 1,775 miles, 220,000 maximum; 3,752 miles, 177,000 maximum; CP Rail 1,852 miles, 263,000 maximum; 3,800 miles,
220,000	maximum; 135 miles, 177,000 maximum, (b) CN 2,529 miles: CP Rail 1,852 miles; (c) Three quarter: CN 4,304 miles; CP Rail 5,652 miles; Half, CN 8,056 miles; CP Rail 5,787 miles; (d) No. Strict control is exercised by the railways in placing hopper cars to avoid exceeding branch line track load limits. Weights shown on railway way-bills can be in error. Official weights are determined on out turn at terminal grain elevators.
2.	(a) The railways have advised that routine maintenance should not exceed 10 to 15 days per year, (b) Cars have been in service full time; (c) None, except for normal detention awaiting unloading and dispatch through classification terminals and junction points; (d) see (c) above.
3.	(a) None. The cars are restricted to grain service; (b) A total of 834 cars have been diverted to the handling of Prairie grain east or Thunder Bay to and including movements to the St. Lawrence and Atlantic Ports; (c) $7.50 per car day while assigned east of Thunder Bay; (d) $415,793 collected by the Canadian Wheat Board payable to the Receiver General covering 55,439 car days assigned east of Thunder Bay; (e) January-April 1974.
4.	(a) Canadian National advises that a total of 19,874,000 tons of all grain were moved between December 1972 and September 1974; CP Rail advises that a total of 21,441,100 tons of all grain were moved between the period January 1973 and June 1974; (b) CN 2,827,000 tons of a) above; CP Rail 2,783,800 tons of a) above; (c) CN 17,047,000 tons; CP Rail 18,657,300 tons; (d) A breakdown by grain is not available; (e) Estimates are not available; (f) Not available; (g) Not available; (h) Not available.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Is it the intention of DND to have all its existing documents, such as technical publications and forms, etc., relating to all military equipment, ground, air and sea, defence headquarters and military base stationery, etc., translated and printed in French and, if not, which forms or documents will be?
2.	Is a programme to have all the above-mentioned printed in French now in progress and, if so, on what date will it be completed?
3.	Will all existing documents in military colleges and training schools be translated and printed in French?
4.	Will any new documents, technical publications and forms, etc., be ordered in both French and English?
5.	What will the total cost be to translate and print all existing DND documents, technical publications and forms, etc., (including military colleges, training schools, air, land and sea divisions) in French?
6.	What is the projected increased cost to order any new Department of National Defence documents, etc., in English and French?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. The policy of the Department is to provide in bilingual format all orders, directives, instructions, form notices, information letters and bulletins and documents intended for other than local use, plus all manuals including general and technical publications. Local orders, recreational facilities are printed in the language of the unit or formation. Exceptions are that in the National

February 17, 1975
Order Paper Questions
Capital Region, and other locations in which there is a significant number of military personnel of both language groups, they are printed in bilingual format.
2.	Translation into French and printing in bilingual format has been in process for a number of years and is continuing. Except for technical publications the backlog should be eliminated in a very few years. The pace of translation of .technical publications will be geared to the availability of translators having the necessary technical experience.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.
5.	The total cost of the program cannot be estimated with any degree of accuracy at this time due to the long time frame.
6.	It is estimated that it costs 40 per cent more to publish documents in bilingual format than in a single language.


Mr. Neil: Has the Department of National Defence chartered any PWA Boeing 707 aircraft to carry freight to Europe and/or the Middle East from January 1, 1974 to the date this question is answered and, if so (a) what was the number of charters contracted for (b) what was the destination of each charter (c) what was the total cost of these charters (d) for what reason were DND aircraft not used?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes: (a) Three; (b) all three operated to Lahr, Germany; (c) $32,400; (d) DND aircraft were fully committed to higher priority activity.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What is the current cost to the public for training to operational proficiency a (a) transport pilot (b) combat pilot (c) radio navigator (d) dentist (e) medical officer (f) lawyer (g) tank driver (h) long range pilot (i) marine engineer (j) construction engineer (k) computer programmer (1) ship's captain?
2.	What were the training costs to the public for each category in 1963 and 1967?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. The cost of training the following trades and professions for 1974 is as follows excluding pay to the students: (a) and (h). Transport Pilot and long-range pilot, $270,648; (b) Combat pilot, $301,668; (c) Radio Navigator, $89,054; (d) Dentist, $10,980*; (e) Medical Officer, $6,102*; (f) Lawyers are usually recruited following qualification and admission to the bar. The only training costs involved are those common to all officer classifications such as recruiting and officer cadet school costs, these total $5,446; (g) Tank Driver, $12,993; (i) Marine Engineer, $16,400*; (j) Construction Engineer, $18,881*; (k) Computer Programmer, 25,628*.
* These costs include only DND disbursement and do not include any federal contributions and grants to post secondary educational institutions.

(1)	The training of ship's captain cannot be accurately costed as appointment is based on experience and merit following junior officer training.
2.	The training costs to DND for each category in the years 1963 and 1967, where available, are as follows:
Category	1963 $	1967 S
Transport and long-range		
pilot	82,400	94,500Combat pilot	82,400	99,000Radio navigator	54,600	69,900Dentist	Not available	3,500Medical Officer	Not available	3,500Lawyer	Not available	3,500Tank Driver	Not available	Not availableMarine Engineer	Not available	Not availableConstruction Engineer	7,500	Not availableComputer Programmer	12,000	Not availableShip's Captain	Not applicable	Not applicable


Mr. Jelinek: 1.	What was the total value of Olympic stamps sold as of October 1?
2.	What was the total cost of producing such stamps sold as of October 1?
3.	What payments were made to COJO as of October 1 from Olympic stamp sales?


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: 1. $1,630,277.
2.	$375,952 in manufacturing costs only, exclusive of other costs.
3.	$225,000 has been transferred to the Olympic account of the Department of Finance.


Mr. Diefenbaker: What was the total amount paid to the sculptors, with respective names and addresses, who produced (a) the statue of the Rt. Hon. Arthur Meighen (b) the statue of the Rt. Hon. Louis St. Laurent (c) the design proposal of the statue of the Rt. Hon. R. B. Bennett?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of Public Words and the Secretary of State as follows: Amount paid to sculptors was as follows: (a) Marcel Braitstein, P.O. Box 1238, Sack-ville, N.B. $48,000; (b) Eleck Imredy, 2132 Yew Street, Vancouver, B.C. $56,000. These payments were made through the Working Capital Advance and the costs recovered from the Secretary of State Department, (c) The Department of the Secretary of State paid $2,800 to Elford Cos, Willowdale, Ontario, to produce a maquette.
February 17, 1975


Mr. Stevens: 1.	As of March 31 in each year 1968, 1970, 1972 and 1974 (a) how many were employed by the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation (b) what would have been their aggregate salaries if all were employed for a full year (c) how many had salary levels of (i) $20,000 or more (ii) $35,000 or more (iii) $50,000 or more?
2.	What was the salary or the salary range for each of the five highest paid employees of the Corporation?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: The management of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation advised as follows: 1.
(a) 1968	723	
1970	695	
1972	752	
1974	825	
(b) 1968	$ 5,224,800	
1970	$ 7,104,451	
1972	$ 8,178,945	
1974	$12,338,055	
(c)	$20,000 $35,000	$50,0001968	4 -	-1970	9 1	-1972	12 3	-1974	34 2	-2. 1968	$30,000/$32,000	1 employee$25,000/$30,000	3 employees$19,000/$21,000	2 employees1970	$32,000/$36,000	1 employee$30,000/$32,000	3 employees$24,000/$25,000	2 employees1972	$40,000/$41,000	1 employee$35,000/$36,000	2 employees$28,000/$29,000	2 employees1974	$46,000/$47,000	1 employee$40,000/$41,000	1 employee$34,000/$35,000	1 employee$33,000/$34,000	1 employee$32,000/$33,000	3 employees


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What documents of any and all description (such as any type of form, records, stationery, employee directives, etc.) within the entire Department of National Health and Welfare have to be translated into the French language?
2.	Retroactive to what date will all past records of the Department have to be translated?
3.	At what date must all of these translations be completed?
4.	What amount of money was spent in the years 1973 and 1974 for translating such documents?
Order Paper Questions
5.	What will be the total cost of translating all existing documents, forms, stationery, records, etc. within the Department's entire operation?
6.	What is the total additional yearly cost of ordering all new forms, stationery, etc. in two languages compared to the cost in one language?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Secretary of State as follows: 1. As of November 20, 1974, it is estimated that 10,700 pages of forms and directives remain to be translated.
2.	Not applicable. Past records are not translated.
3.	These translations will be completed at the earliest possible date.
4.	It is difficult to provide a precise answer to the question in terms of the Department of National Health and Welfare, since, in order to achieve greater efficiency, the Government of Canada has consolidated all translation, interpretation and terminology services under a single administration, designed to serve all departments and public bodies which depend on them. Costs are not apportioned according to the types of activities mentioned above. However, the total demand for translation as represented by the number of words is available for the years 1972-1973 and 1973-1974. The production in words for 19721973 was 4,291,663; for 1973-1974 it was 5,048,963. On the basis of an analysis of operating costs for the Translation Bureau, the total operating costs are estimated at about ten cents per word for the two years in question.
5.	It is estimated that the cost of translating these documents will amount to $131,000.
6.	There is no additional ordering cost.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	How many occurrences of accidental or emergency depressurization that required an aircraft to decrease altitude in order to regain cabin atmospheric pressure were there on Air Canada passenger flights at home and abroad in 1973 and 1974?
2.	In how many of these instances (a) did the oxygen masks fail to be presented to all passengers (b) was oxygen not supplied to all passengers?
3.	How do the above figures compare to the airline industry average for the same time period?
4.	What steps have been taken recently to decrease the number of such instances?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, as the answer to this question is somewhat long, I wonder if it would be permissible to have it printed in Hansard as if it had been answered.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: Answer above referred to reads as follows:]
The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1 and 2. Air Canada operates some 200,000 total flight legs a year. In 1973 it experienced 13 pressurization problems and 11 in 1974. In both years oxygen masks were presented for passengers on three occasions. In all cases, oxygen was
3256

February 17, 1975
Order Paper Questions
supplied in a normal manner, within the design tolerances of the system as established by the aircraft manufacturer. Emergency oxygen systems are designed to start operating when cabin differential pressure reaches a pre-determined value. At that time, panels covering oxygen masks open and r assengers are expected to take them from the storage compartment and pull the attached line to start the flow of oxygen. Full instructions on the use of this system are given to all passengers by cabin personnel prior to each flight departure. In some cases, aircraft pressure differential setting and the flow control regulators, while within manufacturer's tolerances, may present or make the masks available at different times. In all checks run by Air Canada, systems have operated within the established design tolerances. There can also be instances where, at varying cabin altitudes, the flow of oxygen may be altered, since a smaller volume is required at lower altitudes. Again, during all checks, oxygen flows have been within manufacturers tolerances.
3.	The data available for industry comparison is based only on information reported to the manufacturer by operators, and it is inadequate for comparison. However, Air Canada has held discussions with other operators and manufacturers, and these confirm that Air Canada's operations compare favourably with current industry experience.
4.	Industry experience has shown that the design of the pressure system on the DC-9 is somewhat more critical than on other aircraft. As a result, a special meeting was held by the Douglas Corporation in October, 1974 to discuss DC-9 pressure control. Air Canada attended with 11 other airlines and the U.S. navy. Following the meeting, Douglas published a recommended list of 23 modifications of which Air Canada has actioned 22. The remaining item dealt with a switch location which has not been a problem in Air Canada's history.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	Has the Department of National Defence conducted studies to determine the choice of armoured vehicles to replace the Centurion tanks now used as the main component of our armoured regiments?
2.	Has consideration been given to purchasing (a) the British Chieftain (b) the German Leopard (c) the American M-60?
3.	Has the Department made inquiries as to the possibility of leasing tanks and, if so, what governments were consulted and what were the terms?
4.	What were the advantages and disadvantages of each type of tank considered (a) the Chieftain (b) the Leopard (c) the M-60 (d) others?
5.	Have plans been completed to acquire new tanks and, if so, on what date will they be delivered to the various armoured units across Canada and overseas?
6.	How many tanks will be acquired?
7.	What is the expected cost of the programme?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows: 1. The Department of National Defence maintains current information and detail specifications on several types of armoured vehicles.
2. (a), (b) and (c). The characteristics and capabilities of all three tanks have been studied and are well known to the department.
(Mr. Speaker.|
3.	The department has not made any formal inquiries about the possibility of leasing tanks but one firm has made an informal proposal to Canada to lease tanks to the Canadian forces.
4.	Each tank has some specific advantages over the others in terms of relative cost, size, weight, range and availability. However, these relative advantages and disadvantages are NATO classified information.
5.	No.
6 and 7. Not applicable.


Mr. Brisco: 1.	Did any employees of the Slocan Valley Community Library pay into the Unemployment Insurance Commission or had pay deductions made to the UIC in order that they could qualify for UIC benefits in the years 1972, 1973 and 1974?
2.	Have any employees of the Slocan Valley Community Library ever received UIC benefits on the basis of their employment at this library during the years 1972, 1973 and 1974?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Employees of the Slocan Valley Community Library (the correct name of this organization is Community Learning Unlimited) paid unemployment insurance premiums during 1973 and 1974, since they were working in insurable employment, as defined by the Department of National Revenue/Taxation.
2. At various times during 1973 and 1974, 12 persons qualified for and received unemployment insurance benefits.


Mr. Marshall: How many applications for positions as stewards and stewardesses were received by Air Canada in the years 1970 to 1974 from persons whose stated home address was (a) Newfoundland (b) Prince Edward Island (c) New Brunswick (d) Nova Scotia (e) Quebec (f) Ontario and, in each case, how many were accepted?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The
management of Air Canada advises as follows: Accurate records, indicating the number of applications received by Air Canada for positions as flight attendants, or records with any real degree of validity, are not available for the years prior to 1973. However, since the beginning of 1973, a complete account of all applicants interviewed-which represents those whose qualifications met basic minimum requirements-has been maintained. Application forms from those whose qualifications are not up to minimum standards set by Air Canada are returned with appropriate explanations. Following are statistics related to the years 1973 and 1974.
Number of Applicants
Interviewed	Number Hired
1973	1974	1973	1974(a) Newfoundland	fifi	63	2	0(b) Prince Edward Island	15	10	1	0
February 17, 1975

Number of Applicants
	Interviewed		Number Hired	
1973	1974	1973	1974(c) New Brunswick	225	GO	1	5(d) Nova Scotia	103	191	7	0(e) Quebec	2304	3008	422	210(f) Ontario	3840	2742	250	149


Mr. Wise: 1.	How many applications were received by the government for Canada Pension Plan disability pensions for each year 1972 and 1973 and, of these, how many were approved?
2.	(a) How many people received disability pensions for each year <b) what was the average amount received?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Disability pension applications received by Canada Pension Plan Head office: 1972, 18,009; 1973, 19,126; Approvals: 1972, 72.7% or 13,273; 1973, 72.8% or 13,924.
2. (a) Disability Recipients*: 1972, 19,330 (December); 1973, 29,636 (December); (b) Average monthly payment: 1972, $92.11; 1973, $93,75.
'Excluded are those who were beneficiaries sometime during these years but who were no longer beneficiaries in December and those who may have received retroactive payment at this time.


Mr. Huntington: Will the Department of Transport release the noise level studies arranged through the Department of the Environment, for the Canadian National Railway, pertaining to noise levels resulting from rail and waterfront activity in the City and District of North Vancouver and, if the study is not available, for what reason?


Jean Marchand: The
study referred to in the question is a private one conducted by Canadian National for their internal use. The Ministry of Transport did not participate in the study and does not propose to release the study results.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	Is the government committed to allowing Canadian Pacific Airlines rights to serving Saskatoon and Regina in Saskatchewan for domestic and/or international flights?
2.	Has Canadian Pacific Airlines made application to serve Saskatoon or Regina for domestic and/or international flights?


Jean Marchand: The
Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. No.
2. No.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Is the government giving consideration to an amendment to the War Veterans Allowance Act to provide for the payment of pension at married rates following a pensioner's divorce so long as the pensioner is compelled by court order to pay maintenance to the former spouse and/or the pensioner's children?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: No consideration is being given to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act to provide the payment of married rate following a recipient's divorce. Married rate is not paid to a recipient of an allowance if he or she is divorced as his or her spouse is no longer recognized for allowance purposes. With respect to dependent children, married rate may be authorized on behalf of the first child and additional allowance may be paid for each dependent child provided the child is a "dependent child" as specified in the Act.


Mr. Coates: 1.	Has it been the practice of Cabinet Ministers to exchange gifts when attending meetings outside Canada on government business and, if so, is this a usual practice or one that only relates to specific visits and, in either case, have there been occasions when this has occurred and what are the names of the Cabinet Ministers who have been involved in such gift exchanges?
2.	In each instance (a) was the gift received by the Cabinet Minister considered his own property or the property of the country (b) was the gift made to a foreign dignitary paid for by the Cabinet Minister in question or the government (c) what were the gifts exchanged?
3.	Have there been any occasions where a Cabinet Minister visiting outside of Canada received a gift from a foreign government where there was no exchange of such gifts and, in these instances, was the gift retained by the Cabinet Minister or did it become government property and, in cases where this has happened, what was the specific item received?


Mitchell William Sharp: There is no policy for exchanging gifts. On certain occasions, such as official visits when they are guests of another country, Ministers have presented gifts to their hosts on behalf of the Government of Canada. Sometimes the host has presented a gift to the visiting Canadian Ministers. The same general situation prevails when dignitaries from other countries visit Canada officially and are guests of the Government of Canada. The gifts selected for presentation to hosts abroad or to visitors to Canada have been of a personal nature intended to be retained by them as a souvenir of the occasiop and of Canada. Enquiries among Ministers indicate that the gifts they have received have been of the same character, i.e. personal and intended as a souvenir of the occasion and of the country of the donor.


Mr. Robinson: In what way will the government ensure that the 5 per cent sales tax reduction on building materials will be passed on to the consumer?
28996-21/2

February 17, 1975
Order Paper Questions


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that the answer to this question was contained in the answer to Question No. 1,191, which may be found in Hansard, January 29, 1975, page 2714.


Mr. Robinson: What percentage of the sales tax on building materials refers to (a) housing (b) commercial construction?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that approximately one third of the estimated revenue from the sales tax on building materials was derived from materials used in residential construction and two thirds from materials used in non-residential construction.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	In the period March 31, 1973 to March 31, 1974, on how many occasions did a Minister of the Crown employ, or otherwise arrange for the services of, a freelance or contract speech writer?
2.	In each case (a) who was the Minister (b) what was the fee (c) what was the occasion of the speech?
Return tabled.



FOREIGN-OWNED FISHING VESSELS ON EAST COAST

Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	In 1965, 1967, 1969, 1971, 1972 and 1973 (a) what was the number of foreign-owned fishing vessels fishing on the East Coast of Canada (i) above the 50th parallel (ii) below the 50th parallel (b) what were the countries of origin of such vessels (c) what was the tonnage?
2.	For the same years (a) what was the number of foreign-owned fishing vessels fishing on the West Coast of Canada above the 55th parallel (b) what were the countries of origin of such vessels (c) what was the tonnage?
3.	In each case, what were the reported catches on the East Coast of the species (a) cod (b) haddock (c) halibut (d) herring (e) pollock (f) silver hake (g) ocean perch?
4.	In each case, what were the reported catches on the West Coast of the species (a) halibut (b) salmon (c) cod?
5.	During the same years, what was the number of Canadian-owned vessels having a fishing range in excess of 100 miles in the four areas designated, their tonnage and catch on the species designated?
Return tabled.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-TRAVEL EXPENSES FOR MINISTER AND STAFF, 1972-74

Mr. Stevens: 1. In each fiscal year ending March 31, 1972, 1973 and 1974, and for the six month period ending September 30, 1974, what was the aggregate
| Mr. Robinson.)
expenditure by the Department of Agriculture for travel abroad by (a) the Minister of Agriculture and his immediate staff (b) departmental staff (c) the staff of boards, commissions, tribunals, Crown corporations or other similar agencies reporting to the Minister (d) others whose expenses were paid in part or in whole directly or indirectly by the government?
2. In the case of an expenditure in excess of $200 (a) what was the purpose of the foreign trip (b) what was the furthest destination (c) what is the name of the person(s) who took the trip (d) how long was the person(s) outside the country (e) what was the nature of the expenditure (f) how many others were in the party making the trip?
Return tabled.



SURVEY OF DISABILITIES OF PRISONERS OF WAR DURING WORLD WAR II

Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Did the government request J.D. Hermann, M.D., to do a survey of the disabilities of the servicemen (all three services) who were prisoners of war in the European Theatre during World War II and, if so, on what date was this report requested?
2.	How many questionnaires were mailed out to ex-prisoners of war in April 1973 and what were the questions asked?
3.	Has Dr. Hermann completed and reported the results of his survey and, if not, for what reason?
Return tabled.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to answers to certain order paper questions being made orders for returns rather than answering them in the usual manner so that the answers appear in Hansard. On February 5, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) referred to this problem. At that time the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) replied setting forth what he said was the procedure the government followed in deciding whether or not to make a question an order for return. I quote from the parliamentary secretary's statement which appears at page 2931 in Hansard:
The general practice we follow now is that all answers that will take over half a page to three-quarters of a page in Hansard are made orders for returns.
Mr. Speaker, I refer specifically to question No. 426 and the answer tabled last Wednesday, February 12. The question asked for information regarding appointments or employment received by candidates of the Liberal party since the general election of July 8, 1974. The answer listed the names of ten Liberal candidates who were placed on the public payroll following defeat by the electors. These names do not appear in Hansard because the government used the device of tabling the answer. Surely, Mr. Speaker, it cannot be contended, to cite the formula outlined by the parliamentary secretary, that the printing of these names in Hansard would take up more than half to three-quarters of the page. It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that this is a glaring example of the government tabling an embarrassing answer so that it will not appear in Hansard. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the government should not be able, by using the procedure of tabling answers, to hide information which shows the manner in which it rewards party faithful from the public trough.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 17, 1975


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a similar point of order. I have a number of questions that have been on the order paper since September 30, 1974; Nos. 40, 41, 42, 46, 47, 48 and 50. I appreciate that there is detail associated with them. For example, one question relates to the number of times government aircraft were used by cabinet ministers between May 8 and July 8, 1974. It is very important that the House of Commons and the public know whether during a federal election campaign cabinet ministers were using government aircraft. We are entitled to this information. We are entitled to know if government aircraft were used for political purposes and whether repayment was made to the federal treasury for the use of those aircraft.
There are a number of other questions that are similar. In view of the fact the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) and a number of his colleagues went to Great Britain to see how questions are answered in that country and they discovered that most could be answered within one week, any member of this House who has had to wait since last September 30 deserves an explanation and the answers as quickly as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: On the points of order raised, particularly the one with regard to a delay in answering questions, this is something the House had heard before. Although this may be a grievance, it is not a point of order.
On the point raised by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt), the practice of asking that certain responses be deemed to have been made orders for return in order that the returns can be tabled forthwith, is, of course, at the pleasure of the House. If hon. members are unhappy with that practice, it is to be hoped a way will be found to improve it. The failure to do so might ultimately result in the withholding of agreement of the House to that tabling. This might lead to the question being put as to whether that can or ought to be done at that time. Although it might be dramatic, it would be a rather cumbersome procedure. That is the logical conclusion of a disagreement about whether such responses can be tabled in that way. As I say, if there is difficulty about the procedure, hon. members can agree on a way to improve it.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, I rise regarding a question having to do with the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill-starred question No. 1,526. I endeavoured to get this information by means of an ordinary question placed on the order paper in the month of October, I think it was-I do not have it before me. It has to do with pensions and the amount paid to Mr. Pickersgill when he headed the Transport Commission. The answer previously given was completely without information as far as answering the question was concerned. Therefore, on February 5 I put down a starred question regarding the same matter. Starred questions have to be answered orally. I realize it is going to be embarrassing if this answer is given, but I would point out to Your Honour that the contemptuous way in which questions are being answered, or answers withheld, constitutes an endeavour on the part of the government to place a blindfold on parliament.
Oral Questions
I shall not deal with that matter at the moment, but I think I should say to you, Mr. Speaker, as custodian of our rights in the House of Commons, that this hiding of the facts, the delays in answering that are taking place, indicate that the government has complete contempt for the right of members to secure information. This is a matter which I may bring to your direct attention shortly.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour arising out of a statement of the Minister of Finance that public service employees had been represented at talks with union leaders aimed at reaching some kind of consensus to restrain inflation. I should like to ask the Minister of Labour who has, I understand, been participating in these talks, whether the government has outlined to the unions, particularly, in this case, the public sector, any specific guideline respecting incomes, wages or salaries which the government feels would be suitable and appropriate in present conditions.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Not in the
discussions in which I was present.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. It arises from the statement made by the Minister of Finance in the House on January 28.1 quote;
From my point of view the addition of a COLA clause makes a good deal of sense because it responds to the cost of living rather than anticipating rates of inflation, which hopefully will not be attained.
I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the endorsement of a COLA clause by the Minister of Finance is government policy, particularly with relation to public service contracts?


Mitchell William Sharp: As the Minister of Finance said in the statement which has just been quoted, there is something to be said for this. But, regrettably, there is more to be said than that. I would not look upon the statement of the Minister of Finance as being an endorsement at all. He merely comments that there is something to be said in favour. There is something to be said on the other side, too. I would not interpret the Minister of Finance as endorsing COLA.


John George Diefenbaker: There is something to be said for cabinet solidarity.

February 17, 1975
Oral Questions


Mr, Sharp:: Anyone who has looked into the question of the best basis for the negotiation of labour contracts knows that this is a subject upon which there can be legitimate differences of view. The Minister of Finance was not endorsing this concept for universal application; he was saying there was something to be said for it, and there is.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I must say it is sad for a Leader of the Opposition to see a Minister of Finance undermined when he is operating under such difficult conditions as this. I take it that the Acting Prime Minister has rejected the statement of policy made by the Minister of Finance in the House on January 28.
In view of the explanation given by the Minister of Finance the other day as to why the process of reaching a consensus has been delayed, which is partly because he and other ministers involved have been busy with other responsibilities, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he is prepared to give the House the time period within which the government will report to the House regarding this effort to achieve a consensus, which has been put off; and in view of its importance and the apparent distraction of ministers involved with other duties, will the government delegate or designate one minister as being responsible for carrying out this program and giving it the highest priority?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, these consultations are continuing. I do not think the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition would have the effect of expediting the process. I think it is highly desirable that a number of ministers should be involved and that the government itself, through the Prime Minister, should take the responsibility. When these consultations have reached the point where there is something useful to report regarding the explorations that have taken place, there will be a report to the House.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do I take it that the Acting Prime Minister is refusing to give a date within which the government will report on this matter that was in the Speech from the Throne and which has been dragging along now for quite a number of months?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not think it would be desirable to fix the date, Mr. Speaker. I think the most important point about these explorations is that we should try to reach a consensus among the people who are participating. If we fix a time by which we are supposed to report a consensus, it is my view that it would inhibit the process.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege at this time. I have just had provided to me an answer to question No. 1,296. This is the first opportunity I have had to rise since being made aware of the reply to the question, and I understand this is the avenue I should follow. I raise this question because-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the hon. member is reserving his right to raise a question of privilege at the first available opportunity, but I wonder whether it would be agreeable to him to wait until the conclusion of the question period before raising his question of privilege. I understand his concern that if he waited until the end of the question period it might be asserted that he had not raised it at the first available opportunity.


Robert Carman Coates: That would be satisfactory to me, Mr. Speaker.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board and arises out of the obvious split between the President of the Privy Council and the Minister of Finance respecting COLA clauses as they apply to the public service. In view of this difference of view, is the government contemplating any across the board incomes guidelines or a program that would be flexible regarding lower paid groups in the economy that have fallen significantly behind? I have in mind particularly the GLT group. Does the matter of comparability of wages for this group and similar workers in the private sector fit within the terms of reference of the government's objectives on a consensus?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in the public service we try to reach agreement with unions through negotiations. Our objective is to provide civil servants with salaries comparable to those received by people carrying out similar duties in the private sector. I think that with such a policy it is possible to achieve the government's objectives.


Walter David Baker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the obvious failure on the part of the government to impress upon the GLT's this situation, in view of the bankruptcy of policy on the part of the government respecting the lower paid employees in the public service-which all members of the GLT group are-and particularly in view of the fact that one union member is reported at noon today to have said that if the government would shorten its contract period from two years to one some talking point might be arrived at and there would be a new chance for agreement, would the government indicate whether it will do this in order that
February 17, 1975

this matter which has just begun can be brought to a head and this strike concluded?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are still negotiating with the union. The parties met over the weekend and this morning, and they are talking. The mediator, Mr. O'Connor, is working with the parties and I hope he will find a solution that will be acceptable to both of the parties.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Having said when unemployment in the automotive industry had reached only 15,000 that the government had no specific plans because the minister did not then regard the industry as being in a serious situation, I should like to ask the minister, now that unemployment has reached the 25,000 figure, and particularly since he has had time to consider a long and serious brief presented to him and to other ministers by the United Automobile Workers of Canada, whether he is in a position today to announce specific proposals which his government plans to take in order to deal with this very serious situation.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we had a very good meeting this morning with representatives of the automobile workers. Theirs was a lengthy, comprehensive submission dealing positively with many of the issues before us. My colleagues and I will be giving very careful consideration to it.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the minister has had the brief for some ten days and that he and his officials as well as other ministers in the cabinet have had access to and studied the brief for some ten days, is either the minister's department or any other department of government prepared to announce today proposals or courses of action which they plan to take, or can the minister at least tell the House when we can expect a specific, detailed program from the government?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been present this morning, he would have known that my colleagues and I took note of a number of these submissions made by the automobile workers. We will be advising him in due course of the government's decision.


AUTOMOBILES-REDUCTION OF PRICE AS MEANS TO STIMULATE INDUSTRY
John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I can only hope that there are still some workers employed by the time the government gets around to announcing its decision. I should like to ask him about one area of price differential in which the minister has shown remarkable insight by saying we sell 80 per cent of our cars to the United States,
Oral Questions
overwhelmingly due to the fact that the price is about $600 lower in the United States. Has the minister or the government reconsidered the price position with a view to bringing down the price to Canadian consumers as one means of increasing employment in the industry?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would focus upon the main problem of the automobile industry in Canada, which is the failure of the United States market, he would realize that the particular solution he is proposing would not have the effect of bringing about a resurgence in the automobile industry of Canada.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
There is now some discontent in northwest Quebec regarding Val-d'Or and Rouyn airports. Val-d'Or was previously a military airport, which is now within the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport, and Rouyn has a civilian airport. The minister is undoubtedly aware that officials of his department visited these two places many times.
Can the minister say today whether Val-d'Or will keep all its present equipment and continue to provide the same services, and whether Rouyn will be adequately equipped, so that airlines can serve both airports for people who want to go to that region?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, when the Department of National Defence decided not to keep that airport, we sent investigators to see how we could use it for civilian purposes, since it was already used for such purposes.
We are trying to determine the best way to proceed. I cannot promise the hon. member there will be two airports, one in Rouyn and one in Noranda. I think the hon. member can easily use his car to go from one to the other but, in any case, it would be a good thing if one of them provided adequate service.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Whether I want to take the plane or use my car does not concern the Department of Transport.
For about twelve years, officers of that department have come to visit the region. They promise us the equipment for an airport in Rouyn, to make possible the landing at 70 miles from Val-d'Or. That is done between Ottawa and Montreal, and I think that Rouyn and Val-d'Or are as important as Ottawa. Is the minister prepared to give better service to Rouyn airport without taking any away from Val-d'Or?

February 17, 1975
Oral Questions


Jean Marchand: I can assure the hon. member for Temiscamingue that his representation will be taken into very serious consideration, and I hope he will be satisfied.
*
* *


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Inasmuch as we have heard from the Minister of Labour that he has had no discussions with the Minister of Finance respecting guidelines, has the President of the Treasury Board had any discussions with the Minister of Finance respecting wage guidelines, and has he had any discussions with the Minister of Labour and, if so, were these guidelines expressed in any way to the general labour and trades group at any point during the negotiations or subsequent to them?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, if I were to reveal in the House what my position is, there would be no point in having any negotiations.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I was not looking for details of any disclosure. Let me put the question in the simplest form. I believe the House is entitled to this information. Has the President of the Treasury Board discussed the matter of guidelines with the Minister of Finance, not necessarily with respect to the current negotiations but regarding negotiations that will be going on from time to time between the Treasury Board and employees of the federal government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is a well known fact, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance and I get along very well.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to get back to Canada's troubled automobile industry and I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that 30 per cent to 40 per cent of the Canadian automobile industry is directly dependent upon sales of Canadian auto products in Canada and because of the buyer resistance that is building up this year due to the price increase of Canadian automobile products, and further, because one of the factors in that increase is the 12 per cent federal sales tax levied on Canadian manufactured automobiles, not Volkswagens, not cars produced in the United States but Canadian manufactured automobiles, can the minister tell us now if the government has

any plans to reduce or abolish the federal 12 per cent sales tax as has already been done in respect of the construction industry?


Alastair William Gillespie: The Canadian automobile industry depends on U.S. consumers for about 80 per cent, or very close to it, of its production. Therefore, the sales tax proposal that the hon. member has put is, in my view, not an answer to the Canadian automobile industry. If indeed the sales tax reductions were to be applied, they might also have the effect of increasing the proportion of imports from third countries.


John George Diefenbaker: What about the Canadian consumer?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: In view of the fact that we are talking about a sales tax on Canadian manufactured goods, not those imported into this country, and in view of the fact that the ten year old auto pact called for an equalization of price in respect of motor vehicles produced on the north American continent, can the minister tell us now what the government is doing right now in respect of the troubled Canadian auto industry?


An hon. Member:: Nothing besides prayer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the fact that there are only about six weeks before the phasing out of the Veterans Land Act and that there are just under 3,000 applications which have been received by the veterans land administration because of the extension of the act, would the minister indicate whether, if no new veterans housing legislation is introduced before March 31, 1975, he will extend the act by an order in council or by legislation until the veterans housing legislation is ready.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it has been decided by the government that the Veterans Land Act would not be extended any further. As I have mentioned on previous occasions, a study has been conducted by my department, by the department of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, by the Department of Finance, and others. When the findings are known to us which I hope will be very soon, I will make them available to the House of Commons.


Jack Marshall: The minister did not answer my particular point, that is whether, if the new veterans housing legislation is not ready by March 31, 1975, the minister would consider extending the act for two or three months until that legislation is ready.
February 17, 1975


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: This is a government decision which will be taken at the time, and whether the decision is favourable or unfavourable, the announcement will be made.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: My
question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Because of the fact that so many different sectors of the economy are being affected by the present GLT group walkouts, could the minister advise the House whether or not he would now perhaps consider looking into the possibility of having single public sectors in the economy dealing with the government as a whole in order to avoid the fragmentation of union power which, for example, has made this specific walkout so widespread?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have some difficulty with that question because I do not know whether there would be less disruption if all the people were in the same union. If there were to be a strike, it would be a hell of a big strike. I do not think this would serve any useful purpose. Last week when the question was put to me twice I said that a joint committee of the House and of the Senate is looking into the recommendations of the Finkelman report and the hon. member will be welcome to express his views.


Otto John Jelinek: The President of the Treasury Board did not understand my question in which I referred to the individual public sectors, not the whole economy. However, my supplementary question to the Minister of Labour is as follows.
In view of the present work stoppage by the GLT group, could the minister advise this House whether his suggestion made to cabinet in a recent memorandum regarding labour relations in Canada will be implemented, and whether consideration is being given by cabinet to establishing a Canada labour relations council for the purpose of finding, on a continuing basis, solutions to different problems of practice and perception in labour relations, including the problems of fragmentation in the union?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am not free to discuss here policies with respect to labour or any other policies discussed in cabinet.


HOUSING
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. It
Oral Questions
deals with the report of the York County grand jury recommending that Canadian forces personnel be used to clean up the unholy mess in Rochdale College in Toronto.
I would like to ask the minister what action the government has taken or will take regarding this problem which has been existing for four years.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member probably knows that this is in the hands of the court. There is a court-appointed trustee. Court action is taking place. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that the wheels of justice grind slowly.


An hon. Member:: Like the cabinet.


Barnett Jerome Danson: We would like to see this turned over for more beneficial use of the community, and I assure those concerned that while we are going through a legal process, I am keeping close to it. We will do all we can to co-operate and see that the best use of the accommodation available is made if this property returns to CMHC's hands.


William C. Scott: I agree that the wheels of justice grind slowly, but they must need a little grease by now. Why can the minister's department not put this building to some better use so that the citizens of Canada, especially the senior citizens, may receive some value for their tax dollars? I ask him to look into this.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of constant concern. I would like to see this returned to beneficial use for senior citizens or some other use which may be decided upon. I cannot do anything until the courts have made their determination.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport?
Since people from Toronto and the area are still reluctant about the Pickering airport project, would the minister consider transferring part of the funds earmarked for this airport to make the urgent improvements needed at the iles-de-la-Madeleine's airport and build an airport at Bonaventure?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.

February 17, 1975
Oral Questions


Albert Béchard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe the minister was rising to answer my question and I would like to hear what he has to say.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I believe that if repairs are needed they should be made at the airports referred to, without necessarily using the funds earmarked for other purposes.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I now direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the government at the instigation of the Minister of Finance decided to cut back or slow down the social security program which the Minister of National Health and Welfare announced in this House on April 18, 1973? Can he specifically now tell us what the target date is for the introduction of a guaranteed annual income?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will have the opportunity to meet my provincial counterparts tomorrow and the day after at a federal-provincial conference of welfare ministers. As for the matter of income security, I think that when my hon. friend reads the proposal the government intends to make to the provinces on this occasion, he will find that these proposals are well within the limits indicated in the working paper tabled in this House in April 1973.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, will the minister make a statement on this matter to the House immediately following that conference?


Marc Lalonde: I will certainly make sure that any statements I make at the conference will be available immediately to all members of this House. As to whether it will be necessary to make a formal statement to the House at the end of the conference, I would like to give consideration to it later on.


MANPOWER
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and I would also ask the President of the Treasury Board to give it very special attention.

Owing to the considerable increase in unemployment in areas where textile and lumber industries are set up, as in the Bellechasse constituency where the people are quite concerned, may I ask the minister whether additional estimates will be earmarked for the Local Initiatives Program, so that priority projects will be subsidized thus creating jobs to compensate for dismissals in those industries and will he suggest that the date for the beginning of works be deferred from January 31, 1975 to March 31, 1975?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will give consideration to and discuss the hon. member's representations with my colleagues.


FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last I asked the Minister of Finance this question, and in his absence today I will repeat it for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In view of the obvious revision of the financial resources available to the government and to the economy, would the minister advise the House as to the revised figure he has arrived at respecting the cash requirements of the government for unemployment insurance payments in the fiscal year 1975, in light of the government's obligations? Will this figure possibly exceed the $2 billion reached in 1972?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think, as the Minister of Finance indicated, there are a great number of variables which go into such forecasts.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: He said he would look into it.


Robert Knight Andras: Yes, I am sure he will, and we are constantly looking at the variables to see the range. I would say that it is quite possible that the benefit pay-out in 1975 would be larger than the benefit pay-out in 1974, but to what extent I cannot tell you yet.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In view of the fact that the estimates are going to be tabled on Wednesday next, surely the minister already knows whether the figure of cash requirements for the government with regard to its responsibilities under the unemployment insurance scheme will exceed $2 billion.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, of course the Minister of Finance has been a party to these calculations. When the estimates are tabled I am sure the hon. member will be able to explore with us what the consequences and results might be.
February 17, 1975


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Given the precarious situation of the 37 Colombian weavers of Louiseville who have obtained some support from Quebec, does the minister intend to grant them an immigration visa?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I missed the first part of the question. I presume it relates to the Colombian workers who were brought in to work in the textile industry. As the hon. member knows, we have extended their permission to be here and we are looking at all possible means to alleviate a situation which arose, perhaps, inadvertently.


POST OFFICE
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Has the Postmaster General investigated the report which appeared in the Montreal Star on Thursday last under the byline of Mr. Claude Adams to the effect that there was a deliberate slowdown in postal service in the Montreal post office which included sporadic and erratic situations, double and triple sorting of sacks and other activities of that kind, and if he is investigating this report, would he be making a statement to the House on the matter?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, we are constantly monitoring all our main post offices including that in Montreal, and the performance in the Montreal post office leaves something to be desired. On the other hand, there are officials there today making certain that our supervisors in the Montreal area have the required authority to prevent such action from being taken.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question. In view of the statement of the Postmaster General that a small number of troublemakers are out to destroy the whole system, would he report to the House on this matter in order to restore the good name of the majority of postal workers and also to avoid further more serious disruptions of this kind?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that right now the majority of postal workers are entitled to a good name. They are law abiding citizens who do excellent work and provide the third best postal system in the world. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that the group I am
Oral Questions
talking about is not confined to Montreal; it is found in other areas as well. The ideological conflict will be sorted out in due time.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Since Canada's five regional airlines have stated that an urgent review of regional air policy is very necessary to them especially since they [DOT] contend, and rightly so, that they are operating within the framework of the 1966 policy, I should like to ask the minister in view of the fact that his department has had some discussions with the regional air carriers about this program in the past two months, if he can inform the House what steps will be taken to upgrade regional air policies? Can the minister also inform the House whether a policy statement will be forthcoming in regard to what the Department of Transport intends to do in connection with regional carriers?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the policy which I hope can be announced shortly will cover not only the regional air carriers but it will cover the third level air carriers, it will cover the boards, it will cover the airports, the railways, the highways-it will cover everything that moves in Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: It won't cover the government, then.


AGRICULTURE
Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the recent crisis in the beef industry that is causing farmers to sell livestock at almost half the cost of production, I should like to ask the minister what steps the government is taking at this time to alleviate the situation?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we have programs for our livestock producers that no other nation in the world has and we can provide stability for their production. We have, for top grade cattle, a support price of $45.42 per hundredweight. We are reviewing our indexing system for the price we set last August for one year and have announced that this cattle support program will be extended for another year from August, 1975. The provinces also have programs. There is no way we can tell people not to sell their cattle, but I think they would be better off not to sell at this time.

February 17, 1975
Oral Questions HARBOURS


SCOTT REPORT-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON GRANTS TO MUNICIPALITIES WHICH HAVE COMMISSION PORTS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. The minister is aware of the discrepancy that exists between the National Harbours Board and the commission ports and he knows the difficulties for those areas where commission ports are built. Could the minister inform the House as to the disposition of the Scott report and tell the House whether it contains policy regarding grants in lieu of taxes to local governments where such commission ports are in operation?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to give a clear answer on this and I am sure you can understand why. We have a very difficult situation here-it is easy to make a joke of what I am saying but the problem is the following: we have 13 ports under the National Harbours Board jurisdiction; we have the same number of harbour commissions and we have from 15 to 2,000 ports-


An hon. Member:: You have one hell of a mess.


Jean Marchand: -which depend on the marine administration of my own department. Then, we have ports with special status like those in Toronto and Hamilton and private ports like Seven Islands and Port Cartier among others. The situation differs from place to place. If you ask me whether the National Harbours Board has a general policy for all those ports the answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, which relates to the very serious situation in the automotive industry today. Since almost half the people employed in the automobile industry are employed in the parts sector and since this sector is particularly badly hit at this time, can the minister tell the House specifically what the government is planning to do to alleviate this critical situation?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, we have been trying to assist them to find new export markets. We have participated with them in a number of trade missions abroad and Canadian fairs abroad. There have been various delegations from other countries to Canada looking at Canadian parts manufacturing as a source of supply. We are trying to find as many new and varied markets as we can.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice I would direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the subject also concerns the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. On March 25, 1974 I mentioned the fact that 75 per cent of all family maintenance orders made by Canadian Family Courts against deserting husbands are in default. These defaults cost the Canadian taxpayer $365 million annually. In answer to my question during the adjournment debate the parliamentary secretary stated that this problem could be explored through the conference of uniformity commissioners on legislation which meets annually to examine ways and means of achieving uniformity in laws throughout the various jurisdictions. Can the minister now report to the House on the annual meeting and state what action is being taken to rectify this situation which has cost Canadian taxpayers close to $1 billion since January 1, 1973.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to refer the hon. member's question to the Minister of Justice on his return to the House and the minister will then report.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the continuing hearings being held by the environmental authorities in the State of Maine regarding the construction of an oil refinery at Eastport, Maine, and in view of the position taken by the Minister of the Environment on April 29, can the minister inform the House whether a message has been sent to the Secretary of State of the United States to indicate what use may be made of Canadian waters for the delivery of oil to the proposed refinery?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend has stated the application is presently before the board in Maine and to my knowledge no decision has been rendered. If the oil for use in the proposed refinery is to be carried through the Head Harbour passage, of course, the attitude of the government of Canada has been made clear to the government of the United States. We think that the hazard to the environment is so great that this would be a very unwise course of action.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day. The hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North on a question of privilege.
February 17, 1975


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege relating to a matter raised earlier by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) that was brought to my attention in answer to question No. 1296 today. If you will examine question No. 1296 you will see that I asked very specifically for details in relation to gifts exchanged between members of our government and members of foreign governments when our government members are visiting foreign countries or members of other governments are visiting this country. In my question I sought to determine a number of things. I wanted to know, mainly, what moneys the taxpayers of Canada were putting up for gifts to foreign dignitaries. I was referring to gifts which such dignitaries receive in this country and to gifts which members of our government give to them when visiting other countries. As well, I wanted to know what happened to gifts received by representatives of our government.
The answer I received was pure gobbledygook. It says nothing except that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), who signed the order, states that there is no policy with respect to exchanging gifts. That, Mr. Speaker, is obvious. I submit that members of parliament are entitled to such information as I seek. The money for gifts given by our government members does not come out of the pockets of cabinet ministers; it comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers of this nation. Yet this government refuses to supply me with the detailed information I seek about the expenditures of those tax dollars. This is not the first time this has happened. The government is becoming more and more secretive and ever more reluctant to disclose information; and we have a legitimate right to such information.
The government is making a mockery of a procedure which is useful in eliminating debate in this chamber. We submit questions to be placed on the order paper for a very good reason: if they were not on the order paper, the answers would take up valuable time in the question period which is already too short. For a long time I have endeavoured not to misuse the question period and, whenever possible, in my search for information I have submitted written questions. The response to such questions has been inadequate. For example, not long ago there was a request for information and details about people taking language courses on either a short or a long-term basis. The answer was that; everybody taking a language course, regardless of where he may be, is treated as if he were still a member of the work force here in Ottawa. I point out that such a person might be in Quebec or in France. Nevertheless, that is all the information which was supplied.
If a question on the order paper is to be a useful tool for members of parliament, I suggest that you, sir, as our representative and spokesman should see to it that we are furnished with legitimate replies to our questions-and this is happening less and less frequently. The kind of garbage I was given as an answer today is just not good enough. Something must be done or the entire system under which we work will break down. We are not being treated fairly. The government is secretive-and it has no right to be secretive about how the taxpayers' dollars are
Privilege-Mr. Coates
spent. We want the facts. Having taken the time to formulate a question in detail, a question which is often based on research, we are entitled to an answer. The least we can expect is that the government will give us the information we seek. If we do not get it, the House will discover that every Monday and Wednesday at least half the day will be taken up by members of the opposition legitimately rising and complaining about the government not giving them information to which they are entitled.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. It has become obvious that the government is hiding information, concealing facts and refusing to produce any information that is available. For example, let me refer to the question I asked on November 8 last, three months ago. I knew what the answer was when I asked the question; I received it from a departmental official. I wanted to know the total amount paid to sculptors for the statues of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen and the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, and for the design proposal of the statue of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. The government hid that information for three months. I raised the matter recently and said there could be no excuse for this. The excuse, of course, is that the government is afraid to give us the answer; that is all. But that is not the way to treat parliament.
Today, according to the answer furnished, we learn that the sculptor, Marcel Braitstein of Sackville, New Brunswick, received $48,000 for the statue of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. Sir, that was the greatest monstrosity ever produced-a mixture of Ichabod Crane and Daddy Longlegs. It is about nine feet high, and totally worthless. The government hid it for the last three or four years until we found out about it. Not only did the government decide that it could not set up such an object on Parliament Hill; it refused to give an answer for three months.
The next part of the answer dealt with the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent. Elek Imredy was paid $56,000 for the statue. Then there was the monstrosity of a mock-up for the statue of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. It consisted of a mummy about three feet long, the identification of which might have been possible in the days of Tutankhamen, but not since. One, Elford Cox, of Willowdale, Ontario, was paid $2,800 for this. Why was this information withheld? This is happening day after day. It shows that the government is determined not to answer anything that might embarrass it, or is determined to hide an answer as an order for return so that the people will not see it.
I know the government cannot answer some questions immediately. On November 6 I asked how many convictions for rape have been registered over a period of years and how many kidnapping convictions have been registered. Although the question was asked three months ago, the government is still working on it. One would think, if they had any regard for the administration of justice, that the information would have been available long ago. But we are told all this takes a long time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Some hon. members have already contributed to the alleged point of order or question of privilege relating to questions which have been placed on the order paper, answers to which the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council

February 17, 1975
Privilege-Mr. Coates
(Mr. Reid) indicated would be given today. I accept the comments as being in the nature of a grievance. I think hon. members well know that the rules and Standing Orders of the House do not in any way compel the giving of answers by the government, no matter whether the question be an oral one put during the question period, a written question on the order paper or a question marked with an asterisk, that is, a starred question.
I am commenting now only on whether a question of privilege has been established and whether, in the final analysis, the Chair has any authority to compel answers. I am sure hon. members know full well that there is no compulsion under the Standing Orders and therefore no authority vested in the Chair to compel, in any way, the government to give answers. The government's choice as to whether to give answers is its own. Comments which have been made may be legitimate about the performance and discharge of that responsibility on the part of the government, but the Standing Orders stop short of providing the Chair with power of compulsion. I want hon. members to understand this clearly. The regulations and practices of this House stop far short of vesting authority in the Chair to compel any answers or to put any time limit on the giving of answers. If it is the feeling of hon. members that that should be done, that the Standing Orders of this House should be changed in such a way as to provide for compulsion, then so be it.
With regard to the point that it is not required within the Standing Orders at the present time, I wish to make it absolutely clear that I cannot see a question of privilege involved in this regard, nor can I see any authority for the Chair to compel action to be taken under the Standing Orders as they stand at the present time.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a different question of privilege, I will be glad to hear it.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I tried to rise earlier with regard to the matter of gifts which was raised a moment ago. I feel I have a legitimate question of privilege in this regard. Some weeks ago an announcement was made by the office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in keeping with the increased tendency toward the governing of Canada by the Prime Minister's office, that guidelines were being drawn up to set forth conflicts of interest with regard to gifts received by the Prime Minister, members of the cabinet and their wives. As yet, these guidelines have not been presented to this House.
All we have been presented with are answers like the one given today to the hon. member for Cumberland-Col-chester North (Mr. Coates), which answer is ridiculous and flaunts the privileges of every member of this House. I do not know if we have to wait until every member of the cabinet has had a Japanese junket, been given a swimming pool or a flight on a whisky jet-but it is time the government got off the seat of its pants and provided this House with proper conflict of interest guidelines.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East) moved: that the first report of the Special Committee on Egg Marketing presented to the House on Monday, December 16, 1974, be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was in the House earlier. I hope he will be here later to participate in this debate. Let me say at the outset that although my motion calls for concurrence in the committee's report, the reason I am putting forward the motion is to get the report before the House. I very much regret that this step was not taken by the chairman of the special committee or one of the government supporters on the special committee; hence, I moved the motion as a means of getting the report before the House so that it can be the subject of debate.
The special committee was set up on October 17 last with specific terms of reference. It was, first, to examine the operations of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency and, second, the performance of the several authorities having responsibility with respect to those operations. There was no quarrel with the terms of reference. They were sufficiently wide in scope to give the committee the latitude it needed to embark upon this very important inquiry. Where we did, and do quarrel is with respect to the very narrow time-frame placed upon the committee by the government. The committee was instructed to report back to the House on or before December 16, 1974. This meant we had less than two months in which to conduct our inquiry.
I ask hon. members to imagine a judicial inquiry or a royal commission inquiry being asked to embark upon an investigation of this magnitude and being told to hear the evidence, draft a report and present it to the government within two months. No judge or any other public-minded person in Canada would be party to such an inquiry. Yet that was precisely the position in which the special committee found itself. During the 24 days of the committee's public sittings we heard 73 witnesses and we received 173 briefs. The witnesses who appeared before the committee made oral presentations and they were subject to crossexamination. As far as the briefs were concerned, it was up to the members of the committee to examine them in the best way they could within the very narrow time limits imposed by the order of reference.
I think it is generally agreed that the members of the committee worked hard. In fact, this was one of the hardest working committees on which I have served. I can also say-and I am sorry the hon. member ?s not in the House- that the committee was presided over by a very fair, impartial and competent chairman. I refer, of course, to the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Fox).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 17, 1975


James Aloysius McGrath: I do not intend to go into the committee's report in detail: it is before the House. Suffice it to say that the report contains many very worth-while recommendations. The fact that my colleagues and I are dissenting from the report does not in any way mean that we do not support any of its recommendations or findings. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker. Many of the findings and recommendations in the report are the direct result of our interest; however, it is our opinion that the committee failed on two important grounds. In spite of evidence to the contrary, even an admission by the Minister of Agriculture that he shared some of the blame, the committee in its report to the House failed to lay the blame where it belongs, that is, squarely on the shoulders of the Minister of Agriculture. It makes a rather faint-hearted attempt in the report to absolve the Minister of Agriculture of any blame whatsoever regarding the destruction of the 28 million eggs. I quote as follows from page 16 of the report:
The committee recognizes that the Minister of Agriculture does not have any direct control over the operation of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency.
We intend to show during this debate that not only was the minister responsible, but that a lot of the problems plaguing the agency today are a direct result of the failure of the minister to take an active interest in the first year of the agency's operation, especially since it was supposed to be a pilot for other national marketing agencies to be established under the National Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act. Second, we cannot be a party to the committee's report because in our view the committee did not have an opportunity to hear all the facts pertaining to the operations of CEMA and the destruction of surplus eggs because of the time-frame imposed upon the committee by its order of reference. The committee had less than two months to call witnesses, examine the evidence and prepare a report for the House. The Minister of Agriculture said, during the debate setting up the committee-and I quote from page 490 of Hansard:
Let the nation get all the facts which it has not received to this date.
We did not get all the facts. Let me give the House three illustrations of what I mean. First, the committee never had an opportunity to examine the management committee of CEMA, that is to say, the committee which is in charge of the day to day operations of the agency. How can one properly carry out the terms of reference of the committee without examining the body which is most closely involved?
Furthermore, after the committee had concluded its public hearings and had commenced its sessions in camera to draft its report, a letter was circulated to all committee members by CEMA's auditors, Touche, Ross and Company, indicating that the auditors could not issue an audit of the agency's financial accounts which would be in accordance with generally accepted auditing principles, and here I am paraphrasing. I might say that this evidence was produced as a result of a question directed to the auditors by my colleague, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). In a letter to CEMA dated October 24, 1974, the auditors stated that the inventory records of the agency were inaccurate and not up to date at the time of
Egg Marketing Committee Report the auditors' examination. The letter also contained this startling revelation:
There were several locations where eggs were stored and could not be examined by us because the locations were not known to us or to the agency at the date of the examination.
That evidence was crucial to the committee's investigations. Obviously, the implication here was that there could have been considerably more than 28 million eggs destroyed. We shall never know, because CEMA itself did not seem to know; at least, the auditors were unable to locate stored eggs because the locations were unknown to CEMA. So the number destroyed may have been 30 million, 40 million, or more. It might have been as high as 100 million. On October 5, 1974, the last day of the committee's public hearings, the provincial ministers of agriculture, following meetings in Ottawa with the federal minister on the future of CEMA, issued a statement containing a number of recommendations the effect of which was to place CEMA under trusteeship for two years. This report did not come before the committee until the final day of public hearings, when there were no further opportunities open to us to examine witnesses or to hear new evidence. The key recommendations in the ministers' report are as follows:
1.	For an initial period of two years, CEMA should consist of a two-part administration: (A) CEMA proper, to consist of ten provincial representatives, plus (B) a five-member executive committee.
2.	The provincial representatives should be selected by the commodity egg board in each province and should be acceptable to the other signatories to the plan in each respective province.
3.	The executive committee should consist of: three persons appointed by the federal minister after receiving nominations from the provincial ministers; the chairman and vice-chairman of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency.
This report was not presented to the committee for examination. Moreover, its recommendations were adopted only on division according to a letter which the ministers themselves sent to the committee. Surely the House has the right to know which provinces dissented. We are entitled to know what position the Minister of Agriculture for Canada took in respect of those recommendations. As I say, this report came at the end of the committee's hearings and we had no opportunity to obtain this information.
Whether the recommendations are good or bad is irrelevant at this point. The point is, they represent a complete reversal of attitude toward CEMA. For example, when the publicity about CEMA in connection with the destruction of eggs had just begun, there were complaints that consumer representation on CEMA was inadequate. It was not suggested at any time that producers should not have any say in the conduct of their own marketing boards. But that is the attitude taken by most of the provincial ministers. It is up to the minister to decide whether to implement these measures or not. We hope the Minister of Agriculture, who is not in the House at this moment, will address himself to this question before the debate concludes.
The evidence to which I have referred, coming, as I say, at the end of the committee's hearings, totally discredits, in my view, the report which is now before the House. That is why my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Murta) will be moving an amendment later this day to refer the report to the Standing Committee on Agriculture where members

Egg Marketing Committee Report would have the opportunity to learn all the facts-not just selected facts, not just the facts the minister wants us to hear. There will also be an opportunity to look into the new facts which have come to light since the committee made its report.
I should like to review briefly the events which have taken place since the committee presented its report. In December there was an announcement that British Columbia would be withdrawing from CEMA. British Columbia is one of the important producer provinces. Then on January 29 of this year Newfoundland announced that it would be withdrawing from CEMA. We are told that other provinces are about to make a similar move. Why are those two provinces withdrawing? Surely the House is entitled to an answer to that question before it comments on this report.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that we no longer have a national egg marketing plan. Indeed, it is questionable whether such a plan ever existed. Evidence was presented to the committee, from several provinces, to the effect that barriers to interprovincial trade in eggs still exist even after a full year of operations by the agency. And, of course, the principal reason for bringing CEMA into existence was to end the so-called chicken and egg war; to bring down provincial barriers to trade. For example, Nova Scotia eggs could not get to Newfoundland, and British Columbia closed its border to eggs from Alberta and other provinces. The committee hears evidence to the effect that CEMA had set its intervention price, that is, the price which would be paid for surplus eggs, so high that it was, and perhaps still is, an incentive to over-produce.
Then again, CEMA is unable to enforce its quotas and some of the provinces have failed to discipline their own producers. Here I refer to the province of Quebec, Mr. Speaker. As a result, production in Canada is still out of control and CEMA is unable, or at least it was unable up to the end of January, to control the supply of eggs. Last month CEMA announced that it had 40 million surplus eggs in storage. That surplus production was growing by an additional 15 million eggs per week. Here I refer hon. members to the story that broke in the Globe and Mail on January 15 last. Shortly after that story appeared, CEMA announced at its meeting in Moncton that it would be reducing production by 10 per cent. What about the present surplus production? Is it now rotting in storage? We are told it has been disposed of. How was it disposed of? Even the Minister of Agriculture was skeptical of that statement when he first heard it.
Fourthly, there can be no supply-management concept unless and until there is co-ordination between domestic production and the importation of eggs into this country. We said the following in our own submission:
The Minister of Agriculture has failed to recognize a crucial feature of the supply-management concept in that his own government failed to implement an effective mechanism of import controls which directly resulted in lack of stability to the producer and still subjects the consumer to fluctuating prices.
The result, of course, is apparent every day. For example, the egg situation in the province of Ontario has been such that a short while ago Ontario producers were forced

to sell eggs at below cost of production, and this was a direct result of the failure of the agency, of the government through the minister, of the Farm Products Marketing Council and of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) to control the importation of eggs into Canada, or at least to co-ordinate the importation of eggs into Canada with the domestic supply of eggs. I am sorry that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) is not in the House. He did make one of his rather infrequent visits to the House today, but I am sorry that he has been unable to stay for this debate. Hopefully, the minister will participate in the debate since he does have direct responsibility in this matter.
The Consumers Association of Canada has described CEMA as a mismanaged monopoly. Enjoying as it does the special privileges that it has respecting the combines act, unless and until this particular agency has consumer representation it lends itself to that kind of charge. At the beginning of the present session the Minister of Agriculture promised the following, if I may quote from his speech on October 3 as reported at page 92 of Hansard:
Shortly we will be announcing some new appointments to the National Farm Products Marketing Council. These will include a consumer representative, a labour-oriented representative, and a businessman.
Where are these appointments? They were promised the House last October. Under the statute, the Farm Products Marketing Council has direct supervisory responsibility and is accountable to the minister, which of course makes the minister responsible for the day to day operations of CEMA. We were promised consumer representation on the council last October, so why has the government not seen fit to move on its promise?
What about CEMA itself, if in fact it is able to survive and does survive? I believe-many members share this view, including the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs-that CEMA, because of its special position and the special privileges it enjoys, and also because the provisions of the combines act are waived, should have consumer representation on its board. I hope that from this point of view alone we will have some comment from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Indeed, one would have expected the minister to be the champion of cause of consumers if for no other reason than it is in keeping with his responsibility under the statute under which his department was set up. But the reverse seems to be true.
It is interesting to read what the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs had to say when he appeared before the committee. I quote from issue No. 10 of the committee's proceedings. He said:
I am not advocating a consumer representative; I am advocating a federal representative and, therefore, if anybody has to put money in it will not be my department, it will be the federal government.
That is the kind of gobbledygook that we got from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs during his brief appearance before the committee. But if one thing rings true loud and clear, it is the statement that the minister is not in favour of consumer representation on the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, or that indeed he does not support the principle of consumer representation on national marketing boards. While talking about consumer representation on national marketing boards, the
February 17, 1975

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs should tell the House what he proposes to do about, for example, the recommendations contained in the Forbes Report on Consumer Interest in Marketing Boards. The Forbes report was not undertaken as an academic exercise. This is a report that was commissioned by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs which has been in the hands of the minister and his department since last April. From what I have read of the minister's appearance before the committee, he has obviously ignored Professor Forbes' recommendations, just as he has ignored the recommendations of the Consumers Association of Canada. I regret this very much because for a while the minister was showing some promise. I certainly hope we will hear from him in this debate.
Professor Forbes' report, which I commend to all hon. members of the House, contains some interesting reading. He has described our agricultural policy as "confused" and as a "hodgepodge" which is costing the Canadian taxpayer, to paraphrase him, over $1 billion a year. We certainly have a good example of this confusion before the House at the moment. We are told that the broiler chicken industry in Canada is in a mess. I mention that fact because the government has once again made no response whatever to the recommendations of the Food Prices Review Board report which was released on January 13. In that report the board recommended that the federal government "not proceed with the establishment of a national chicken marketing agency until a number of questions arising from the board's findings are resolved".
As an extra plank in its program to end the chicken and egg war, the government put into place plans to set up a national broiler chicken marketing agency. In its report on January 13, which is in the hands of all hon. members, the board sets out very good reasons for taking this view, reasons that I think are very germane to this debate. For example, the board found that producer price increases in the chicken broiler industry and the wholesale price spreads do not appear to justify either the increase in average retail prices in the past year or the differences in retail price spreads among the provinces. The board goes on to question whether these differences in fact reflect regional differences in input costs. On checking today, I was told that there are 34 million pounds of broiler chicken in cold storage.
At the time the report was filed, there were 31 million pounds of broiler chicken in cold storage as of last September. The board finds that the Canadian Broiler Council's proposal for a national chicken marketing plan under the National Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act-
-features a narrow definition of the interests to be served in a national marketing plan and it does not resolve the problem of provincial versus federal jurisdiction which seriously impeded the effective working of the national egg marketing plan.
Therein the board underlined the most serious weakness of the national egg marketing plan, and that is the problem of jurisdiction, the problem of the constitution and the fact that CEMA consists of ten provincial marketing agencies which have full jurisdiction under the constitution. Unless these provincial marketing agencies are prepared to discipline themselves and to adhere rigidly to the
Egg Marketing Committee Report agreed upon quotas, there can be no national marketing plan. That is precisely what has happened and that is why today there is no national marketing plan.
It should be remembered-I think this is worth pointing out for the record-that it was the Food Prices Review Board that touched off the egg controversy in the first instance. It made a similar report on eggs back in January of last year. At that time the Minister of Agriculture saw fit to ignore the recommendations in that report. He still has not responded to the board's report on the chicken broiler industry even though it was released early in January and contains serious charges that should be made the subject of an investigation by the minister or somebody designated by him. One would think the minister would have learned a lesson, but it is obvious that some people never learn. Perhaps the minister, if he graces us with his presence today, will tell us what he proposes to do about the findings of the board on the broiler chicken industry. Otherwise, he should tell Mrs. Plumptre and her people to go home and stop wasting the taxpayer's money if these reports are to be ignored, as they are from time to time.
In summation, I should like to say the following. We feel that the report should be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture so that we can get all the facts. On the basis of the evidence we have, the Minister of Agriculture was warned as far back as December, 1973-and that evidence was presented very clearly to the committee in a memorandum which was presented by the Farm Products Marketing Council-that egg surpluses were getting out of control and would continue to get out of control. The minister's failure to act on the report of the council at that time, his subsequent behaviour with regard to the report of the Food Prices Review Board and the publicity which attended the first revelation, can only be construed as an attempt to cover up this whole rotten affair-an attempt which, I am pleased to say, failed.
Let the minister now level with the House and with the country, because it is not CEMA that is on trial here but the whole concept of national commodity marketing agencies and the supply-management principle. Neither concept has been served well by this minister. At a time when Canadians are paying record high prices for food, and when there are rising farm input costs, we have a right to know if the minister intends to take steps to ensure that before any other national marketing plans are put in place the best interests of both producers and consumers will be protected.
Furthermore, the minister has an obligation to tell us that these things will be done not just as another ad hoc program, as an ad hoc reaction to a continuing crisis situation, but in the context of a national food policy which was recommended to the government by the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices of late lamented memory, and that such a national food policy will not only honour our obligations and commitments to the people of Canada but our obligations and commitments to the people of the starving world.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) this afternoon because many things were done by the Department of Agriculture and in my opinion many

February 17, 1975
Egg Marketing Committee Report good recommendations were made by him, but I do not know whether they were given any consideration either by the farm marketing board or by CEMA itself. Only the minister can give us that information because, due to special circumstances, this matter is not before the Standing Committee on Agriculture as it normally would be.
I was pleased to hear the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) say that later a member of the House will be moving an amendment recommending that this matter go before the committee on agriculture. I would certainly support such a motion. First, however, I would like to indicate two things. The previous speaker put great emphasis on the fact that consumers are not involved in marketing legislation. He has mentioned this on several previous occasions, presumably on behalf of consumers. I believe that that is one of the matters that was dealt with very effectively by the committee, and I think the hon. member stood alone in his contention.
Without doubt, marketing legislation does affect the consumer but it does not necessarily affect him in the way that the hon. member pointed out. Obviously it affects the consumer because a monopoly is being established, normally for the benefit of the people who are operating it- in this case, the egg producers-and who are deciding how many eggs should be produced, where they should be produced, and at what cost. The consumer is affected if the cost is too high. Conversely, it is true that the consumer will gain considerable benefit from orderly marketing if supplies are made available during a continuous period of time so that there are no shortfalls, at which time the price is exorbitantly high, and no surpluses when the consumer still buys a normal amount of the product and the remainder of the product depresses the market and the surrounding sectors affected by that market. If the price of eggs drops very low, other farming segments are affected, such as cattle, poultry, and so on, because this is a protein that can be used for various purposes.
Mr. Speaker, whether the producer will learn nationally to control his produce to his advantage in order to ensure a reasonable price, and at the same time supply the market with a suitable product over a continuous period, will depend on whether the agency we now have will bring together the constitutional problem of provincial versus federal control. If it is able to master this, in my opinion it will be able to serve the needs of the consumer and probably facilitate the consumer having some input in respect of legislation in this area.
For many months when the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act was before the committee on agriculture, I fought against it, not because I was opposed to the idea of orderly marketing but because I was opposed to the idea of the federal government establishing a piece of marketing legislation which it would not be able to control. It seems to me that what happened in respect of the egg marketing legislation was inevitable because we operated the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act for the first time in the development of a national agency that was dependent entirely upon provincial agencies. There was considerable discussion at that time by many provinces as to whether they were willing to give up their autonomy in establishing quotas and prices. There was a great deal of discussion

on whether they were willing to give this up to the federal government or whether they would operate in conjunction with the other provinces under the umbrella of national marketing legislation. They opted, under the egg marketing legislation, to do just that. It is my opinion that this kind of marketing legislation will never operate satisfactorily. It will not operate satisfactorily because provinces will continually, in every agricultural field, be looking for self-sufficiency. If every province looks for self-sufficiency in every field, obviously there will be a surplus which no federal government will be able to handle.
On a number of occasions we have overcome this problem of federal-provincial jurisdiction in respect of agricultural production. We have done this in the industrial milk field. The federal government operates a monopoly in industrial milk products simply because we were willing to make a very substantial payment to get control of that field. The provincial governments have not become involved in it; they have allowed the federal government to operate it. I have heard very little complaint with the exception of price, which will always be a complaint with farmers, with workers and with everyone else when it comes to the sale of their commodities. But I have heard no complaint from the provinces as to the operation of the federal government in the industrial milk field.
To a lesser degree, because it affects a smaller number of people-but certainly in a much larger field-the federal government has successfully operated the Canadian Wheat Board which has a monopoly in three provinces and a monopoly, in a different way, in two other provinces. It has operated this monopoly on behalf of the producer over a long time and in my opinion has done so successfully. Any detriment which has occurred to the industry over the years, or to consumers, has been in my opinion due to meddling with that marketing agency and production; we have reduced its efficiency. I am convinced that federal marketing legislation is necessary. I am convinced that it is advantageous. Whether we can get the co-operation of all the people who joined CEMA is very doubtful.
The hon. member for St. John's East also complained about the fact that again there is building up a very large surplus of eggs, and if that surplus continues-it was indicated early in January that we had 40 million and we were increasing that surplus by 15 million per week-I think he has reason to worry. It is very interesting to note that his sidekick or mentor, Mrs. Plumptre, does not take his position. She said on January 16, referring to this vast build-up, as reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail:
Beryl Plumptre, chairman of the Food Prices Review Board, said in Ottawa yesterday there is no need for panic over the 40 million egg surplus.
"That's not an excessive amount," Mrs. Plumptre said. "It's certainly not anything to be panicking about."
She said the president of CEMA has a tough job ahead of him, "so for goodness sake let's give him a chance to get the situation under control."
Mrs. Plumptre did not seem to be particularly worried about it. But two things which were involved at the same time really worry me. When asked about this matter, one of the officials of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency said they had had a large build-up of eggs-they had 40 million plus the weekly increase of 15 million-but that was last week and now it has all been taken care of. I am
February 17, 1975

really concerned about that because I would like to know how it was taken care of and under what circumstances. How does one get rid of so many eggs, and under what circumstances? I am also concerned about another factor which is very important. The Minister of Agriculture gets into the act and indicates that we are exporting more eggs than we are importing. The Montreal Gazette of January 16, 1975, says:
Canada imported about 72 million eggs from the United States last year and, at the same time, exported 156 million, most of them to the U.S., an agriculture department spokesman said yesterday.
This seemingly strange set of circumstances, expected to change this year because of declining American production, results mainly from price differences in the two countries.
Mr. Speaker, this is one of the things that really confuses the Canadian public. The minister can say that we are exporting more eggs than we are importing. We imported 72 million and we exported 156 million. The eggs which we imported were table eggs: most of them went on the table in Ontario or in Quebec. But the eggs we exported were breaker eggs at about one-third the price of table eggs. So we are importing eggs for table use and we are exporting eggs for breaker use. It would be of great interest to me and to many other people to find out exactly how we got rid of the large number of eggs we had accumulated in January so that by the end of the month it could be said at the Moncton meeting that there was really no surplus and we were going to embark upon a reduction of the quota. At the same time, we have not been given any indication that quotas are being imposed on the importing of eggs.
I agree with one thing the hon. member for St. John's East said, and that is that the time limit imposed on the committee worked to its detriment. I think the committee did an excellent job. It held 24 public meetings, received 20 briefs and hundreds of submissions, and in those meetings it looked very extensively at the whole problem not only of eggs but of marketing legislation in a federal system. It made a number of recommendations, and I think we have a right to know what happened to them.
One criticism levelled at the Minister of Agriculture is, I think, unfair. I would be very opposed to a national marketing agency over which the minister would exercise the kind of control that is being suggested by some members. An agency should be able to stand on its own feet no matter who the minister is or what situation or emergency develops. So far this agency has not had to handle unexpected emergencies.
It has been suggested that when CEMA was established it had a large surplus of eggs on hand from the provincial marketing agencies, particularly from Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia, and the surplus was never properly inventoried; we did not know where it was or what kind of storage it was in. Although it was in no position to take over that surplus, CEMA did take it over and finally eliminated it and now we are in the position where we only meet our requirements. One of the initial problems with CEMA was that it did not have people who were interested in establishing a national agency. Instead, it had people who were interested in being loaned from their own provincial sections to a national agency, to the advan-
Egg Marketing Committee Report tage of the provincial agencies. That meant there was nobody looking after the over-all situation with a view to establishing a reasonable national quota. The people who were part of the agency did not have the time nor the expertise to embark upon a program to expand international sales.
It is my view that a national agency composed of provincial people had very little opportunity to get off the ground. One of the committee's recommendations was that the size of CEMA should be increased by three members and hopefully one of these would become chairman. It was felt that people who were properly oriented would look at the over-all position. The committee felt that the government should immediately look into the question of importing and exporting eggs. Surely it would be better not to import them from the United States. If we allow unmarked table eggs to come in from the United States, they can be packed in boxes displaying Canadian companies' names without any indication that they are not Canadian eggs. In Ontario, a large number of eggs come directly from the United States and to my knowledge the government has not taken steps, under the orderly marketing operations which are a right under GATT, to have these eggs labelled as such.
The committee made many suggestions about the bookkeeping of CEMA. The agency depended almost entirely on provincial boards for information on where and what surpluses there were. Sometimes the surpluses were counted twice, and sometimes storage places were missed. The auditors said that an audit could not be done on CEMA books nor on most of the provincial board's books, and recommended-and the committee agreed-that they should meet with the boards and establish a bookkeeping system. They wanted the provincial boards to follow the same set-up so that their audit would be acceptable to federal auditors. I should like to know, from someone on the government side, whether this has been done. If it has not, I should like to know why.
It was also suggested that CEMA be helped to develop a method of disposing of surplus eggs to the needy in Canada. The board indicated that they had investigated this matter, had not found a way to do so advantageously and had therefore temporarily set the idea aside. The committee also recommended that eggs should be in storage for a limited length of time and should only be kept there to meet the needs of Canadians. The committee agreed that some storage eggs could be marked as such and put on the market at a reduced price. It was suggested that eggs were sometimes held in storage longer than they should be because the board was in negotiation with the breaker trade. The report said clearly that if the eggs could not be sold for a reasonable price, CEMA could order them to be broken and converted to powder and then dispose of the egg powder as part of our food aid program to underdeveloped countries. The federal government was to pay for this conversion to powder. This course was better than holding the eggs in storage when there was no likelihood of their being used as fresh table eggs.
The committee was told that eggs could be stored for eight months and still be certified by the Department of Agriculture as fit for human consumption. Obviously, if

February 17, 1975
Egg Marketing Committee Report
the eggs are to be broken in any event, there is no point in storing them for a long period. Why not break them right away? I think that was the committee's view. Many eggs that we eat today have been stored, not by CEMA but by the supermarket chains. They store the eggs until they can sell them at an advantageous price. This course has sometimes resulted in egg spoilage, as most housewives can tell you. If eggs were to be marketed within seven days of being laid, there would be no spoilage and housewives would not complain.
The other day the Minister of Agriculture said that unless CEMA functions more adequately, he will disband the organization. Farm marketing legislation gives him the right to abolish the agency. Experts appearing before the committee were opposed to marketing legislation, but they agreed that in the final analysis marketing legislation was beneficial. They did not support a national egg marketing agency. It was pointed out that bringing together the 33 people involved in CEMA was a major undertaking. However, unless the agency can work satisfactorily, its policies will again lead to disaster and the alternative will be one national marketing agency which will control all egg production in this country, in the same way as one board controls industrial milk. Although this course may simplify administration, it will not have the support of most ministers of agriculture in this country.
I hope the minister will tell the House which recommendations of the board he has put into effect. Personally, I think the committee did a good job and the government should heed its recommendations, as well as recommendations made by the ministers of agriculture who met late in November. Everyone agreed that if the agency could be made to work properly, producers would benefit, as would consumers who would have available high quality eggs at stable prices.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, before commenting on what other hon. members have said, I would speak about the situation which existed a few years ago in the egg industry. The industry experienced ups and downs; prices to consumers fluctuated and returns to producers fluctuated. The result was that many producers went out of business, and when high profits were to be made, the few who remained in business made them. In our society the farmer is not organized, nor is he part of a pressure group. He does not belong to an association of the kind to which doctors, lawyers and other professional people belong; that is, to an association which will safeguard his job and in some cases guarantee his income. Safeguards are necessary if people are to buy expensive equipment. The farmer buys land as well as equipment.
Members of occupational associations do not worry so much about booms or busts which have been traditional in agriculture. The farmer is alone, open to the elements and to the caprices of markets in which he is forced to sell. I do not think anyone in this House suggests that the farmer's position is enviable. He cannot foresee the weather. If he is a poultry producer, he does not know if and when disease may strike. If he is successful he may find, on going to market, that other farmers have been successful as well; and plenty in the marketplace means a low price to the farmer but, of course, a beneficial price to the consumer.
I suppose many farmers and others in Canada have looked into this situation. I am proud to say that British Columbia was among the first provinces to consider the establishment of marketing boards. It is unfortunate that after our first experiment in establishing a national marketing agency so many eggs were destroyed because of mismanagement by the board. I do not think the farmer, the egg producer or the poultry producer was happy to see 28 million eggs destroyed. The consumer was not happy, either. When something like this happens, we all lose.
You must realize, Mr. Speaker, that there was a genuine desire for order in an industry which had experienced ups and downs, booms and busts and havoc for many years. The fact that 28 million eggs were destroyed after one year of operation does not detract from the marketing concept; it only proves that after a short period of time you cannot handle a large industry like this. You need control and expertise which is only developed over many years. You must become professional.
I have no idea whether the egg marketing concept will still exist in one or two years from now. However, if it fails, it will be a sorry day for both the consumer and the farmer. I have two views on this. I realize there was incompetence; there were managers who did not manage and producers who overproduced or tried to hide what they had produced. As a result, it is not just one man or one government that is at fault in this matter. I believe it results from a combination of all parts of the marketing scheme. If we are going to lay blame, let us put that blame on all sectors; let us not look for one man as a scapegoat.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hugh Alan Anderson: I hear some members of the opposition laughing. We have one Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), but we have many members. Don't blame the Prime Minister, the leader.


An hon. Member:: The buck has to stop somewhere.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Don't blame the general of the army if a battle is lost, because a general is only one man. This question involves many other people.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: There's an old Chinese saying: He who gets swimming pool gets blame.


Hugh Alan Anderson: I hear comments from the other side. I am glad they are awake.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: We are, but it's a real effort.


Hugh Alan Anderson: There were many parts of an organization, not just one or two. There is no use blaming the chairman of CEMA, the marketing board, the Premier of British Columbia or the Premier of Newfoundland. It is not fair to go after the jugular vein of one man in this House, because he was not the only man involved. I do not believe, in the short time we had to make this report, that that is the evidence that turned up. I wish to say a few words about the time-frame. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) stated that the committee worked within a time-frame. Members of the committee

February 17, 1975

will recall that we sometimes met two or three times a day: it was a very busy schedule. However, when I look at the number of witnesses who appeared in most cases to the satisfaction of the committee-I believe we heard from as many people as required to make a decision and recommendations on this matter.
I wish to mention just a few of the witnesses. We heard from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet). We also heard from representatives of the National Farm Products Marketing Council, the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, the Food Prices Review Board, the marketing boards of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, the Newfoundland Egg Marketing Board, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the federations of agriculture of almost every province, the Canadian Poultry and Egg Council, the Consumers Association of Canada, the National Anti-Poverty Organization, and the University of British Columbia. The following organizations submitted briefs to the committee: the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, the Committee to Reform Egg Marketing in Ontario, and the Egg Producers' Association of Quebec.
It was stated that we required more time. All I can say is that we certainly hit all bases as far as representatives from the poultry industry and consumers are concerned. The only thing that could perhaps be faulted is that we could not spend two or three hours or days with each witness. That would have been impossible. I do not think it is necessary to spend a great deal of time if you can question the witnesses and sift through the information to the satisfaction of the committee. I do not believe we required any further witnesses.
There was reference to the fact that the CEMA auditors, Touche, Ross and Company indicated as follows in their report on the agency's financial statements ending June 30, 1974:
Because of our inability to verify egg production levies, the cost of egg surplus removal program and the inventory, and because of the uncertainties arising from the financial position of the agency, we do not express an opinion on the accompanying financial statements for six months ended June 30, 1974.
That is a very harsh indictment of the CEMA board. The hon. member for St. John's East stated that these people should appear before the Standing Committee on Agriculture. I submit that if we look at what was said, they do not know how many eggs were produced, they do not know what the levies were, they do not know the cost of the egg surplus removal program, and the inventory is uncertain. No matter how many committees they appear before, whether it be the agriculture committee or a committee on the commonwealth of nations, they will say the same thing-that they do not know. There is no use bringing in these auditors because, according to the bookkeeping system of CEMA, they cannot tell whether the agency produces eggs or walnuts.
Even though that is a harsh indictment of CEMA by the accounting people, we are not discussing the faults of these people or what they did wrong. They made mistakes, obviously, otherwise we would not have had the committee. The point is, what further information could these people give us if they were called before the agriculture
Egg Marketing Committee Report committee? I suppose they could elaborate; they could go up and down. However, they would say the same thing, namely, that the accounting procedures of CEMA make it impossible for them to know what is going on.
In all humbleness, I suggest that the hon. member for St. John's East is incorrect in asking that these witnesses appear before a committee of any type, because the same story would come out. Even though they have an inefficient method of counting eggs produced in Canada, and in many cases do not know where they have put the eggs, both the committee and the House could have been saved a lot of trouble if someone had learned the simple fact that you sell the oldest produce first: you do not sell the freshest produce first. What happens is that the old eggs get older and eventually rot. It is a strange thing to see happen in our day and age. We have refrigeration plants which can keep produce fresh for many months; we have modern equipment which can haul produce to refrigerator units; we have cost accounting; we have computers yet somewhere along the line somebody forgot to tell the people in the warehouse that you don't leave the old eggs in there when you fill orders; you ship out the old ones first.
The loss of 28 million eggs amounts to an expensive lesson in the correct handling of eggs at a warehouse. I do not think we need expert witnesses before a committee of the House of Commons to tell us this. It is elementary. There is no need for accountants to tell us that they cannot make head or tail of the books. There is no need for provincial representatives to tell us that perhaps they were more interested in the effect on their own areas than in the national picture. All this is contained in testimony which the committee has already heard. We know about the pitfalls. We know where they went wrong.
After hearing this evidence, the committee made its recommendations-the recommendations contained in the report which is now before the House. As you know, Mr. Speaker, there is no way in which the committee can instruct the minister or CEMA to implement these recommendations. That is something for the provinces to consider and for the minister to decide. One of the recommendations which I would strongly urge the minister to carry out, and one which appeals to me on humanitarian grounds, is that surplus eggs should in future be distributed in such a way that senior citizens and people in receipt of welfare funds might make use of them. One of the reasons a surplus of eggs arose was that the egg breakers in Ontario and eastern Canada are controlled to an estimated 70 per cent by one firm, and it was obviously to the advantage of this firm to be able to buy eggs at as low a price as possible, despite the fact that this was bound to create a problem for the egg marketing system which was trying to get a fair price for its product.
Canadians, whether consumers or producers, feel strongly that we cannot afford to allow any food to be destroyed, either through greed or through neglect. Surely we cannot, in today's conditions, allow food which is so desperately needed throughout the world to go to waste here. I believe the CEMA people understand this responsibility and I hope the agony of the committee hearings, the several weeks we spent discussing this problem, made

February 17, 1975
Egg Marketing Committee Report
them aware of their shortcomings. Surely they are smart enough at this point not to go through the whole exercise again.
Mention should be made of the special position of the Minister of Agriculture and his relationship to these events. The power given to the Minister of Agriculture is clearly stated in the course of the background respecting ministerial responsibility. On page 6 of issue No. 16 of the proceedings of the Special Committee on Egg Marketing, the following appears:
The committee fully recognizes the principle of ministerial responsibility which is fundamental to the British parliamentary system and therefore effectively directs all of its observations and recommendations to the Minister of Agriculture for his consideration even though they have direct bearing on the operations of the National Farm Products Marketing Council, CEMA, provincial boards, provincial governments and other departments of the Government of Canada ...
The committee further recognizes that the Minister of Agriculture does not have any direct control over the operation of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency. The agency has the obligation imposed upon it by parliament to report directly through the Farm Products Marketing Council. The Farm Products Marketing Council in turn has a responsibility and obligation to report to parliament through the Minister of Agriculture. The Farm Products Marketing Council Act passed by parliament does not envisage that the Minister of Agriculture directly would have responsibility for the day to day operations of the Farm Products Marketing Council. These responsibilities rest primarily on the shoulders of the management of the Farm Products Marketing Council itself.
On page 16:7 of the same report evidence is given to the committee by the legal advisers to the National Farm Products Marketing Council that unilateral action on the part of the minister or the agency was not possible. In other words, we are dealing with a conglomerate of ten provinces associated for the common purpose of establishing a stable price. Neither the provinces, the minister nor the agency can take action on their own. Possibly this is a weakness in the system. However, I suppose that in some respects it is rather like confederation itself, where the ten provinces sometimes work together and sometimes do not. It is unfortunate that provincial boards do not at all times submit to the will of the national board, but I suppose it is only understandable that they should wish to protect the interests of their own areas.
In any case, it would be foolish to suggest that the minister had it within his power to correct the situation which was developing, without reference to the other provinces and to the other boards. It would be a great disservice to the minister, who is recognized as one of the all-time champions of the farmers, to accuse him of failing to follow the progress of this agency as though he could throw out the life-saver which would rescue an extremely waterlogged board.
When hon. members have perused all the evidence given before the committee, I hope they will feel, as I did, that there was a genuine and sincere attempt by many people, who before the committee met had had very little experience of eggs, egg marketing boards and farmers, to outline the faults that had been created and to bring in remedies and cures for those faults. However, to return this matter to the agricultural committee would, I think, be a waste of time both for the committee and for the House.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Madam Speaker, the Special Committee on Egg Marketing, of which I am a member, received very special terms of reference, that is to inquire into the performance of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, established under the provisions of Bill C-176.
The terms of reference of that body entailed very great responsibilities. That was evidenced by the seriousness all members displayed during all the proceedings which lasted several weeks. I wish to pay homage to all my colleagues on the committee for the responsible way in which they worked during the proceedings. They very objectively endeavoured to find out the weaknesses of this egg marketing program, put forth recommendations for its improvement and enable on the one hand, producers to get the income they deserve and, on the other hand, consumers to buy good quality eggs at prices they can afford. In my view, Madam Speaker, such was the objective to be set by the committee in order to serve the whole Canadian people.
A number of sessions were held, many witnesses appeared, as was aptly mentioned by the hon. member that moved the motion to debate the committee's report dated December 16, 1974. It is my conclusion that members of the Canadian Egg Marketing Board either showed levity, or failed to realize the extent of their responsibilities.
Under an act of Parliament, the Farm Product Marketing Council's responsibility was to establish, at the request of producers themselves, a marketing board, the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency. During the months after that agency was established, we saw problems were arising. Producers were not altogether satisfied with the scheme, and also egg marketing was not being conducted in an orderly fashion in Canada.
Newspaper reports appeared to the effect that eggs were let to spoil in various locations; FEDCO, the agency in the province of Quebec, was not adequately fulfilling its member's expectations, and in other areas such as British Columbia or even Ontario the orderly marketing of eggs fell somewhat short of expectations.
The Food Prices Review Board, the so-called Plumptre Commission, entered into the picture, presumably at the request of consumers complaining they could not get fresh enough eggs, or at reasonable prices they could afford, or the eggs offered for sales were unmarked and they were in doubt whether they were buying Canadian eggs or eggs imported from some other country.
The Plumptre Board made a few reports, made checks on the spot, determined that there were irregularities in this area, that there was something wrong, and it submitted its report. Every member of the special committee responsible for studying this problem was able to see certain recommendations that the reports of this board contain.
Madam Speaker, even after all this, the issue was raised in Parliament, and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was faced with an extremely serious problem, namely that there was something wrong. A motion was then presented in Parliament asking that a special committee be instructed to examine all aspects of this problem
February 17, 1975

and to report to the House by a predetermined date, that is by December 16, 1974.
As concerns the Food Prices Review Board which I mentioned a moment ago, I would like to say that I have examined carefully the research that has been made and the exact complaints made by consumers which justified the need for a report by the board. After all that reading I came to the conclusion that the Farm Products Marketing Act in Canada with which we first experienced in the area of eggs did not give results that were really encouraging. So, to avoid such spectacular results in other areas, discouragement and the dropping of that legislation, something just had to be done.
I remember quite well, Madam Speaker, that when CEMA was established following the passage of Bill C-176 representations were made that that agency included only producers, people interested in the area of production, and they had neglected for reasons I ignore to appoint representatives from the consumer side as well when the minister under that act had the power to appoint two or three members on that agency as consumer representatives. Even if there had been two members from the consumer side, would we really have had better results? That is a question that may be asked.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it is five o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens)-Finance-Amount of tax liability reduction in 1975 due to indexing; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Canadian National Railways- Company's intentions respecting escalation of pensions of persons already retired; the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek)-Public Service-Proposal government deal with unions representing single sectors of economy-Government position on establishing labour relations council.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills.


Mr. Lefebvre:: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, there was some talk that perhaps we would dispense with private members' hour today. However, I understand that the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Fundy Tidal Power
Coates) wishes to go ahead with his private member's notice of motion No. 30.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Robert Carman Coates: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give immediate consideration to the undertaking of any further investigations required to develop the information necessary to undertake construction of the dams that will harness the tides of the Bay of Fundy for power, in partnership with the governments of the province of Nova Scotia and of the province of New Brunswick, and using the Canada Development Corporation as the agency for financing the undertaking.
He said: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to enter this debate today to discuss a matter that could not be more appropriate at this time than the development of alternate sources of energy which would materially assist in the overcoming of the anticipated shortfalls in energy which may face the Atlantic area of Canada. I am pleased indeed to see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Cullen) is in the House, for he has indicated in past debates on this matter that all the support for an undertaking of this type does not come only from Atlantic Canada but that even Ontario is willing to join us in endeavouring to undertake the development of what might be considered a rather visionary type of new energy source that would be of value and benefit to the nation as a whole.
Let me say, first of all, that it is hard to find today a type of development in the field of energy resources that would produce power that is both pollution free and inflation free. Yet that is exactly the situation that exists in so far as tidal power is concerned. We in Atlantic Canada are most fortunate in that while for some time in our history it appeared that there was no way of developing the resources we had that would be useful not only to our area but to the nation as a whole, it has been discovered that many of these possibilities are becoming probabilities and some of them are very close to becoming realities.
It pleased me greatly to learn that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) recently announced the development of further grid systems that will provides the means whereby power can be transferred from the Churchill River in Newfoundland to the province of Quebec as the result of improvements in the grid system in the area of Atlantic Canada, as well as the fact that initiatives will be taken to produce a cable that will go underwater between Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island to link Prince Edward Island to a grid system that will be part of our power program in the maritime provinces. It is also an indication that if we are to undertake something as substantial as the development

February 17, 1975
Fundy Tidal Power
of the Fundy tidal power, we will have not just a regional grid but a national grid.
When our party was in office, initiatives were undertaken by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) to make such a national grid a reality. Discussions lay in abeyance for a number of years, but have been resurrected and are now actively under consideration again, so that the power that would be produced from the tides of Fundy-which at one time could only be used in the south, in the United States-could now probably be used in other parts of Canada, making the undertaking a Canadian project of benefit to Canadians not just in the Atlantic area but in Quebec and Ontario.
Perhaps one of the reasons the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance in the last debate that we had on this matter indicated a willingness to line up with Atlantic Canada in the efforts to secure this undertaking is that he could see that in the long run, because of the many problems with which Canada was concerned east of the Ottawa Valley regarding the securing of a ready and reliable power pool, it would be able to benefit from the undertaking which I anticipate will come much sooner than was originally expected. It has been a long road to the point where we are in history today, as far as the Fundy tidal power is concerned. I am especially pleased to see my colleague, the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir) in the House because, like myself, he has advocated for a long time this method of securing power for the maritime provinces. We have been together on many joint undertakings which we hoped would further the cause of this particular development.
In December of 1974, the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys and I had the pleasure and opportunity of assisting Mr. Robert Monks, director of the department of energy and resources in the state of Maine, Mr. Stanley Tupper, former congressman, ambassador to Canada and counsellor for the state of Maine, Dr. Charles Berg, associated with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, and Dr. Mary Webster, also associated with the directorate of the department of energy and resources in the state of Maine, at meetings with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and a number of other officials in Ottawa. At those meetings, not only was the Fundy tidal power discussed but also the possibility of developing power from the Dicky-Lincoln complex in the main and, as a further alternative, harnessing the power that is available at Passamaquoddy Bay.
These undertakings are all bilateral in that both Canada and the United States have to be involved in a very direct way. They are very important because both northeastern United States and eastern Canada must determine how we are going to use the resources we have to produce the power we require to guarantee that we will not freeze in the dark in the days ahead. Because we do not have the guaranteed oil potential of western Canada, we must look to other projects which will give us the same kind of protection which oil in the west guarantees that part of Canada.
I think that at all times we must consider our relationships with our friendly neighbour to the south and work out ways and means whereby we can be of assistance to each other, because the energy problem existing in Canada also exists in the United States. We have for a long time been great friends and great partners in developments of value and benefit to both nations. It saddens me at times to think that while we as Canadians went to the United States in the fifties and sixties and tried to convince them that they could assist us in the development of our oil resources by taking from us certain amounts of oil in order to allow us to develop our resources, today we are telling the same people, whom we convinced would have an assured market for oil from Canada, that maybe they cannot have the oil, and maybe this and maybe that and maybe something else. This is a far cry from what we told them in the days when we were trying to sell them our oil because we needed to do so in order to guarantee that we had an industry in western Canada. I hope that by looking at alternative resources and alternate means of producing the energy required, we can produce an over-all power pool by a combination of various means of energy resources which are available to all of us and which will benefit both countries.
Only last week Mr. Tupper made a determination on the availability of any surplus power resources we might have which would be of benefit to the northern United States. They have to make long-term decisions. They have to know if there will be surplus resources available to them and, if there are not, they have to know how they are going to handle the problem of producing the power they require in the days ahead. So it is important that we work together. It is also important, from Canada's point of view, to look at Fundy tidal power as a very unique type of long-term investment which will be of fantastic benefit, not just to the Atlantic provinces, not just to all of Canada but from an external point of view as well because there can be little doubt that this type of power will be developed around the world.
While the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys and I visited the La Ranee tidal power project and looked at power possibilities associated with the harnessing of the tides there, and while we appreciated that it was a pilot-type project, we were also impressed when the director of that installation told us that that power project- which employed a type of construction which would not be acceptable today, certainly not acceptable in Fundy, and was very expensive from every point of view-has nevertheless shown that it can produce power and make a profit. If that is the case, there is no doubt that the tides of Fundy, with the highest tides in the world-around 53 feet-will produce power in the kind of volume which will make it feasible and a great asset to Canada.
But it will do more than that; it will provide our people with expertise in what is now a unique form of tidal power production. It will give them engineering expertise which will be important and useful. If our businessmen are as good as I think they are, they will use this development to produce a program of ways and means of selling our expertise to other parts of the world where it will also be useful. I think that apart from the federal government,

February 17, 1975

the province of Nova Scotia and the province of New Brunswick involving themselves in this undertaking and moving, as I see it, in a very active and energetic way toward the culmination of all the data required to bring together the information required to call tenders and to get construction under way, we must never lose sight of the fact that we have in existence in this country what is known as the Canada Development Corporation. As far as I am concerned, we have not used the resources available to this corporation in the way we should.
There cannot be anything more useful to the people of Canada than to undertake this great project with the dollars of Canadians, so that we can say we own lock, stock and barrel a resource which will produce the power that exists. For this reason I believe the Canada Development Corporation should be involved in the undertakings which are moving forward. We have heard from Baron Rothschild and we know that he is interested. We have heard from Americans. The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys and myself involved ourselves with a number of representatives of the biggest trading companies in Japan. They are also interested in Fundy tidal power. If all these people are interested in this project, as well as people from the United States, why can we not find the money right here in Canada to undertake the job?
I am very pleased with the progress of this project at this time. I do not think for a moment that we should do anything to impede it. As a matter of fact, I think we could move still faster. I believe we must put every emphasis on the development of this program. Before I sit down I would like to say that I think this type of capital works project is better than the 102 grants which might be made available to various industries in Atlantic Canada for producing employment, stability of employment and viability of the economy of that part of our country. This is the way it can be done. This is the way it should be done. I believe that if we keep going forward as we are now, this is the way it will be done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Frank Maine (Wellington):: Madam Speaker, the question of Fundy tidal power as raised by the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) is a question which cannot be dealt with in isolation. It is part of the major energy problem facing us today. When I speak of energy, I am referring to all forms of energy whether it be derived from petroleum, from natural gas, from coal, from hydro-generated electricity, from nuclear energy, whether it be fission or fusion or solar, wind and tidal means of generating energy. This is the total framework in which study is needed in terms of both time and money so that priorities can be established. At present this is being looked at with a 12-month energy Research and Development study conducted in house under the auspices of the government. It is presently being finalized and I understand, will be tabled very shortly.
Looking ahead at this total energy picture, the big prospect of the future is fusion. Fusion is the joining together of two hydrogen atoms at temperatures of 50 million degrees centigrade, at which time the two atoms of hydrogen fuse together and form helium and give off a neutron and energy. If more energy is given out than is put into
Fundy Tidal Power
this reaction, you have an energy-creating nuclear reaction.
It is postulated by scientists that within 25 years we may expect to have harnessed energy from the fusion reaction. You may say the year 2000 is a long time away, but I remind you that in 1950, 25 years ago, there were some farsighted scientists who said that if we split the uranium atom we would have fission energy and could harness energy. As a result, today we have the CANDU reactor. This is recognized as one of the leading nuclear harnessing systems-


Robert Carman Coates: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not mind the hon. gentleman making a speech about nuclear power at the proper time, but I do not appreciate my private member's motion being misused so that he can say whatever he knows or thinks about nuclear power. If the hon. gentleman wants to support my motion, let us hear him say something about Fundy tidal power.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: On the point of order, Madam Speaker, I think it is critical to this whole question that we get it in perspective. This is one part of the total energy picture, and I am trying to develop a spectrum to show the hon. member and others how this fits into the time-frame I am developing. Tidal power is one aspect of it.


Robert Carman Coates: Madam Speaker, I think if we were involved in an energy debate it would be quite proper to take that approach, but the question I have placed before the House relates to Fundy tidal power, its development and the ways it is to be developed. I take strong objection to the hon. member coming with a prepared text relating to nuclear power that is not associated with Fundy tidal power, and using private members' hour to speak about another matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I have read the motion. It deals with immediate consideration being given to the undertaking of any further investigations required to develop the necessary information. Perhaps the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Maine) is about to come to this matter.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: That is correct, Madam Speaker, and to do that I have to develop the whole picture so that we can put the Fundy tidal power project in proper perspective. I was about to recommend, logically, what should happen to this motion to show why fusion is a direction in which we should go. The fuel for fusion is hydrogen, and hydrogen is abundant as it comes from water. We have a great deal of water on this planet and it is very cheap. This is not the situation with uranium, which is presently the source of energy for the short-term future. The supply of energy derived from uranium is very limited; our proven reserves of uranium are 25 years in total. This does not augur well for our needs in the future.
The other aspects of fusion reaction which are attractive are not only the abundance of cheap fuel but the fact that there are no nuclear, radioactive waste products which are environmentally damaging. This has been a very serious problem with fission reaction with which we are coming
3280

February 17, 1975
Fundy Tidal Power
to grips now in Canada and the United States. Another attractive aspect of fusion reaction is that there are no weapons byproducts. This is a problem we deal with in this House; how to have safeguards against the abuse of weapons byproducts of nuclear fission reactions.
If we can agree that the long-term goal rests with fusion, then the rest of the problem is how to fill in the 25 years from now to the year 2000 at which time fusion will be supplying most of our energy. The traditional sources of energy will supply the bulk of our requirements, this energy being derived from oil, natural gas, hydro-generated electricity, coal and nuclear fission. The stopgap measures which will help supplement some of these dwindling supplies of energy are energy or fuel derived from the tar sands as well as energy derived from oil in the Mackenzie Delta and in the Arctic.
These have to be looked at in the time frame as well as the money frame. Billions of dollars are needed, as we have heard, just to operate the Syncrude product which is just one of several tar sands projects being contemplated. To get the proven oil from the Mackenzie Delta down the Mackenzie Valley by pipeline will cost about $5 billion for the first pipeline, and other pipelines are being thought of. To get the natural gas and oil from the Arctic Islands by pipelines, which will involve new technology because they go underwater, will also involve billions of dollars. We have a problem of time and money which we have to put together in a 25-year context. Ancillary sources to be investigated, but which are unlikely to play a major role, are energy derived from the sun, wind and tides. Wind is a form of sun energy-


Robert Carman Coates: Wind is what you have been producing since you stood up.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: Wind is the direct result of the sun's energy being transmitted to the earth, heating up the air and forming differences in the surface temperature of the earth. Winds are created to somewhat equilibrate this. These three forms of energy are being looked at but are not deemed to provide a large amount of energy in the short term. Solar panels have been used in space and are being used in certain parts of the world. In Japan right now they have parabolic mirrors as a source of energy for heating the bath water, one of the few areas where solar energy is being utilized commercially. Solar energy is being looked at very seriously and is being contemplated in Canada. Historically, we have had windmills, but recent developments at NRC have used turbines with increased efficiency.
The third major form is tidal power. There are two or three aspects of this, but they have to be put in proper context with the other forms of energy. It is in this framework that the Bay of Fundy tidal power is being studied and will come to its final conclusion in due course.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to say a few words on the motion of the hon. member for Cumber-land-Colchester North (Mr. Coates).

The hon. member who preceded me talked about the wind, the sun, nuclear power, and other things which had nothing to do with the motion before the House which reads, in part:
... the government should give immediate consideration to the undertaking of any further investigations required to develop the information necessary to undertake construction of the dams that will harness the tides of the Bay of Fundy for power, in partnership with the governments of the province of Nova Scotia and of the province of New Brunswick, and using the Canada Development Corporation as the agency for financing the undertaking.
I always thought the Canada Development Corporation was established to help the development of ventures beneficial to Canada. You know, the last speaker was so carried away with ideas about atomic energy and nuclear power that I wondered if he had been drinking heavy water.
Let me give some background. Ever since 1957 the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) has been speaking both in this House and outside in public forums, about Fundy tidal power, and speaking about it as often as possible. In the past those in authority would smile and look askance if you talked about tidal power. Everybody thought the concept was out of this world, was not reasonable, not practical. But the hon. member was not discouraged and, as I say, has been pursuing this subject for many years. Now, all of a sudden we find that learned people throughout the world are interested in tidal power, particularly because we are experiencing an energy crisis. At least our government and other governments tell us this. So it might be useful to recall some of the people who, in the past, favoured the production of power from tides.
Going back some years we find that one of the people who favoured turning the dream of tidal power into reality was Michael Wardell, who published the Fredericton daily Gleaner and the Atlantic Advocate. Another was hon. Hugh John Flemming, who supported tidal power development when he was premier of New Brunswick. His close association with the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), when the right hon. member was prime minister, resulted in the establishment of the Atlantic Development Board, which investigated the possibility of turning the dream into a reality.
Then came a change in government in New Brunswick. The government headed by Hon. Louis Robichaud favoured tidal power, and it was the Chignecto committee report on this question which, with the backing of Premier Robichaud, gave credibility to the idea of harnessing the tides.
In addition the idea found favour with leading members of the business community. K. C. Irving made numerous proposals, as did Les Kirkpatrick, the president of Nova Scotia Power Corporation, and people involved with the Nova Scotia Light and Power Corporation. They all supported this concept.
As times changed, people's opinions about the feasibility of Fundy tidal power changed. The idea is more widely accepted now. Today, both Premier Regan and Premier Richard Hatfield are in favour of developing tidal power. It should be noted that Premier Gerald Regan of Nova Scotia has pressed with vigour, both at home and abroad,
February 17, 1975

the development of power from the tides. He has made public statements in the past weeks and months to the effect that he is not entirely happy with the pace at which the federal government is becoming involved in this project. He wants to see the tempo of development quickened. I must say, however, that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) has been most co-operative, and there is now hope that, with the help of the minister, the pace of Fundy tidal power development will move more quickly and come to fruition within a reasonable period.
Throughout the period when tidal power was merely an abstract idea the leading newspapers of the Maritimes, the Halifax Chronicle-Herald and the Saint John Telegraph Journal succeeded in keeping the project alive in the minds of their readership. There were dark days when skepticism almost overcame the region's enthusiasm, and these two newspapers materially aided in keeping the light burning.
Returning to the present, it is easy to see that we shall tread a difficult and costly road. Many unknown factors will need to be clarified over the next few years. I have already intimated that in our present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources we have a man who has a real appreciation of the total energy problems facing our nation. We hope he will move ahead with this project. He has indicated, in his statements on the reviewing committee report, that he is not frightened by the complexities of Fundy tidal power and is willing to ally himself with our region if the new two-year study confirms the initial findings.
On December 4, 1974, an article in the Chronicle Herald bore the heading "France Only Site of Tidal Power Plant". It referred to the La Ranee tidal power project in France. It is interesting to mention that the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North and I visited this project in France. Very likely we were among the first representatives of Canadian political agencies to visit it. May I quote from the article, as follows:
Engineers have long dreamed of harnessing the enormous energy in the rise and fall of the tides to generate electricity, but so far only one site-La Ranee, on the coast of Brittany, France-is producing commercial power.
The huge sums of money required and technical problems stalled all other possible projects. However, soaring costs of producing energy from fossil fuels have renewed interest in harnessing tides to generate hydroelectric power, especially in eastern Canada.
After a Nova Scotia government delegation visited New York earlier this month for talks with the investment community on a variety of projects. Business Week magazine reported that Canada probably would move faster than any other country in the west on the tidal-power question.
The sponsor of the motion told us of the way in which supporters of tidal power had been welcomed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and of the treatment they had been given by the department. This reminds one of what happened a number of years ago when President Franklin D. Roosevelt commissioned a study into the possibility of harnessing the tides of Passamaquoddy Bay, between Maine and Canada. Since Maine is about as far from Washington as Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are from Ottawa, the project came to nothing. It did not go ahead.
Fundy Tidal Power
I hope that what has happened in the past will not determine what is to happen in the future. You see, at one time it was held that what was good for General Motors was good for everybody. That is not necessarily so. It was thought at one time that what was good for Quebec and Ontario was good for B.C., P.E.I. and Nova Scotia. Often that was not the case. The Seaway was constructed at great public expense to help all this country, and there is no doubt but that the harnessing of the Fundy tides will be of great benefit to all this country.
Les Kirkpatrick, president of Nova Scotia Power Corporation, told Business Week he estimates tidal power would cost 15 mills a kilowatt hour at the Fundy site, roughly comparable to the cost of nuclear power. The hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Maine) spoke about nuclear power. For his information, proponents of this project contend the advantage of tidal hydro projects is that the fuel-the tides-is inflation-proof because it is free and renewable and, unlike river-based projects, tidal plants would not run short of water during droughts. They also say a tidal plant would have a life-span of at least 60 years, double or triple that of a nuclear or fossil-fueled plant.
I do not want to take up too much time and talk out this motion. I hope it will come to a vote. I appeal to hon. members to give consideration to the motion sponsored by the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) along the lines he has suggested. The Canada Development Corporation should become financially involved in any way possible.
Another point I wish to make is that far too often, particularly in latter years, those in the government and some in the opposition have attempted to pluck the feathers of the American eagle and throw darts at the Americans. Who would say that we should not co-operate with them technically if they were willing to become financially involved in Fundy tidal power as long as we had complete control? I think it would be a good thing. We often boast about the undefended border from east to west which has no guards, soldiers and so on. However, we seem to like taking pot-shots at the Americans. I feel we should try to co-operate in projects of this nature. Is the hon. member in the back row trying to say something?


An hon. Member:: I will in a few minutes.


Robert Muir: I would rather he stayed seated on what brains he has rather than interject from his seat.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Muir: I am learning from the Liberals. However, I do not want to learn too much from them, especially from the new experts who came here in 1972 and 1974. They think they have forgotten more than the most senior members of this House will ever know. My good friend, the whip of the Liberal party, realizes the situation. I am sure he understands what is going on. In any event, I wish to take my seat-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
28996-3Vz

February 17, 1975
Fundy Tidal Power


Robert Muir: I appreciate applause, even from the other side. I appreciate it from anyone. Let us now hope they will vote for this resolution so that we can make some progress on the east coast, as is often done in Quebec and Ontario.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, like the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) and the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir), I am pleased that at last we seem to be making progress with regard to harnessing the power in the tides of the Bay of Fundy. In view of the announcement by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) it seems to me that the government would welcome this motion being passed by the House this afternoon.
I could again give my personal credentials for being interested in this matter. After all, my ancestry on my mother's side comes from New Brunswick and my ancestry on my father's side comes from Nova Scotia. That puts me on both sides of the Bay of Fundy.
Entirely apart from that I am a Canadian and, across this country, all of us are interested in developing new sources of power. This is one we have talked about for a long time and it should now be advanced. I am happy to indicate my party's support for this motion and-


An hon. Member:: Where are they?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Once again, Madam Speaker, I am able to speak for my party, the next party, and also for the independent member for Moncton (Mr. Jones).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to debate with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in private members' hour. He and I have not had that opportunity too often in this parliament, but I know he always enjoys being a majority, even if it is a majority of one, which he is today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Yes, Madam Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since the parliamentary secretary has associated himself with me, will he follow my example and make it short?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: When you are five foot seven, Madam Speaker, everything you do is short.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I commend the hon. member for Cumber-land-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) and the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir). I am not one of the new experts from 1972 or 1974. I am an old guy from 1968 who does not know much about it. I say to the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys not to under-estimate the 1972 and 1974 classes as did some of his col-

leagues. They are now sitting on the outside while these fellows are sitting in here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Muir: Let's hope they pronounce themselves on occasion and not just stay sitting.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The unhappy part is that the older members use all the time, and this is very frustrating to the newer members.
From my earlier participation in this debate, the mover of this motion will know that, even though I am from Ontario, and those nasty words-central Canada-I have supported this proposition ever since coming to this House, and more particularly when I had the honour to serve as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. At that time I visited the area to look at the tides. The hon. member is correct; they do rise 53 feet. I did not measure them, but I am prepared to take the hon. member's word.
The mover of the motion and the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys will, I am sure, concede that the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) has given fantastic encouragement to something that was only a dream or an idea. Rather than scoffing or laughing at it, this minister has taken up this matter.
As to whether the Canada Development Corporation is the proper agency to co-ordinate it, I feel that this is something a little down the road, a little in the future. I feel it should be done on a government to government basis. Frankly, I have my doubts about whether the CDC should be moving into this particular field. The CDC was told it would pretty well have complete freedom insofar as operating in the business world is concerned. We may be able to make suggestions, but we should not dictate what it should be doing in any particular field.
The merits of this operation are well known. There has been a series of reports. In October, 1969, there was a report on the feasibility of tidal power development in the Bay of Fundy, and the Atlantic Tidal Power Programming Board concluded that economic development of tidal power in the Bay of Funday was not feasible under prevailing circumstances. I am sorry I have to read that conclusion but I wanted to get that portion of the report correct. They did say they felt that additional detailed study should be authorized. Then they set out a series of conditions under which future studies might be carried out. The conclusion was that the project was not economically feasible, but they did not rule out the possibility of the project being feasible from an engineering point of view.
Subsequently a new report was prepared by the Bay of Fundy Tidal Power Review Board. This is described as a preliminary reassessment of the feasibility of tidal power development in the Bay of Fundy. That report came out in September, 1974. Here again, the subject is being considered by the three governments primarily concerned- the federal government, the government of New Bruns-

wick and the government of Nova Scotia. Both the provincial governments have given an impetus to this report.
When I heard this debate was to take place today I did some checking, and I learned one or two things which might be of interest to the hon. member. In fact I might even suggest to him that his motion is a trifle premature although I realize that on other occasions he was probably six or seven years ahead of his time. Today, however, he may be just a couple of months ahead.
The three governments I have mentioned have agreed to a further study, with respect to which the federal government would pay 50 per cent of the cost and the two provincial governments 25 per cent each. They will be looking into two main areas, first, the marketability of power and, second, the engineering requirements. I can say that the cabinet has approved this project-a decision was taken last week. I do not know whether this information has been made public or not; usually the hon. member gets such information very early because of his special interest in the subject. In any event the study has been approved, so the motion he is putting forward may be just a little premature-maybe we shall be dealing with it in a couple of months' time.
I know, Madam Speaker, there are some hon. members from the classes of '72 and '74 who are more knowledgeable regarding the engineering aspects of this proposal than I can ever hope to be, so rather than use up all the time available to me I should like to give them an opportunity to speak.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question!


Mr. Ross Milne (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: I am pleased to join this debate for the remaining few minutes and to put on record that I am very much in favour of any power project which is economical, which fits in with our environmental concerns, and which adds to our total inventory of available energy.
I think one of the fundamental things in any energy policy that Canada must have is a substantial switch in the supply of energy away from petroleum base to hydraulic, to coal, to nuclear, and if the project we are presently debating shows signs of being economical we should proceed to study it.
One of the concerns in the whole energy picture that I don't think we have talked about very much in this country, or in this thirtieth parliament where we are changing a lot of the base loads from petroleum input to electrical energy, is the role of the provincial electrical utilities. I think the time is coming when the projects that they will be building will be tied together through a national grid, and there will have to be some type of agreement among these utilities as to the timing of all these projects.
It does not seem to me to make great sense that one utility would have a very large project coming on stream at about the same time as a utility in a neighbouring province. In such a case both the utilities would have a surplus; they would go to some lengths to make use of this power, and then presumably both of them might very well end up in the position of being short of power. On the basis of what the hon. member is proposing we will require a good deal of investment on and research into a
Fundy Tidal Power
much stronger grid across Canada, into which provincial utilities can tie.
I would hope research would indicate that we could go considerably above what is considered to be the design limit of 750,000 volts transmission at the present time. I am anxious that we do some research work on direct current transmission because in terms of the size of the country, and the length of the grid we need to deal with, these are very important considerations. However, in terms of the project we are talking about, I am most concerned that, however valid it may be from an economic point of view, and however it may be required for the supply of energy, someone should take a look at how we phase in all energy projects across Canada.
I just do not see that the Government of Canada has the economic resources to be building the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, to be pursuing the CANDU technology, the gasification of coal, and developing all of this all at the same time. Presumably we might end up with a good deal of the yield of that type of investment coming on stream at the same time.
One of the most important things we should be doing at this point is to stage matters so that each project or each level of technology in its own time would follow in its right order. I am encouraged from what little reading I have done on this project to believe that the economics of it are perhaps a lot closer to being viable than we once thought. I remember having read about this in some detail some three or four years ago, and at that time there was a question of whether it would ever be economically viable. But at that time we were not thinking of the price of oil on the world market approaching $12 a barrel. My understanding is that if we have to deal with oil prices at that level this project does become economically feasible.
There is one other thing we should indicate. It works in very well with some of the thoughts I have on the energy situation, a situation where a good deal of the input comes from nuclear, from coal, from hydraulic. Nuclear has to have a 24-hour load factor full-time, and coal is the type of generation that can be varied, but we do need a national grid with some type of input that can be used for peak demand periods. It would seem that tidal power would fit into this concept very very well, because I do not think we could afford or want to have a nuclear capability meeting the peak because then you would have technical problems-with what to do when the seasonal load, or in fact even the daily load, doesn't meet the situation.
I want to associate myself also with the remarks of the previous speaker concerning the Canada Development Corporation. I just do not think that this is really the vehicle that we should be using. One of the things about the Canada Development Corporation surely is that we hope it will invest in such projects as companies that have a high degree of Canadian technology, or in areas where it is most important that Canadian ownership be maintained.
I hope we will move before too long to enable the public to invest in that corporation. Without a viable portfolio it will not attract investor confidence, and if we saddle the Canada Development Corporation with the cost of all kinds of studies and so on, I suggest that this would interfere with that very basic objective.

February 17, 1975
Egg Marketing Committee Report The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the hour appointed for private members' business has expired.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. McGrath that the first report of the Special Committee on Egg Marketing presented to the House on Monday, December 16, 1974, be concurred in.
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying when the House called it five o'clock, CEMA was created as a result of the adoption of Bill C-176 at the end of 1971. Under that act, Parliament decreed that the provincial marketing boards should take into account the interests of both producers and consumers, and that the National Farm Products Marketing Council should supervise the application of the act.
Mr. Speaker, it has always been my understanding that Bill C-176 was intended as legislation to ensure co-operation between the producers, on the one hand, who deserve remuneration for their products and a reasonable profit margin to allow them good enough an income to provide for their families decently, and the consumers, on the other hand, who should be able to purchase quality eggs, in adequate quantities, and at a reasonable price. I therefore saw this legislation as a means to come to a better mutual understanding and to establish within our boundaries the marketing of an essential farm product in a way which would have met the aspirations of both consumers and producers.
The facts revealed to the committee showed that despite instructions from Parliament, the National Farm Products Marketing Board and the CEMA have neglected the interests of both producers and consumers as regards egg marketing. This is unfortunate, but those are the facts which came out of our meetings in this committee.
It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the lack of planning before CEMA began its operations and the poor quality of its administration are at the origin of the failure of this marketing program. The evidence showed that there was little or no cooperation between CEMA, the National Farm Products Marketing Board and the minister himself.
The committee could not examine the reports of the CEMA and National Farm Products Marketing Board meetings because there were no such reports, which is

extremely irregular. I have always understood that if an agency is legally constituted, it must keep minutes of its meetings and of the decisions that it makes so that those responsible for the control of the operations may report to whom it may concern at the appropriate time and place.
During the discussion on Bill C-176, Mr. Speaker, my colleague the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) and myself had emphasized the need for an effective control on imports and exports. We had requested at the time that section (2)c) of Bill C-176 include any imported natural product, while the bill mentioned only any Canadian natural product. We wanted to include the provision that any imported natural product must be submitted to the same marketing requirements as Canadian farm products.
I well remember, Mr. Speaker, that during the night of December 30, 1971, when I was sitting exactly where my hon. colleague from Moncton (Mr. Jones) has just sat down, I had moved, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond, an amendment to Bill C-176 to include in the act the provision that imported products should be submitted to the same regulations as Canadian products, in other words, that any imported natural product should be marketed through marketing agencies so that these boards could control the need to import or export such or such a product.
Indeed, if one refers to the proceedings of December 30, 1971, one finds that at that time the amendment was put and the government side voted against the inclusion in that legislation of regulations to have imported natural products marketed in the same way as Canadian products.
Today, we find ourselves faced with a problem that would probably not exist if we had more assurances that that problem would have been solved by CEMA because they would have had efficient means to prevent importers from importing eggs when Canada did not need them. That is where the crux of the problem lies. We found in our discussions that it was mainly the importation of eggs for consumption, table eggs, as they are commonly called, when we did not need them that caused the problem. Those eggs were marketed without being indentified while the eggs of Canadian producers remained in storage, and those places had no rotation system, that is, eggs were coming in and out by the same door.
As often eggs were imported and took the place of Canadian eggs on the domestic market, Canadian eggs aged because they remained at the back of the storage and could not be taken out. That lead CEMA to order the destruction of a certain amount of eggs that were no longer fit for consumption.
Mr. Speaker, what is the point of having a Canadian Farm Products Marketing Act if we give free course of action to profiteers who import products and market them when we have domestic producers who cannot dispose of their production. They are profiteers, people who take advantage of a situation, who take advantage of a market to make profits while our farming organizations such as our Canadian Marketing Agency should be struggling in an almost impossible situation. To my mind, nobody here
February 17, 1975

would have done better because we lacked the tools that would have allowed us to do more.
I feel that is the core of the problem. People might say: The hon. member for Bellechasse must understand one thing, that is we must trade, export and import. I agree on that. However, when we import table eggs at a price three times higher than that of breaker eggs, which we can export, we must export a great number to be able to reach the price of table eggs, which we can and sometimes must import, when we are forced by need to do so. Mr. Speaker, I feel we are not being fair with the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). Although he may be blamed, he has a part to play. He has his responsibilities, but if we deal behind his back, he will not be able to make miracles.
The duty of the Minister of Agriculture is to assure the Canadian people that they will be able to obtain the amount and quality of food required to meet their needs.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it so happens that permit and licence controls as to farm products export and import are in the hands of another minister, who is often pressured by those who are interested in the import and export of these products for a profit and not for the common good of our country.
The National Farm Product Marketing Council and CEMA faced difficulties because, in spite of the leaders' goodwill, 3 million dozens of eggs have been put on the market. This is due to a quota set under Canadian law. In the meantime, importers have obtained licences to import from other countries a similar quantity of eggs put on the market without any quota and not liable to the Canadian products marketing. This factor tends to alter the normal play of supply and demand, since quotas can be established only from the data and needs of our home market.
Mr. Speaker, such is the problem. If we do not stop and pass legislation to provide the Minister of Agriculture with the required authority to issue those licences after consultation with the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, there is no point making speeches in the House passing legislation. We shall never achieve the objectives we aim at because automatically cards are faked. This is my view on this question and this is the way I have spoken about it in the night of December 30, 1971. What I had foreseen then proved to be right. The situation we are now in is lamentable. Neither consumers nor producers are satisfied with it. I know producers who have suffered considerable losses. We still have to take that problem into consideration and study it as it really is.
Let's think a moment of the losses sustained by egg producers, when the laying hen has given everything it could, when it has produced everything it could in the 16 square inches of space that it can use. Then, he has to put it on the market under the form of meat, which is still good for human consumption, but at what price?
Mr. Speaker, I urge all members to look up in the newspapers the market price for fowl meat, that is layers not yet ready for consumption. They will find out, as I did and as I have known for a long time, that the offering price is 3 cents a pound only. How can we expect egg producers to compensate with the sale of a certain product, when the price is below cost and they have to stay in
Egg Marketing Committee Report
production to last through the production cycle if they want at some time to make a profit and remain in business.
When eggs are sold in the supermarkets, are the Canadian housewifes in a position to check whether they are buying Canadian versus American, Cuban or other eggs? Definitely no. All they know is they are buying eggs. I therefore believe it would be in the Canadian public's interest if we had an act under which products and product origin had to be identified, so our Canadian housewives would know. It is very well to tell customers to buy Canadian. But when the goods are not marked as to origin, how do you expect the consumer to follow suit? I feel the time has come we had in our statutes specific legislation providing for compulsory identification of products, applying even in the case of eggs.
It is already done in gloves for instance. When we import gloves, whether from India or Japan, they are so marked. Why not have the same thing with farm products? In my opinion, this would be a good way to protect those responsible for the management of farm products marketing against unneeded import penetration. We could then gauge those people's efficiency. We manackle them, we create enormous problems for them, and then we tell them they were not efficient, they were unsuccessful.
Mr. Speaker, I think we have to be honest with those people and act in such a way they could resort to this measure. If they do not succeed to their objective, we will then be in a position to blame them, to tell them they are incompetent, not fit to occupy such or such a post in such a government agency, including the Farm Products Marketing Agency. Mr. Speaker, I want to defend the interests of both producers and consumers. In so doing, I believe I work for the best interests of all Canadians. I believe this measure is required, otherwise, we will never succeed in meeting the objective we are aiming at.
I think that licenses for egg imports or exports should be issued under the authority of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). The minister knows my views about this. It does not mean that I do not trust the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie), but it is his responsibility to see that as concerns food Canadians are supplied in a reasonable way and reasonble quantities. If we lay some obligations upon him we also should give him tools so that he can fulfill satisfactorily his duties to all Canadians.
I am aware of the constitutional jurisdiction problem regarding imports and exports control and it is a very ticklish issue. When you wish to get your supplies from a province, a provincial marketing agency tells you: It is under my jurisdiction, I am the one who decides if such or such product must be imported or not. In another province it will be the same. It really becomes a problem, a constitutional issue. And we know, Mr. Speaker, how costly all those constitutional squabbles have been. Sometimes it was about important issues but sometimes it was for mere trifle.
The Canadian taxpayers have to pay for all this and while we are quarrelling and go to courts, lawyers are getting richer, judges are bored and have trouble making a decision. We, the parliamentarians, make everything possible to contribute to a spirit of mutual understanding

February 17, 1975
Egg Marketing Committee Report
among Canadians. We make everything we can so that legislation be efficient, that westerners and easterners be able to live from their work. This is our only aim: Be able to survive, to have incomes related to the efforts we make to produce such or such a thing. Do not ask me to grow wheat on my farm, the soil is not good for it, but ask me to produce butter or milk and I shall tell you yes, but give me the possibility to make enough profits to earn my family's living. The Western wheat producer asks exactly the same thing.
Why should we bother with legislation, regulations and all kinds of mechanisms that are bothering everybody. When we could get through and go straight to the point. What is our goal, Mr. Speaker? We want to be able to distribute throughout Canada those quality goods produced by Canadians for Canadians in sufficient quantities. If we achieve that in the Parliament of Canada, why would any agency throw a spanner in the works, spoil that labour? We really could meet that objective so that eventually, throughout Canada, from Vancouver to Newfoundland, there might be some butter on every table. Whether that butter is produced in Quebec, in New Brunswick or in Ontario is irrelevant provided it reaches its destination.
If farmers need grain to process it into pork products, dairy products, or eggs, the agencies and producers must be able to rely on regular supplies to carry on such processing and then put that product unto public markets, according to some orderly organization, some appropriate mechanism-which I expected to find in Bill C-176. I as a Canadian would not wish this failure of the egg marketing concept to act as a deterrent for other producers. But all of us should roll up our sleeves and make a reasonable effort to try and cope with this situation.
If the Act has to be amended, let it be amended; if restraints have to be imposed, let them be imposed, but let something be done before it is too late, because every Canadian is watching this Parliament, watching everything we do, everything we shall decide, everything we shall do. Shall we accept to be paralysed because of the temporary failure of an agency called CEMA, or shall we go ahead and provide the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) with additional powers? Any mistake we might make could not be worse than any past one, and could be termed another failure. But I do not think we will make a mistake if we act in that way and use the necessary means to achieve that goal.
What is the goal? It is better distribution throughout Canada of food products at prices tailored to the consumer's ability to pay and bringing farm producers enough revenue to allow them to live decently. That is all we are asking for, nothing more. I cannot understand why, in 1975, 264 members of parliament should fail to solve that problem. No need to wait a hundred years to do something. The time has come. Let us do everything we can and Canadians will be most grateful.


Mr. Cafik:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think you will find there is general agreement in the House to limit speeches to 15 minutes for the balance of the debate tonight in order to give members of all parties an opportu-

nity to participate. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) will be speaking, and he has indicated to me that he was not prepared for this and may want an extra two or three minutes. I think there would be agreement to that.


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, we concur in the suggestion and I commend the hon. member for making it on the basis, of course, that the minister will not go excessively over 15 minutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We agree, Mr. Speaker-15 minutes for ordinary mortals, and 17 for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik). Although there is a limiting factor in the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) I wonder if this should be applied by the Chair, or does the House wish the time for the minister to be more flexible?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that speeches be limited to 15 minutes, with reasonable extension for the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Aloysius McGrath: He needs all the time he can get.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate although I believe the time could be better used for some important legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: We can make a comparison, Mr. Speaker, between some of the world's best remembered speeches. For instance, the Gettysburg address comprised only 268 words. Somebody counted the words used in the committee hearings inquiring into egg marketing, and it was a million some hundred thousand. I only hope that 268 words of my speech will be remembered tonight.
This thing called CEMA, the first born child of national marketing legislation, was asked for by the producers and the provinces, and it is basically their responsibility to provide the co-operation to see that it does what they want. Some people have said that last year I could have controlled CEMA. Under the authority I have as Minister of Agriculture all I could have done was tell them they were finished by withdrawing the federal authority vested in them. I thought it better not to do that.
Some people have said that I covered up the facts. I want to say again as I said before, that is a falsehood and anyone who has studied the situation knows that.
I hope that within the next ten days we can announce the appointments to the National Farm Products Marketing Council, Mr. Speaker.
On December 16 I gave the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency an ultimatum: come up with a workable plan or
February 17, 1975

the federal government will take away your power to operate. The deadline was February 15. The date has just passed, and I am pleased that CEMA is getting a grip on surplus production.
Since mid-December CEMA has reduced the quota allocation to seven provinces by 10 per cent. The other three provinces' quotas were not reduced because they are each less than 2 per cent of the national quota.
Whether this 10 per cent cutback is felt in the hen house or merely on paper is up to the provincial egg boards. These boards have given us proof that they have a plan that will work. I give you an example. Early in February the provincial egg boards voted that CEMA be given the power to seize, detain and dispose of eggs and fowl that are excess to quota. This is a big step in the right direction. If given this power CEMA would become a policeman with a club. Until now the agency has not been able to do anything more than shake its finger.
The fact that the provinces realize that CEMA must have this added power is the biggest news for the Canadian egg industry since CEMA was born.
Recently CEMA has also ruled that provinces with less than 5 per cent of the national quota can adjust their quotas up or down by 10 per cent on a quarterly basis to supply seasonal tourist demand. This kind of flexibility is proof that the agency is maturing and can deal with changing situations.
CEMA's future depends on the provincial boards. This is a fact.
The parliamentary committee on egg marketing, I as the Minister of Agriculture and, most important, CEMA's members, are demanding an end to deficit financing. In fact, all provinces have agreed to pay as they go. That is the kind of news for which we have been waiting.
Some still owe CEMA backdebts for 1974. But I am glad to see most of the provinces have now either paid up their debts incurred in 1974 or have made binding agreements to rid themselves of these debts by the end of the year.
These are some real proofs that egg producers are going to make CEMA work. I would make a good sized wager that we are only one year away from having the most sophisticated planned production system in the world. That does not mean there are not a lot of problems that must be tackled. There are, and they must be tackled promptly, and without regional bias. The parliamentary committee probed many of these problems. Some of the committee's recommendations have already been carried out by CEMA but it is urgent that many more be implemented, and soon. However, I want to alert hon. members. There are specific parts of this report that I feel could be premature. There are other recommendations that could be so hard to work, or so costly to carry out, that they would be of less benefit to producers than meets the eye.
I want to outline briefly the major strengths and pitfalls of the report. Its major strength is its recommendation that CEMA have tough policing powers. This goes hand in hand with the recommendation that each regulated producer be put on a computerized card system. This demands that provincial egg boards feed what each producer's flock size is, the age of his birds, his daily egg production and the death rate of his layers, into the computer each month.
Egg Marketing Committee Report These figures, double-checked with a pullet permit system and grading station records, will do two things. They will let CEMA tailor supply much closer to demand and give the facts needed to get a clean sheet from the auditors. This bill get rid of a lot of guesswork. We will know how many hens we have, where they are, and how many eggs they are laying.
Right now producers are paid the full price for their eggs when they take them to market. If the market sours, CEMA and the provincial boards charge producers a levy to cover their losses. The committee recommends discarding this system, and instead giving producers an initial payment covering production costs. The final payment would be what remained of the market price, after deducting the marketing costs. There would be no levies for egg removal, and no debts for either CEMA or the provincial boards. This system has been used successfully by other commodities in Canada. If it can be applied in the egg industry it could break important ground for the egg producers of Canada. The partner recommendation to this calls for CEMA to have a third party work out the costs of production in each province.
I want to see all farmers producing over their quota to be penalized, so that the people who abide by the rules are not ripped off. I want the provincial egg boards to play fair ball, too. Some have been paying the salvage price to their producers over-quota eggs, then getting a higher price from CEMA for some of these same eggs by passing them off as within-quota eggs. The inquiry uncovered this and I commend the committee members for doing so. It has to be cleared up.
The committee calls for licensing of imports and exports. The recommendation is that the maximum volume of eggs licensed in any month should not exceed the average volume traded in that month during the last five years. I am right behind licensing all imports and exports. However, I also want to see a provision for licensing larger shipments of either imports or exports. There may be a periodic need or an opportunity for larger shipments that will not hurt, and may benefit, our producers and consumers. Producers have been waiting for this kind of common sense market protection. It deserves the support of all hon. members.
Now for the pitfalls: the report asks the federal government to consider having the federal and provincial governments each pay 25 per cent of the cost of removing within-quota eggs that are surplus to the table market. I cannot back this. It would encourage overproduction. I do not want to see producers gear up production to fill a phony market that does not pay them the price they need.
The report also wants the Consultative Advisory Committee to CEMA to review and assess all major policy issues. Is there not a real danger that bias and self-interest here could taint the input this group would give?
I also have doubts about putting a grade "A" storage quality egg on the retail shelf. Canadian grade standards are one of the highest in the world. I do not think consumers want to give up this high quality. On top of this there will hopefully be few, if any, eggs in storage. So, this grade could seldom be on the retail shelf and certainly not in all
3288

February 17, 1975
Egg Marketing Committee Report centres. I think all Canadians are entitled to high quality produce of all kinds, including eggs.
I back the recommendation calling for two additional appointments to the board of directors. I will work with CEMA to do this but I will insist that these new directors have a national outlook. I do not want the hands of these two new people to be tied with political strings or regional loyalties. I would also caution, again, that there may be more problems than we can spot at first glance in carrying out some of the committee's recommendations. Let me give you a couple of examples.
Selling eggs at a discount price to the disadvantaged is something I am right behind. Consumers will be, too. But, can it be done for a reasonable price? Should all Canadians not help foot the bill? What are the full implications of regulating all producers with flocks of more than 100 birds? There are many, and we have to probe them carefully before we steer the industry in that direction. As I said, if the eggs are to be sold at discount prices to the disadvantaged, should not all society foot the bill? I do not think that the producers of a commodity should be asked to pay if the surplus production of any given product is to be made available to the disadvantaged at a lower price.
Consumers should welcome many of the regulations. Selling discount eggs to the disadvantaged is only one. The report also calls for marking all eggs with the country of origin; rotating CEMA stocks to prevent spoilage; and more reporting to the public. Now you know how I weigh these recommendations. One more thing you should know as grist for the debate is that CEMA today owns no shell egg stocks. The only province that has stocks is Ontario, and those eggs are already sold. They are merely being held until they can be delivered.
You should also be aware that CEMA has already implemented a number of these recommendations. I wiE list some for you. The agency has hired a manager. It is giving a monthly report of its activities to the council. In Nova Scotia production facts are being fed into a computer on a trial basis. CEMA is in the midst of a thorough audit of provincial egg boards. The agency is already exploring export markets. Members of the National Farm Products Marketing Council have just returned from the Middle East and Europe. Some sales have been made in Hong Kong. More are being negotiated right now with other countries. Cases of one province accusing another of dumping are being investigated. If the evidence is strong enough, charges will be laid. A number of the provincial boards have cracked down and are getting truer hen counts and production records.
Today I received a telegram from seven, possibly eight, provinces which told me what they are doing. I am happy about what most of them are doing.
What hon. members do with this report will have a major impact on the egg industry. I support this report, as a source of suggestions to give CEMA leadership in the future. When CEMA fulfils all of these recommendations, we all-most of all members of the parliamentary committee and members of CEMA-will have something to crow about.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, before I make my main comments I wonder if I might ask the minister to

answer a question. He mentioned that he had received, from the provinces, telegrams outlining provincial plans. Could the minister take the House into his confidence and table these telegrams, so that members of the House can also take an objective look at them? That way we shall know what CEMA is doing and where it is going. Or, if the minister does not want to answer this question now, or heed my request, perhaps he will take what I have raised as notice.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. In the interest of procedure it would be proper to consider the hon. member's request as a request for the unanimous consent of the House to allow the minister to answer this question. Does the House agree to allow the minister to answer the question, if he wishes to answer?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the best way I can answer is by saying that most provinces agreed to what we asked them to do, although some have certain reservations. I think the hon. member knows I cannot table the telegrams unless and until I go through the usual procedure and obtain permission of the provinces. I will do that as soon as possible.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing the minister to speak. If he cannot table the telegrams at this time perhaps he would consider making them available to the Standing Committee on Agriculture, for scrutiny and discussion. I shall move that this matter be referred to that committee.
I will not take up the time of the House in elaborating on the history of CEMA, for it is well known to hon. members. I do not think any member is proud about what has happened in egg marketing since the inception of the national egg marketing plan. The difficulties arose because of mismanagement, as the committee found, and because of personality conflicts within CEMA. These factors were responsible for many of the agency's difficulties.
If we are to talk about one major problem, from my point of view it is management of the program that is lacking. I understand a manager is being hired for a five year period. That will allow the person involved to get into the whole aspect of egg marketing in Canada. As a result, I hope a lot of changes will come about, such as those recommended in our report.
My main reason for speaking this evening is to state that we in the Conservative party feel we did not have enough information on which to base an objective decision when the committee report was made on December 16. When you consider the period that has elapsed since December 16, this would have given time to go over the objections and some of the matters we felt should be looked into further, and we might have been able to present a far more complete report.
One problem is that we could not have the auditors as witnesses. It has already been mentioned that the management committee did not have an opportunity to appear before the special committee. The provincial ministers of
February 17, 1975

agriculture made a decision which changed the course of what happened. That also had a bearing on what we felt was really a "short change" because of the time restraints on the committee. We feel this matter has not been really resolved.
The minister spoke this evening. His speech was certainly soothing in many respects. However, we still do not believe the matter is resolved. We would like to see it discussed further, and the place for that discussion is the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
As I listened to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) this evening, he reminded me of the syndrome that exists in that corner of the House with regard to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). When things were going wrong, he certainly was not to blame. He did not want to accept any responsibility. It was put off of and on to other parties, but you can bet your last dollar that if and when the plan works, the Minister of Agriculture will be the first to stand in this House of Commons, and at meetings across the country, accepting full credit for making the plan work. He cannot have it both ways. There is certainly enough evidence to indicate that the Minister of Agriculture really did not take his job seriously. That is another reason why we want this whole matter looked into further.
Probably the most important point now is what will happen to CEMA in the future. Do we want it to continue? The Conservative party certainly would like to see it continue. There is no doubt about that. As I mentioned before, there were a lot of problems, and a lot of mistakes were made along the way. However, we feel it should have another chance to prove itself. Hopefully, the recommendations and program for CEMA and the producers will be implemented in the future.
If we agree on that aspect, we must move ahead to try to make the program work. If, after two years, we find that CEMA has lost control over the provinces, the producers and its own inventory system, we should take another hard look at it. If that happens possibly it should then be disbanded. Until that time, however, all parties in this House should work toward making it a better vehicle, not only for the producers but for the consumers. One cannot exist without the other. They both have to work together much more closely than in the past.
Before I resume my seat I wish to move an amendment. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Northumber-land-Durham (Mr. Lawrence):
That the motion be amended by striking out all the words after "1974" and substituting therefor the following:
"be not now concurred in but be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture for consideration and revision in order to better examine and inquire into the provisions of the terms of reference of the said special committee, other than the instruction to report by deadline."
We feel this is reasonable, especially in light of the statement this evening by the Minister of Agriculture that the provinces are making some moves to set some of that information out for him. If the amendment is accepted, I hope the matter will be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture as quickly as possible so that the points raised by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), myself, and others can be dealt with there.
Egg Marketing Committee Report


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: At first glance I have some reservation as to the acceptability of the amendment as proposed by the hon. member. Because of the time limitation on tonight's debate and the fact we may not deal with this tomorrow, I hesitate to invite procedural debate. I do not want to prevent hon. members from presenting argument. If I were to make a decision on the proposed amendment, I would reject it. I will leave it to the House. I see two members seem ready to speak. I invite their comments.


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the limitation placed on the House by the clock, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest that Your Honour hold your ruling on the amendment until ten o'clock.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, it may not be necessary at this time, but I was simply going to argue that, in my view, this amendment is out of order. In light of the time limitation I do not think it is necessary to pursue that course.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I was trying to avoid taking away the time available for debate. If it is agreed, I will hold my decision until ten o'clock. Hon. members may wish to enter into a procedural debate at that time. We will then see what is the wish of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I simply suggest that the Chair hold its decision until the next time this order is called. There is not much point in having a decision at ten o'clock tonight unless we are going to come back to the motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will withhold my decision until later.


Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the motion put forward by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) dealing with the report of the Special Parliamentary Committee on Egg Marketing tabled in this House on December 16 last.
I say this because, as a new member of parliament, participation on this special committee gave me a unique opportunity to become familiar with the important role which can be played in our parliamentary system by special committees which are given specific terms of reference and required to report back to the House by a specific date. This specific mandate and timetable provided the sort of incentive which encourages committee members of all parties to concentrate on the task at hand with a degree of determination and objectivity which, in my brief experience, is not always present in the sittings of some of our regular standing committees.
The other general point I should like to make is that, as a member representing an urban riding, participation in the work of this committee also provided me with the opportunity to gain at least some important insight into one small area of the many problems besetting the agricultural segment of our Canadian society.
In the few minutes available to me tonight, Mr. Speaker, I want to underscore certain recommendations contained in the report of the special committee. My selection of
28996-4'/2

Egg Marketing Committee Report
these recommendations, four in number, is made simply on the basis of my view as to their significance in relation to the overall subject of attempting to regulate egg production and marketing in this country. The recommendations to which I refer are as follows:
H-2 and H-4-Implementation of import/export licensing and specific identification of imported table eggs
A-6-Annual progress review by all signatories to the federal-provincial agreement
B-5-The active involvement of the Consultative Advisory Committee including meaningful participation by representatives of the non-producer segment
In the matter of recommendation H-2 dealing with the need for an import/export licensing system in accordance with acceptable provisions under the GATT agreement, it seems to me essential that CEMA have as a minimal responsibility that of maintaining appropriate records and issuing regular reports on those table eggs which are making their wayon to the Canadian market having originated from sources outside Canada.
It became clear to the committee during the hearings that this is an area over which CEMA has in the past exercised no control. An example of the significance of imported table eggs to this whole question of controlling production and distribution of eggs within Canada is the recent importation of 926,000 dozen eggs from the United States for marketing to Canadian consumers during the weeks ending from December 7, 1974, through January 4, 1975. This is the equivalent of roughly 50 carloads. Bearing in mind that in the province of import, which I understand in this instance to have been Ontario, the committee is recommending that production be controlled in the case of flocks of 100 or more hens, it is quite obvious that an importation to the extent mentioned must constitute a significant factor in the overall production and distribution of eggs in the Province of Ontario.
Whether or not CEMA itself should be involved in the allocation of import/export licensing permits is something which will, no doubt, require further consideration. It does seem to me, however, that the agency would be providing inadequate reporting statistics on egg production and marketing in the months ahead were it not to make specific reference to the quantities being imported and exported month by month. In fact, Mr. Speaker, failure to take into account the quantity of table eggs coming into Canada from outside tends to render the whole scheme of production and marketing controls within Canada something of an exercise in futility.
Recommendation H-4 relates to the identification of table eggs in the supermarkets. It is my belief that Canadian consumers of agricultural products are equally as interested as those purchasing manufactured products in knowing that the product they have been offered originates outside their native land. In fact, it might be argued that consumers would be more interested in knowing they were purchasing non-Canadian eggs than they might be if it were a matter of other non-Canadian products purchased on a daily or routine basis. In my view it is entirely possible that an indirect but important effect of such identification of imported eggs could be the eventual reduction in the overall quantity of table eggs imported into Canada each year.

The third recommendation on which I should like to comment is the one dealing with the involvement of the provincial ministers of agriculture.
The national plan under which CEMA derives its very existence was an agreement signed by a number of signatories, including the provincial ministers of agriculture. I would emphasize this point for the benefit of the hon. member for St. John's East who is still maintaining that sole responsibility rests with one of the 11 ministers involved, that is to say, the federal minister. The co-operation of these provincial ministers and provincial marketing boards which fall directly or indirectly under their jurisdiction is obviously of paramount necessity if the marketing scheme envisaged for handling eggs in this country is to work effectively. For this reason it is my view that provincial marketing boards should not be permitted to announce their withdrawal from CEMA in the absence of prior consultation between such provincial boards and their respective provincial ministers as well as with the federal Minister of Agriculture.
It has been noted recently that two provinces, British Columbia and Newfoundland, have announced their intention to withdraw. What has not been noted is any indication of prior discussion at senior ministerial levels prior to such announcements having been made by the heads of the two marketing boards. It is for this reason that I wish to underscore recommendation A-6 which requires at the very minimum an annual meeting of the National Farm Products Marketing Council with all signatories to the federal-provincial agreement and other directly affected parties, to review progress and achievements as well as to air areas of concern to the industry in order to avoid serious problems which could be developing.
In my view, the potential withdrawal of any one of the provinces from the national marketing scheme is indeed a most serious problem. All aspects should be carefully considered and discussed at a national meeting prior to any option for withdrawal being exercised or even announced in an official way.
The last point to which I wish to address my remarks this evening is recommendation B-5. This is the recommendation that endorses the concept of involving what I might refer to as the other side of the equation in the many consultations that must obviously form part and parcel of CEMA's operations. It became obvious to members of the committee during the recent hearings that both CEMA and the various regulatory bodies within the provinces are strictly producer oriented. Yet it is clear that the production and consumption of eggs in Canada is of as much concern to the consumer element of the general public as it is to the producer element.
Failure to accede to this concept of involving non-producer elements of the public in at least an advisory capacity will lead in the long run to further credibility gaps in the operation of the egg production and marketing scheme. Recommendation B-5 attempts to accomplish this goal without at the same time endeavouring to control the decision making ability of the CEMA organization. It does this by proposing an effective and meaningful role for the Consultative Advisory Committee that was envisaged in the original federal-provincial agreement. The problem to
February 17, 1975

date has been that this particular committee has not been activated in any meaningful way.
I believe that all recommendations in this report of the special committee on egg marketing are important. My selection of four of these recommendations for purposes of discussion in this debate should not be interpreted as an inference on my part that I do not consider the other recommendations to be significant. Indeed they are, and I have no hesitation in endorsing them in the hope that all recommendations in the report will be given most careful consideration by the various authorities to whom they are directed.
In conclusion let me say I tend to agree with the emphases placed by the mover of the resolution, the hon. member for St. John's East, on those recommendations contained in the report to which he has made reference. My major disagreement, however, is with his continuing efforts to place the blame for the problems of CEMA to date at the feet of the federal Minister of Agriculture, when he so well knows, as do all participating members of the committee, that CEMA will only be effective when it receives the full support, in practice as well as theory, of all 11 ministers across the country.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, I do not believe I will take up all the time that has been allotted to me. Those of us who were privileged to sit on the parliamentary committee that studied the egg mess for a number of weeks put in an extremely busy time at meetings which were going on morning, noon and night. I think I speak for all of those members when I say that it was a very interesting time. Many of us learnt-at least, we think we have learned-a great deal about the egg industry of this country. We learned a new language, really. Not only did we learn about quotas but we were introduced to such phrases as the "crack market", the "shell trade", the "fresh trade". Indeed, it was almost like going back to law school and learning legal phrases and jargon. A lot of us had to learn a completely new phraseology.


An hon. Member:: "Sunny side up."


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Yes, "sunny side up". I think we got a little too involved with many of the details, and this is one reason I am not going to go into too much detail tonight.
Underneath it all, Madam Speaker, when you really sat back and thought about it, was there not something, and is there not still something, screwy about what is going on in Canada and in the world today, especially in terms of agricultural production? We all know there is a world wide shortage of protein foods. Yet all we talk about are quotas, restrictions, and measures such as that, including planned production and supply control, all of which ultimately will have but one effect and one effect only, namely, the limiting of production of a very valuable food, the lack of which is causing starvation in some parts of the world today. As I say, there must be something screwy about this.
I must say the minister did not get off as easily in the committee as he got off in the House tonight. He can
Egg Marketing Committee Report disclaim responsibility all he wants. He can say "No, it's not me, I have nothing to do with it, and the government has nothing to do with it". But I would remind him that the federal Minister of Agriculture accepted responsibility for a national egg marketing scheme in this country and, to put it as simply as I can, this Minister of Agriculture boobed, and boobed badly, in respect to this particular industry. If the minister was going to take on this job in face of world wide shortage of protein, in face of the supply situation, the feed situation and the existing production situation in this country, then I do not think he can shrug off his responsibility in the way he attempted to shrug it off in the House this evening.
During the committee hearings this simple question was put directly to the minister: "Mr. Minister, do you not believe that you bear some responsibility for what is happening now and what has happened in the egg industry in this country?" There was, Madam Speaker, a very pregnant pause for a minute, and then he finally admitted that he did have some responsibility for it.
Rather than go into detail, let me try to paint with a broad brush what has gone wrong in the industry today. Speaking of broad brushes, I must say this about the committee. I think that committee was a hard working committee which delved into all sorts of things. As I said, we worked morning, noon and night. But so far as the very touchy situation that the minister had backed himself into is concerned, I must say that the committee turned out to be a complete whitewash with regard to the responsibility that the Minister of Agriculture should bear to the egg industry of this country.
In saying that, I do not want any member to follow up with the sort of parroting that we have heard tonight and say that we are trying to blame everything onto poor old Gene Whelan. That is not what I am saying. I do not think that is what the members of my party have been saying, and I do not think that anyone who listened to the committee hearings would attempt to reach that conclusion. But what we do say, Madam Speaker, and what the committee, due to its majority of members of the government party, was not honest enough to admit to itself, is that a major responsibility for the mess that existed rested in the office of the Minister of Agriculture; there is no question about that.
Why else would the minister come along tonight and try to say, "Look what a good boy I have been; I have cleared up the mess"? Why would he say, "Look at the pressure that I have put on the National Farm Products Marketing Council, which in turn put pressure on CEMA, which in turn have put pressure on the provincial boards. Because of what I have done, CEMA has now got a new general manager. Because of what I have done, the provincial boards are now playing ball where they were not playing ball before. Because of what I have now done, within a year we will have a worth-while national egg marketing scheme in this country".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I hear some hon. members on the other side banging their desks. I think that is great. But the point is that it could have been done two years ago by this same minister, and it was not done. There have been two

February 17, 1975
Egg Marketing Committee Report years of delay, waste and procrastination by this particular minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Nonsense!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: There is no question in my mind-


Norman Augustine Cafik: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to know whether the hon. member who has the floor would permit a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Would the hon. member allow a question?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I would be delighted to answer a sensible question if the hon. member is capable of asking me one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: However, under the circumstances and due to the record of that particular member, I would rather have him wait until I have completed my comments.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: If some of the hon. members had had the gumption about a year ago to stand up and call chicken, we would not be in the mess in which we find ourselves. In any event, there is no question in my mind that a good portion of the blame not only belongs to the Minister of Agriculture but belongs to some of the provincial governments and provincial boards that exist right now across this country. We are not trying to lay the blame completely and exclusively at the feet of the Minister of Agriculture. Heaven only knows that he is responsible, even though is not willing to admit it. But I do say that another element in this-and you should merely look at the history of this tangled web of the egg industry to realize it

is that the provincial governments and marketing boards in the first instance had to come on bended knee to plead with the then minister of agriculture to get a national egg marketing scheme adopted.
I say in defence of this government-although not in defence of this Minister of Agriculture because he was not minister then-that certainly at that time it was in the interests of the provincial egg marketing boards and of the provincial governments to have a national egg marketing scheme. I do not think that there is any question in anybody's mind that they were willing to try to get the federal government to take on the scheme, but unwilling to give to the federal government the power, the control and the policing mechanism necessary to make it work. But I do say to you that the careless if not negligent minister of agriculture of the day, followed by his bungling successor in this office, failed miserably at that time to talk turkey to the provincial boards and provincial governments.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: You got them going. They are awake now.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: They should have said to them simply this, "All right, if you want us to bail you out, then, by golly, transfer to us the necessary power". There is no question that that was not done and that it should have been done. The reason it was not done is the fault of the federal government. We got into a hassle, and now a couple of years too late everybody is seeing the light, including the provincial boards and the provincial governments. They themselves apparently are now well along the road to some form of recovery. That is great, but let us not forget that it was this government that bungled the deal in the first place, and it should bear that responsibility.
I can well understand the feeling of some of the provincial boards and provincial governments in respect of CEMA and, more particularly, the National Farm Products Marketing Council. More than one individual at the provincial level has come to me, not just Tories, not just members of a provincial board or a provincial government that is Conservative, but others who have asked me why in heavens name they should give any power or control to the federal National Farm Marketing Council when they have no confidence in it. I asked them how come they have no confidence in the council, and they said, "Look at the makeup of the council. It is made up of political appointees, people who are appointed to that council more for their knowledge of the ins and outs of the political halls of this country than for what they know about agricultural production".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Now the minister comes to the House tonight and says, as he did in the committee: "Oh gosh, fellows, I couldn't do anything about it. All I could do was to either keep them going or cut them off". That is absolutely ridiculous. First of all the council has the general supervisory power of any national marketing agency. Who appoints the council? The federal government appoints its members on the recommendation of the minister. Secondly, the council which supervises the national agency is responsible to the minister. Who provides the credit for the national agency? It is provided under a letter of comfort signed by the present Minister of Agriculture. If he has no control over that council, if he has no control over CEMA, then what in the world is he doing signing a letter of comfort which provided the basic credit for the agency itself? Certainly he has control. If he has no control, why is he now going to take the credit for cleaning up the mess? Of course he has control.
The council is responsible to the minister, the council advises the minister, the council reports to the minister, and the council has the general regulatory supervision over the national farm marketing agencies. The minister did not even take the trouble or time to find out if the proper statistics were being formulated by CEMA. Surely to goodness somewhere along the line some of the taint of this mess must rub off on the minister. The whole reason for a national egg marketing agency must be found in the problem that the egg producers and the provincial boards have been having in respect of interprovincial and international trade. If that power exists, as it can only exist in
February 17, 1975

the federal government, then surely the minister must bear the responsibility-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order please. There being an agreement that speeches cannot be extended beyond 15 minutes, I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: May I merely complete my sentence, Madam Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: There being no agreement, I am afraid I cannot allow the hon. member to continue.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Madam Speaker, as the House knows, I was a member of the special committee, and this debate enables me to place on the record of the House my views on the committee's final report. But first let me say that I was interested to note from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) that the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency recently went on an egg selling mission to Hong Kong, and one wonders if it did this because some people in Hong Kong wanted to buy 1,000 year old eggs for their own unique use.
Seriously, this committee's final report is important because it deals with the first attempt by the government to apply the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act. Parliament directed in section 22 of the act that agencies set up under it are to have due regard for the interests of porducers and consumers, and further directed in section 6 that the Farm Products Marketing Council is to ensure that this is done. The evidence indicated clearly that in spite of this direction from parliament, both the Farm Products Marketing Council and CEMA failed to give sufficient regard to the interests of consumers in national egg marketing. Both the council and CEMA are composed entirely of producer representatives, or of people closely linked with the producer interest.
On the whole the final report has a number of useful recommendations. If implemented they can do much to bring about needed improvements in the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, the national egg marketing system and the National Farm Products Marketing Council. However, there was no response by the government during the two months since the report was tabled last December 16 as to what it would do to bring about the implementation of any of these recommendations, or any alternative measures in their place, nor have we been given information before tonight to show that CEMA or the council itself has been doing anything of significance to carry out the recommendations of the committee.
In fact, during the past two months there have been disturbing signs of the kind of "business as usual" which originally made the appointment of the special committee necessary. I am referring to the press reports of a few weeks ago alleging a sudden appearance and subsequent disappearance of a new surplus of 40 million eggs. This matter is important enough for Canadians generally to have expected some announcement by the government of
Egg Marketing Committee Report its decision for remedial action before the commencement of today's debate.
It was my hope that this debate would hasten the kind of action required. From the Minister of Agriculture's speech this evening, this is apparently what has happened. Hon. members will want to consider whether the steps he mentioned could not have been taken sooner since CEMA was created over two years ago, and the first Food Prices Review Board report on egg marketing came out some 12 months ago.
I have just said that the final report of the committee of the whole contains a number of useful recommendations. However, I do not believe that it deals sufficiently with the question of how the consumer interest can best be recognized and protected in the operations of CEMA and national egg marketing. The report recommends that CEMA should have a stronger consultative committee on which consumers would be represented, and that two additional members be appointed to the CEMA board by the governor in council. However, it is clear that the consultative committee would be able to do no more than be informed by and express its views to the governing board of CEMA. Also, the report says nothing about who the two additional federal appointees should be.
Since consumers are vitally concerned with and affected by decisions on the supply and price of eggs, it is essential that they be able to take part in the actual decision making process of CEMA itself. It is not sufficient to achieve this purpose for there to be a consumer representative on the National Farm Products Marketing Council alone. The government announced early in October that such a person and two additional non producers would be appointed to the council. However, these appointments have not yet been announced before today, a delay of almost five months.
Also, it should be a matter of concern for all those who wish to strengthen and protect the interests of Canadians as consumers that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) also told the Special committee when he appeared before it that he was "not advocating a consumer representative" on the board of CEMA itself. Instead, he said that he wanted a federal official to be appointed, and what he appeared to have in mind was that this official should come from the Department of Agriculture.


Walter David Baker: Shame!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: When parliament passed the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, acting on behalf of all the people of Canada, it gave CEMA a form of monopoly power. At the same time parliament specifically said that neither CEMA nor any producers dealing with it would be subject to the Combines Act.
It is essential, therefore, that the monopoly power of CEMA be exercised and be seen to be exercised in the total public interest. The concept of orderly marketing of agricultural products in Canada according to parliament rests on two foundations; one is the interest of the producer; the other is the interest of the consumer. In my view, the total public interest cannot be protected in the way that I have mentioned if only the producer side is

February 17, 1975
Egg Marketing Committee Report
involved in decision making. The consumer side must be involved for this purpose as well.
I therefore want to put on the record of parliament some of my views as to what would be appropriate action to bring this about. First, for an interim period sufficiently long to ensure that the recommendations in the report to improve the management and operations of CEMA, the council and the egg marketing plan have gone into effect, CEMA should be administered by a five member executive committee much as recommended by the provincial ministers of agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: We're with you.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: To the extent that this committee would be composed of federal officials, they should not all come from the Department of Agriculture. Instead, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and possibly the Treasury Board should be represented as well. If the committee is to be composed of people from the private sector, some of its members should be connected with the consumer interest.
Second, after the interim period mentioned has elapsed, there should be a number of consumer representatives appointed to the permanent board of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency by the government. The federal government appears to have the power to do this under the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act.
Arguments to the special committee, by the present management of CEMA and other producer representatives, that having consumer representatives on the board would be divisive indicate clearly that producer representatives themselves do not believe that they are likely to be able to give due regard to the consumer interest in ways consumers would consider acceptable.
Third, the council should be restructured so that it would become a body clearly authorized to hear appeals from decisions of CEMA and other marketing agencies set up under the act from anyone-producer, processor or consumer-affected by these decisions.
Finally, such reports and advice from the council on the operation of agencies set up under the act should be submitted to and considered by not only the Minister of Agriculture, but also by an inter ministerial committee made up of that minister, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien). They should all share responsibility for the operations of the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act rather than have it left entirely in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture as it is at present.
The issue of ministerial responsibility is one of the difficult and sensitive areas touched on by the committee report. A reading of the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act as a whole conveys the view that parliament in passing the act certainly did have in mind that the Minister of Agriculture would be responsible for the over-all administration and application for the act, including some meaningful degree of responsibility for the agencies created under its authority. The act contains a number of indications of this, but one of the clearest of them is

section 6 (l)(a) which says that the duties of the Farm Products Marketing Council are, and I quote:
... to advise the minister on all matters relating to the establishment and operation of agencies under this act.
One could well argue that parliament would hardly have been likely to have directed the council to advise the Minister of Agriculture in this way unless parliament wished to impose on the minister some degree of direct responsibility with respect to both the establishment and operation of marketing agencies created by cabinet under the authority of the act.
One can ask therefore why the final report of the committee found a lesser degree of responsibility with respect to CEMA on the part of the Minister of Agriculture than the minister has, himself, finally been willing to agree that he holds. He did admit to the committee, in the course of his second appearance before it, that he "possibly had some responsibility" for what he described as being only a "minor catastrophe." On Wednesday, January 28, the minister said that he would take drastic action if CEMA did not reform itself. He would not be able to do this if he did not have more responsibility for CEMA than the final committee report found that the Minister of Agriculture had.
One could also ask why the committee found less responsibility for action on the part of the Minister of Agriculture in this matter than the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. That minister in his release of September 6, 1974, and in particular in a television interview on the C.B.C. on that date, clearly expressed his view that, in effect the Minister of Agriculture had responsibility for the operations of CEMA and should, therefore, take action to cure its problems. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs confirmed he made these statements and stood by them when he himself appeared before the committee.
The committee's final report in its findings on ministerial responsibility clashes with and rejects the views about it held by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. This, together with his unwillingness last November to advocate consumer representatives for the CEMA board, suggests that the result of his confrontation with the Minister of Agriculture over egg marketing early last September was certainly not a victory for the consumer point of view.
It is true that provincial governments and provincial egg marketing agencies were involved in the negotiations that worked out the terms of the egg marketing plan as well as its later implementation. However, marketing agencies under the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act are created by the federal governor in council, that is, by the cabinet by proclamation, as are the marketing plans these agencies implement. In other words they come into being because the cabinet exercises authority delegated to it by the parliament of Canada in the act. They would not come into being without this cabinet action being taken.
The act also provides that the cabinet can amend the terms of any marketing plan, or withdraw any powers it had earlier given to any agency which was created under the act. One should note that the act does not say that the

only thing the cabinet can do if it is not satisfied with the operations of an agency is simply to terminate it by withdrawing all of its powers all at once. Parliament instead gave the cabinet the authority to operate flexibly, to amend individual agency powers if it wished to do so. The act does not say there is any necessity for any provincial concurrence or consent before any of the steps I have mentioned are taken.
In my view the evidence presented to the special committee has confirmed the findings of the Food Prices Review Board that the manner of operation of CEMA did not give due regard to the consumer interest. It confirmed the board's findings that the intervention price was set so high as to both encourage overproduction and, at the same time, inhibit purchases of eggs by consumers. It also confirmed the board's findings that the cost of production formula on which the intervention price of eggs was based was neither realistic nor adequate for that purpose.
It should be noted that the lack of adequate planning that took place before CEMA began its operations, and the faulty administration that marked its operations once they were under way, all came about when the decision making and management in this regard were entirely in the hands of producers.
Let me say, Madam Speaker, that I believe that no more marketing agencies should be created by the federal government under the Act unless it is firmly established that the plans and systems of administration for them are such that the mistakes and mismanagement associated with CEMA to date will not occur again.
The destruction of -29 million eggs is bad enough by itself, but what is equally troubling about it is what it demonstrates about the flaws in CEMA and its administration to the detriment of both producers and consumers, and the flaws that could develop when other marketing agencies are created under the act.
The difficulties of CEMA provide a powerful lesson, one which unfortunately had to be learned through a bitter experience so costly to both producer and consumer. Let us hope that this lesson has come early enough in efforts to develop national supply management programs so that with appropriate federal government action the mistakes and mismanagement connected with CEMA will not be repeated. If this is the case, the interests of all Canadians, whether producers or consumers, and thereby the total public interest, will in future be more fully and properly served, and the work of the special committee will be proven to have been greatly worth while.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Alexander:: Madam Speaker, on a point of order I should like the record to show that members of the opposition applauded vigorously for a very constructive speech, and no more than four members on the government side applauded.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I think it would be fair to say that, if it could be shown, many more were with me in spirit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Egg Marketing Committee Report


Mr. Ellis:: They don't need spirit, they need guts.


Fred Alward McCain: Madam Speaker, the question has been very thoroughly covered already and anybody who wishes to make further remarks on this debate makes them with the fear of being repetitious. However, there are a few things which I think have not been said.
I am in sympathy with the farmers who decided they were not particularly anxious to see a representative of the Consumers' Association of Canada on their board. You do not find a president of General Motors as a member of the United Auto Workers. You do not find a farmer on the board of directors of a chartered accountants' association of Canada, you do not find a farmer on the board of directors that charts the course of the legal associations, the medical associations or nursing associations of this country. All of these people need food, however, and farmers need their services, yet they have never been invited to participate in the professional associations of any group in this or any other country.
While I agree in principle with a great deal of what has been said, I challenge hon. members and their professions to invite farmers to participate in the direction of those professions. When that happens I am sure farmers will reciprocate, and welcome consumers on their governing body.
All the various forms of information should be available to the public. All the public notices that the board has requested should be available to consumers, and consumers should know the basic cost of production. Farmers are entitled to this information but they could not get it from their own board, from the farm marketing council, from the minister or any other source. Like everybody else, farmers and consumers are entitled to the information.
What is the future of this board, Madam Speaker? The principle of national control of production of any commodity was precipitated by the chicken and egg war which, in turn, was precipitated by the policies of an urban oriented government, a government which had absolutely no concept of farm production or adequate supply of food. It encouraged production here and discouraged production there, until the Canadian agricultural picture became distorted. An area capable of producing grain found itself producing pigs and poultry by virtue of a federal subsidy which was contributed to by provincial subsidy-all financed by public money. Instead of grain pouring out of the west it was flying out in the form of birds, or it was shipped out in the form of eggs, because of a total lack of perception of what would happen if production of a particular commodity was increased by 2 per cent.
In any agricultural commodity on the North American continent-and virtually anywhere in the world-when a surplus of less than 1 per cent appears on the market, that market may plummet overnight. This was the knowledge that the urban cabinet did not like. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) could not understand it, and allowed the government virtually to annihilate agriculture from coast to coast under the misapprehension that, if he satisfied the westerners by getting rid of their grain, his government and Ottawa would seem like Utopia to them.

February 17, 1975
Egg Marketing Committee Report
If we had paid attention to fundamentals we should not have the egg producers on our backs. Eastern potato growers from P.E.I. and New Brunswick would not be on our backs if we had not abandoned traditional agricultural policies which worked in the past, and if we had not thrown away the concept of the stabilization board and said to the provinces, "This is happening in your area; you look after it." This is the sort of attitude which precipitated the call for orderly marketing. The call for agricultural production controls resulted from the absolute abandonment of responsibility for agriculture-and I cannot blame the minister, as he inherited the situation-on the part of the Trudeau government; it has neglected its responsibility ever since coming to office.
Government policies brought us to the catastrophic position in which, for six years, there was a drastic decline in the potato industry of this country. The government of Canada neglected the country's potato growers. The minister's efforts to help were thwarted. The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) and I were thwarted as we pleaded on behalf of the industry in our respective provinces. We wanted the assistance which was so necessary for healthy agriculture, and a healthy agricultural industry is essential if food is to be available at reasonable cost.
CEMA was made necessary because of the workings of an urban-oriented cabinet. When farmers are mentioned, cabinet ministers either leave their seats or laugh. They know little of agriculture. Policies which allowed the importation of food duty free were detrimental to Canadian agriculture. In the end the government introduced that pernicious bill which allowed CEMA to be created. Let me be clear on one point-farmers wanted the agency. As things now stand, the farmers have to have it; and it has to work. Let there be no misunderstanding. The egg industry has been forced back into a corner and the agency must work. If it does not work, the result for a great many egg producers will be bankruptcy. So I say to the minister that the agency had better work, or else.
Anomalies must be corrected. The egg producing industries of our smaller provinces cannot compete with the egg producing industries of richer provinces such as Ontario and Quebec. If the federal government wants to help agricultural producers, and egg producers, it had better make certain that its policies apply from coast to coast in a fair way.
Let us look at the history of the matter we are considering. In early 1973 the council was advised by people in the know, people who know the egg business, that the egg marketing concept was not going to work. They said in so many words, "egg production is creeping up, and we are heading for trouble." How true. In late 1973 poultrymen who had studied poultry industry statistics as well as Department of Agriculture statistics, and figures released by Statistics Canada, said that the controls exercised by CEMA were not going to work, and there was trouble ahead.
The statistics kept piling up, until the climax came when 28 million eggs were reported as spoiled. Only heaven knows how many more were spoiled. Records have not been kept of total spoilages. Not even the minister may know how many were spoiled. The CEMA people were

very vague about total figures. They did not know where all eggs were stored and how many were involved in spoilage. I do not suppose anyone really knows the figure. Certainly the auditors do not. Without proof, they refused to certify that more than a certain number had been spoiled.
When this matter came to the minister's attention he should have called the appropriate federal and provincial authorities together and told them to sort out the mess. In any event the situation deteriorated, the number of spoilages grew larger and larger and, finally, the pressure of public opinion forced the government to act.
What is happening? According to statistics, a large number of pullets in various provinces are now getting ready to lay eggs. Some provinces may decide to go their own way and produce eggs at whatever rate seems appropriate to them. This is a matter for the Minister of Agriculture and the government of Canada to handle. I hope, for the sake of the producer and the consumer, that the minister can control all ten provinces, not just nine. This control is necessary for the sake of everyone.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Francis Fox (Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Madam Speaker, I thank you for having given me the floor. Unfortunately, the hon. member across the way has left me very little time, barely 45 or 65 seconds, to participate in the debate.
Several members, from both sides of the House, would have liked to take part in it, I believe. Though I have very little time, I should still like to emphasize one point which was raised a while ago by one of the previous speakers, and that is in part the role played by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) in the egg question.
Members have suggested that the Minister of Agriculture should have intervened unilaterally and imposed recommendations to the Egg Marketing Agency. As far as I am concerned, I feel that this is an unusual way of looking at federal-provincial relations in this country. To think that a federal minister should interfere with a federal-provincial agreement, signed by all the Ministers of Agriculture in Canada, strikes me as pure arrogance. Had that occurred, such a unilateral intervention on the part of the Minister of Agriculture would have been denounced.
Quite the contrary, in that case he did what he had to do; he met and consulted with his provincial colleagues in July and November of that year, and they agreed on a plan of action to try and put some order in the house. And finally it is very important to show that that marketing agency can work to meet the need of both consumers and farmers in Canada.
I think for my part that underlying the committee report was the fact that it recognized the true role the marketing agency must play within the Canadian economy. How else can we make sure farmers of this country have adequate incomes so they will continue to produce the kind of quality commodities we are used to receiving in Canada? Professor Ford who appeared before the committee had no other mechanism whatever to suggest to replace the marketing agency.
February 17, 1975

So, instead of looking at false problems the committee made recommendations. It determined who was responsible for the agency's problems. It submitted certain findings but agreed that in the final analysis the Minister of Agriculture did what he had to do.
Before attacking the Minister of Agriculture it is worth noting that no recommendations were ever made in that regard before the committee but they rather preferred to wait to do so in this House. No attempt was made to convince the committee-as they should have done as members-of what was suggested here tonight in this House.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, on February 11 the titular Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) misled the House. This is the background. In a budget speech dated November 18, 1974, delivered by the titular minister, but apparently not solely prepared by him, it is stated that indexing will reduce the tax liability of Canadian taxpayers by $950 million in 1975.
On February 10 of this year the same minister stated, as reported at page 3067 of Hansard that taxpayers would save $750 million as a result of indexing in the 1975 taxation year. The following day, as recorded at page 3101 of Hansard, I asked the minister:
Would the minister indicate which figure is correct, the one he gave us yesterday or the one he gave us on November 18?
The minister replied:
This is a great game of selective statistics again advanced by my hon. friend . .. One figure applies to the calendar year, and the other applies to the fiscal year.
On February 12 I asked the minister to supply the House with the proper figures for relevant years on a fiscal and calendar year basis. He replied he would look into it. The next day, again under questioning, the minister said, and I quote:
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member stated yesterday that in my November 18 budget speech I indicated that the reduction in personal income tax liability in 1975, as a result of indexing, would be $950 million, while on Monday I indicated that the reduction would be $750 million. That is how the question came up. The hon. member asked which figure is correct. In response I indicated that one figure was for the calendar year and another for the fiscal year. In so doing I misunderstood the question and perhaps misled hon. members. I ought to have responded that both figures are correct.
The $950 million reference in the budget speech was the total tax saving attributable to people in 1975 because of indexing; the $750 million figure is part of that $950 million which is attributable to the
Adjournment Debate
federal treasury. The other $200 million is attributable to provincial treasuries.
After admitting he misled hon. members, this sham minister, attempting to rationalize his mistake, only demonstrated the cleavage that exists between the Prime Minister's "Group of Seven" and his denuded Ministry of Finance. Mr. T. A. Wilson, a member of the "Group of Seven", wrote in an article published this month, and I quote:
The second round of tax indexing in January involves a reduction in federal and provincial taxes of $1,000 and $250 million respectively ...
Without the indexing of taxes therefore, federal and provincial revenues would be some $1,250 million higher in 1975, and the effects on the net budget position would be even larger. The additional fiscal drag which inflation would have generated with a tax-transfer system without indexing would have been sufficient to plunge the economy into recession in early 1975 unless offset by discretionary fiscal changes.
In his budgetary speech of May 6 last year, this titular minister said, "I have always tried to be frank with parliament and the people." In his last budget speech he stated only "I have always been frank with the Canadian people." Obviously the minister is a little embarrassed to maintain still that he is being frank with this parliament. The fact is that he has never been frank with this parliament. Nor has he been frank with the Canadian people.
We deserve a fuller explanation concerning the minister's statement in connection with indexing. At the time of my leader's speech, the minister so denounced the concept of indexing that it is only fair that he now state the accurate figures as to how much Canadians are benefit-ting at the present time as a result of indexing in the Canadian income tax field. I hope we will get a full and proper explanation of this unfortunate incident, which is only one in a series of incidents where this House has been misled by this minister.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: On February 11, Madam Speaker, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) stated that in the November 18 budget speech the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) indicated that the reduction in personal tax liabilities in 1975 as a result of indexing would be $950 million, while on Monday, February 10, he said that the reduction would be $750 million. The hon. member asked which figure was correct.
In responding, the minister explained that one of the figures applied to the calendar year and the other to the fiscal year. It is indeed true that the reduction of personal income tax liabilities in fiscal year 1975-76 will exceed that for calendar year 1975. This is so because a new and higher indexing factor will automatically take effect on January 1, 1976, and will apply, for the last three months of the fiscal year.
In his budget speech the minister stated:
Indexing will reduce the tax liability of Canadian taxpayers by $950 million in 1975.
In saying this he was referring to the total savings to taxpayers-savings resulting from the reduction of both federal and provincial tax liabilities. In his statement to the House on February 10 the minister was referring to the reduction in federal revenues due to the tax cuts set out in the bill, and in that context he gave the 1975 estimated

February 17, 1975
Adjournment Debate
cost of indexing to the federal treasury alone. Both figures given by the minister are correct. The $950 million refer to the total reduction in personal income taxes, federal and provincial, and the $750 million to the cost to the federal treasury only.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-COMPANY'S INTENTIONS RESPECTING ESCALATION OF PENSIONS OF PERSONS ALREADY RETIRED
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, on Thursday, February 13, I asked questions about railway pensions which I directed first to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) and then to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). In this area of railway pensions there are of course many angles, and I am concerned about all of them, but during this late show tonight I am concentrating on just one point. It is the point I presented as clearly as I could to the Minister of Transport last Thursday. My question-and it is my only question tonight-related to the escalation or the indexing of the pensions of retired Canadian National employees.
I am not tonight talking about the need to revamp the Canadian National pension plan to make provision for the escalation CN workers presently employed may enjoy when they retire. I am talking only about former CN workers already retired and now drawing their pensions. For many years pensions in this category were of a fixed amount with no escalation at all. After a while we got the CN to come through with an escalation of 2 per cent per year. This was done for several years.
When the ceiling was taken off other plans which came within the responsibility of the federal government, we put pressure on the CN to escalate pensions in accordance with the actual rise in the cost of living. Last year the CN at least broke through the 2 per cent ceiling and allowed an escalation of 4 per cent which, though not good enough, was better than 2 per cent.
My question tonight is: when is this year's escalation coming through and, when it does, will the amount be at least the full amount of the rise in the cost of living?
We can argue about what that percentage should be, but other pension plans that are under the aegis of the government have this year had escalations of 10 per cent or more. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I submit that the retired employees of the Canadian National should now be getting the 1975 escalation of their pensions, and that the amount of that escalation should be at least 10 per cent.
As I said the other day during the question period, I am asking for this pending the tabling of the Hall report. I hope my good friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Guay) who will be replying tonight for some other parliamentary secretary, will not tell me-indeed, I am sure he would not want to say it-that we will have to wait until Canadian National gets the Hall report. That may be many months down the road. The time for an annual escalation of pensions is at the beginning of the year, and Canadian National pensioners have the right to that escalation now.

The other answer that the Minister of Transport gave me the other day, and which I found a bit annoying, was one he has given me on other occasions, namely, that this is the subject of collective bargaining. The pension plan of the Canadian National Railways, in so far as it will affect those still working, when they retire, is now on the collective bargaining table. But escalating or making any changes in the pensions of those already retired is not on the collective bargaining table. Those people have a representative on the pension board, but there is no collective bargaining on behalf of those already retired. They will get an escalation under the present arrangements, depending on what may come out of the Hall report, only if Canadian National comes through with an escalation.
I know that we are told frequently that we have to let the Canadian National Railways make its own decisions. But the fact of the matter is that pressure by the government, pressure from the floor of this parliament by members like my good friend, the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner), my good friend from St. Boniface, and their good friend from Winnipeg North Centre, has had an effect in the past.
I hope that the parliamentary secretary will be able to tell me tonight that the government will talk turkey to Canadian National, and will tell the CNR that this matter cannot wait any longer, that it cannot wait for the next round of collective bargaining by those still working, that it cannot wait for the Hall report. These retired employees of CNR, many of them in our constituencies, deserve an escalation in 1975 of at least 10 per cent, and they deserve it now without any further delay. The parliamentary secretary can make a good name for himself in St. Boniface and throughout greater Winnipeg tomorrow if he will give the answer tonight, that this escalation is coming soon.


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity, in the very short time available, to discuss this very important matter with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). As he is probably aware, there are many CN pensioners in my constituency, and the problem of coping with the ever-increasing cost of living is a major concern for all pensioners as well as for us.
In the past the increase of pensions for retirees has been averaging about 2 per cent per year, and this increase has been made on a sporadic basis. There has never been any specific timing for this increase, and I must agree that this situation has created some problems and hardships for the pensioners referred to by the hon. member.
I know the hon. member probably does not want me to talk about the Hall inquiry commission, but the fact remains that the Hall inquiry commission was set up in May, 1974, by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), to make proposals with regard to pensions. Hearing began on November 28, 1974, and he has been holding hearings ever since all over the country. It is hoped that, as a result of this commission, the government will be able to act in a positive manner to protect the income of retired railway workers.
February 17, 1975

As the hon. member is probably aware, the unions have proposed to the Hall inquiry commission that the pension plan provide for automatic adjustment in accordance with the increases in the cost of living. But since the hearings are ongoing and Mr. Hall has yet to make his recommendations, we will have to await them to determine what action will be necessary and what action should be taken by the government. There is no doubt that the railway will give consideration to this important matter as soon as it has received the Hall report and the recommendations of the government in this regard.
In closing I would like to repeat what the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) said on February 13 in response to the question, as recorded at page 3186 of Hansard, that if he became involved, he would be sympathetic to pensioners' demands in this matter. I wholeheartedly agree with this because not only do I sympathize with pensioners but I believe that this is something they rightly deserve.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And they deserve it now.


PUBLIC SERVICE-PROPOSAL GOVERNMENT DEAL WITH UNIONS REPRESENTING SINGLE SECTORS OF ECONOMY-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON ESTABLISHING LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, last Friday, as well as this afternoon during question period, I asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) whether or not his department, or in fact any government department, has considered or is considering the possibility of single sector bargaining, in other words, of having a single public sector as a whole dealing with the government, rather than the fragmentary way in which the general labour and trades group, for example, has done, thus adversely affecting and harming so many different sectors of our economy.
It is puzzling to see the government continue to accept this method of bargaining, knowing full well that the fragmentation effects of a strike such as the one with which we are faced today are widespread, to such an extent that they alone can be damaging to the extent of millions of dollars to our economy in a dozen or so different sectors.
I believe, however, that the majority of Canadians are fed up with the increasing inconvenience and economic impairment to the individual and the community alike of walkouts, legal and illegal, in essential services in this country. Let us remember that two-thirds of the Canadian taxpayers do not belong to any union and therefore are not protected by the gutless permissiveness of governments, or do not belong on the government payroll with armour-plated job security. I would think that a great many of these taxpayers are against all walkouts and strikes, legal or illegal.
They find it to be a form of blackmail and some people suspect that the public is becoming so outraged that it will demand that the labour clock be turned back and strikes outlawed, with real and heavy penalties imposed in the essential services. That would surely bring about some very rough confrontations.
Adjournment Debate
I believe, however, that there is a way around this whole affair. I believe that there is a way around this sort of fragmentation which would still give the individual within a union the right to strike but which, at the same time, would give the Canadian taxpayer the assurance that for the duration of a contract a specific single sector of the economy, such as air transportation, the post office, schools, food inspection, ports, trains and other public sector services, would be strike-free.
Surely in view of the number of strikes with which Canadians were faced last year, and the ever increasing labour unrest and militancy threatening public interest, some immediate alternative ways and means must be adopted before our economy deteriorates any further.
I believe that there is an urgent need for federal legislation requiring union groups in a single public service sector to bargain with the Treasury Board on a joint basis only for agreements of perhaps not less than two or three years' duration. This suggestion is not too different from a recent recommendation made to the cabinet in a memorandum regarding labour relations in Canada put forward by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro). I happen to have this memorandum which asks the cabinet to consider establishing a Canadian labour relations council with the purpose of finding solutions on a continuing basis to different problems of practice and perception in labour relations, including the problems of fragmentation in a union, a recommendation with which I am sure the public would agree.
It is fine to make the suggestion such as the one which was contained in the reply of the President of the Treasury Board to my question, that this sort of recommendation should be made to the joint committee presently studying the Finkelman report dealing with labour relations. But, unfortunately, before the dust settles after the completion of those committee hearings, our economy will have suffered the loss of millions of working man days as a result of walk-outs and strikes, and thus hundreds of millions of dollars, partially due to the fragmentary way of bargaining which this government seems to have adopted as a way of life.
The result of bargaining with a single public service sector as a whole, in the simplest terms would be assurance to the tax paying public that each essential service sector would be strike free except for the possibility of a walk-out every two or three years or so. By a wide margin the majority of public service strikes are at the federal level.
It was a Liberal government which gave federal public servants the right to strike back in 1967. We have seen this right abused at the expense of the taxpayer and so, quite fittingly, it is on the Liberal government, with its new strong majority mandate, that public responsibility rests to take the initiative to restore some balance between the right of the taxpayer to uninterrupted essential services and the right of the federal unions to withdraw them.
For example, if one happens to be grounded by an air service strike at the time of a business or holiday trip, the most frustrating and maddening aspect of the situation is the fragmentation of union power in shutting it down at

February 17, 1975
Adjournment Debate
different times. Most devasting also for management, and damaging to the economy, is the same idiotic spectacle of airline service, for example, having just been restored after a strike in one sector of the industry being closed down again by another union group walking out.
At different times in recent years air service has been grounded by striking firemen, runway maintenance workers, air traffic controllers, stewards, baggage handlers, ticket agents and other service workers. The railways, shipping, port services and the post office run the same risk of disruption by fragmentation of union bargaining.
Over the last three or four years the record of labour disruption of essential services, and the cost in money and inconvenience to the public make it plain to see that sooner or later a reasonable balance-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please.


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, I have just one paragraph to finish.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The general rule is that speeches at this time cannot extend beyond seven minutes. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Cullen).


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The strike of GLT employees of the public service of Canada is, of course, having an unfortunate effect on different sectors of the economy. Any strike of
this dimension has that effect. I trust it will be shortlived. The employer is still prepared through mediation or any other suitable medium to strive for a settlement, and I hope that the Public Service Alliance is similarly motivated.
The matter of single public sectors is not something which can be decided in a hurry. There is every indication that to adopt this approach to collective bargaining would definitely result in fragmentation of union strength and the creation of far too many bargaining units. We have 80 bargaining units now, and it is possibly more in the public interest for the number to be reduced eventually, rather than increased. Union power is certainly not fragmented by having one GLT bargaining unit.
In any event the number and nature of bargaining units are a matter for decision by the Public Service Staff Relations Board, and if the hon. member has any suggestions to make regarding changes to the Public Service Staff Relations Act he will doubtless have an opportunity to pass them on to the parliamentary committee now studying the Finkelman report.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.26 p.m.

Tuesday, February 18, 1975