1975-03-05

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications-Mr. McRae.
[Editor's Note: For text of above Report see today's Votes
and Proceedings.]

Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek leave of the House-


An hon. Member:: No.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: -to move a motion, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), as follows:
That the House request the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to make a full and detailed statement as to whether the Minister of Labour made representations to facilitate the entry of Salvatore Taormina who arrived in Canada on June 5, 1968, or Silvestro Carollo who arrived in Canada on February 14, 1970, and whether his department or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have received information about highly questionable activities engaged in by these persons prior to their entry and, if so, the nature of this information including whether or not Mafia connections were involved, the procedures used to authorize their entry and the circumstances under which they obtained landed immigrant status.


Mr. Speaker:: Extending to the hon. member the benefit of the doubt regarding the provision of Standing Order 43 which requires the subject matter to be of pressing importance, while I concede the matter may be one of considerable importance it has nevertheless been outstanding since June 5, 1968, in the terms of the hon. member's own motion, and I therefore have no hesitation in saying that it lacks the element of immediate necessity required by the Standing Order.


Mr. MacKay:: I also wish to raise a matter of urgent and pressing necessity-


Thomas Charles Cossitt: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I was not a member of the house in 1968 and furthermore this is a current situation that just came to my attention. I feel that when information comes to the attention of a member of parliament-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I think the motion is a legitimate one.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that a decision having been taken by the Chair, there is no procedure or machinery in this chamber for any appeal or discussion of the ruling. If the hon. member wishes to raise a question of privilege other than an attempt to comment on or interpret the ruling the Chair has just made, I will be pleased to hear it. Otherwise, I cannot hear him at this time.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I would not dare question your ruling, Mr. Speaker. My question of privilege is this: I feel that if a member comes into possession of information on a matter which he feels should be brought to the attention of the House, it is his privilege to do so. That is why I raised the matter at this time. I bow to your ruling and I do not, therefore, pursue the argument that it is not a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I think, with respect, that the matter is of some urgency.



EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. In view of the continuing substantial financing of Marine Industries Limited through the auspices of the Export Development Corporation, specifically the most recent announcement of a $265 million contract involving this organization, one of the firms being under RCMP investigation because of alleged irregularities, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on motions, at the first opportunity, set out in more complete detail all the phases of the financial dealings and arrangements, over the last five years, between Marine Industries and the federal government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43. It cannot be put or debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?

March 5, 1975
Agriculture


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a very important and urgent matter.
Considering that a large contract for the establishment of a telecommunication system for radio and television in Zaire has been granted by CIDA to the Sintec Company, a concern whose existence was made public during the hearings of the Cliche Commission and which is now on the verge of bankruptcy; considering that some individuals have surfaced in this affair, especially Rene Mantha, former trade unionist, who was expelled from the James Bay working site and prosecuted, and who is also a Liberal organizer, a partner and employee of Sintec for the CIDA contract in Zaire, an undertaking of which the present Liberal member for Laporte, Mr. Andre Deom, is president and founder, Mr. Gilles D. Bergeron a director, also a former deputy minister of Social Affairs who was compelled to resign a few years ago as a result of an extensive system of forged social security cheques, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin):
That the House discuss immediately all the circumstances surrounding the grant by CIDA of that important contract to the Sintec Company and to all those fine people, so as to shed light on tenders involved as well as on the identity of the signers for the department and the company, including full particulars on the entire matter.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to discuss an important and urgent matter that affects all Canadians.
Since the price of milk has increased dramatically recently, more specifically six times in 14 months, since

milk is an essential food for children, and since a family that consumes four quarts of milk daily spends over $250 annually because of the unduly high price of milk, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House study the means to roll back the price of milk and other essential foods to a more acceptable level, in order to allow all Canadians, regardless of their income, to have access to those food products that are essential to a balanced diet, and this through reinstating the subsidies on whole milk.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the terms of Standing Order 43, this 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.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of pressing and urgent necessity.
Considering that the 1.3 per cent decline in our Gross National Product over the last three months of 1974 is certainly the worst recorded since 1960-61, and considering that any such decline reflects a falling off of our productive capacity, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette):
That this House look into the possibility of setting up a guaranteed annual income scheme for all Canadians, as well as a consumer price compensated discount program, as incentives to the lagging Canadian economy, as evidenced by the most recent GNP figures, and to prevent the battle against inflation from being fought at the expense of small Canadian taxpayers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
March 5, 1975
['For the past eight years, by province, how much in direct subsidies was paid to the fishing industry (a) to fishing boats (b) to fish packing and/or processing plants?\nReturn tabled.']
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 288, 372, 484, 792, 869, 903, 912, 968, 1,031, 1,037, 1,127, 1,145, 1,158, 1,235, 1,236, 1,345, 1,354, 1,443, 1,462, 1,513, 1,543, 1,554, 1,560, 1,594 and 1,698.
Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 46, 51, 54, 55, 256, 284, 325, 354, 396, 413, 555, 618, 620, 647, 1,035, 1,096 and 1,741 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred questions Nos. 920, 1,441 and 1,444?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.



Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What was the strength, as of October 1, 1974, of the Armed Forces?
2.	Is there a floor strength below which the Minister does not intend to let the strength of the Forces sink and, if so, what is it?
3.	How many men, by ranks, took their voluntary release before retirement age in the period April 30,1973 to April 30,1974?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. The strength of the Canadian Forces as of October 1, 1974 was: 78,154.
2.	The overall strength and military capacity of the Canadian Armed Forces is made up by a combination of numbers of personnel, quality of equipment and the amount of funds available for operations. It is the intention to maintain and, whenever possible, to improve the military capability of the Armed Forces. It is the government's policy that the Canadian Armed Forces continue to perform all four of the main roles as set out in the White Paper on Defence in the 70's.
3.	The number of personnel who elected to take voluntarily release before retirement age, during the period April 30, 1973 to April 30, 1974 was 4,716. The numbers by rank are as follows:
Officers	Other Ranks
Major-Generals	i	Chief Warrant Officers	56Brigadier-Generals	7	Master Warrant Officers	169Colonels	21	Warrant Officers	240Sergeants	456Lieutenant Colonels	40	Corporals	1,153Majors	111	Privates	1,907Captains	324	Lieutenants	114	Total	3,981Officer Cadets	117	Total	735


AGRICULTURE-NEW FEED GRAINS POLICY
Mr. Dick: Did the government under the Department of Agriculture and the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board advertise exten-
Order Paper Questions
sively in weekly newspapers under the heading "New Feed Grains Policy" in June and July, 1974 and, if so, in which newspapers was this advertisement (a) placed in the week of (i) June 17, 1974 (ii) June 24, 1974 (iii) July 1, 1974 (iv) July 8, 1974 (b) what advertising agency made the arrangements for placing this ad (c) what fee did the advertising agency receive for its work (d) who prepared the copy for this advertisement (e) how much did it cost the government for this advertisement?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes. Agriculture Canada conducted an advertising program for the department and the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board to disseminate information about the federal government's New Feed Grains Policy, (a) (i) to (iv) During the period of June 17 to July 8, 1974, advertisements were placed in 548 weekly newspapers and weekly farm publications, (b) None, (c) Not applicable, (d) Agriculture Canada personnel, (e) Advertisement costs totalled $65,120.88.


ASSISTANCE TO UNITED AIRCRAFT COMPANY
Mr. Broadbent: 1.	What were the amounts received by the United Aircraft Company under the Training in Industry Programme for the fiscal years 1973-74 and 1974-75?
2.	What amounts did this Company receive in DREE grants for the fiscal years 1971-72 to 1974-75?
3.	How much did this Company receive under the Industrial Research Assistance Programme for the fiscal years 1973-74 and 1974-75?
4.	What were the amounts of any grants to this Company under PAIT?
5.	What is the amount of any grant to this Company under the DIR Programme for the fiscal year 1974-75?
6.	How much did this Company receive under the DIP Programme for the fiscal years 1971-72 to 1974-75?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Departments of Manpower and Immigration and Regional Economic Expansion, the National Research Council, and the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce and National Defence as follows: 1. Amounts received by the United Aircraft Company under the Training-in-Industry Program:	1973-74-$76,066.21;
1974-75-$l,575.71.
2.	United Aircraft, in the fiscal year 1971-72 accepted an offer under the Regional Development Incentives Act for $44,000 in connection with an expansion of its aircraft engine plant in Montreal. The amount paid to the company to September 30, 1974 is $24,730.
3.	1973-74, $35,208; 1974-75, Nil as of October 16, 1974.
4.	Nil.
5.	For the fiscal year 1974-75, the Defence Industrial Research program allotted $569,566 to United Aircraft of Canada in partial support of six research projects related to gas turbine technology.
6.	1971-72,	$6,685,897;	1972-73,	$11,972,041;	1973-74,
$11,712,325; 1974-75 to December 31, 1974, $2,054,326; Total $32,424,589.
3792

March 5, 1975
Order Paper Questions


NATIONAL DEFENCE-MANPOWER STRENGTH 1944-1974
Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	What was the total enrolment of the Canadian Armed Forces (active) during the years 1944, 1953,1970,1971,1972,1973 and as of July 1, 1974?
2.	In each year (a) what were the numbers of officers holding the rank or equivalent rank of Brigadier or higher (b) what were the numbers of non-commissioned personnel?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1 and 2. (a) and (b). The total enrolment of the Canadian Armed Forces (active) for years in question, the number of officers holding the rank or equivalent rank of Brigadier or higher and the number of other ranks (noncommissioned personnel) are listed below:
Year	Total Enrolment	General Officers	Other Ranks1944	787.475	195	709,7021953	104,427	84	88,648July 1, 1970	89,558	106	73,900July 1, 1971	85,795	100	70,895July 1, 1972	82,200	98	67,487July 1, 1973	80,530	99	65,878July 1, 1974	79,383	107	64,820


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENTS
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 Agriculture 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?
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 Departments of Agriculture and the Secretary of State as follows: 1. All documents of the department are translated into French or English in accordance with the policy statements on bilingualism and biculturalism which have been issued since the government's initial statement, dated April 6, 1966.
2.	Past records are translated in accordance with the policy statements as well as in accordance with the requirements of specific projects.
3.	Bilingual forms for external use have all been designed and printed in the two official languages. Target dates for the translation of internal forms and manuals are: Forms, March, 1976; Manuals, December, 1975.
4.	It is difficult to provide a precise answer to the question in terms of the Department of Agriculture, 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 the 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 1972-1973 was 3,318,545; for 1973-1974 it was 2,950,327. 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.	Information not available.
6.	$60,000 (estimated).


PARTICIPATION BY MINISTERIAL ASSISTANTS IN PUBLIC DISCUSSIONS
Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	From 1968 to the present, on how many occasions has a Deputy Minister, Under-Secretary, Assistant Deputy Minister, or Assistant Under-Secretary delivered a speech prepared originally for delivery by a Minister and, in each case, what was (a) the name of the official (b) the date of the speech (c) the subject of the speech (d) the audience to whom the speech was delivered?
2.	From 1968 to the present, has any Deputy Minister, Under-Secretary, Assistant Deputy Minister, or Assistant Under-Secretary participated in any public seminar or other formal public discussion concerning questions of policy and, in each case, what was (a) the name of the official (h) the date of the participation (c) the topic of the seminar or discussion (d) the group sponsoring the seminar or discussion?
3.	Does the government have a policy regarding the participation of a Deputy Minister, Under-Secretary, Assistant Deputy Minister, or Assistant Under-Secretary in public discussion of policy matters and, if so, what is that policy?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1 and 2. Detailed records are not available. On occasion officials have given background information on Throne Speeches, legislation press briefings, etc.
3.	Parliamentary government requires that ministers be accountable in principle for the actions of their deputy and assistant deputy ministers (under-secretaries and assistant under-secretaries), as for all public servants, in relation to the discharge of their official responsibilities without removing from such persons their personal accountability for their actions. By reason of this general ministerial accountability, it is for each minister to decide the extent to which his senior officials will participate in the public discussion of policy matters. A deputy or assistant deputy minister or another public servant would not normally publicly discuss a policy matter without the knowledge and approval of his minister.


RENOVATION OF DE LASALLE PROPERTY ON SUSSEX DRIVE, OTTAWA
Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier): 1.	What is the allotment of appropriations for (a) land acquisition (b) building renovation (c) new construction and furnishings of the De LaSalle property on Sussex Drive, Ottawa, which will house the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs?

2.	At what stage is the project in terms of completion and what is the intended date of occupancy by the Ministry?
3.	Has the Department of Public Works expropriated or does it intend to expropriate any adjoining properties and, if so, which one and on what date?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of Public Works and Urban Affairs as follows: 1. (a) and (b) It is estimated that the total cost of this particular project will be $8,500,000. A breakdown of this amount is as follows: Acquisition of Property, $1,400,000; Renovation and Restoration, $4,850,000; Construction-New Office Wing and Heating and Cooling Facility, $2,250,000. The 1974-75 appropriations to date total $5,388,000. The balance will be sought in future appropriations. (c) Furnishings-In keeping with approved policy for the restoration of the LaSalle property, $33,190 has been set aside for the purchase of period furniture for the furnishing of the Bishop's Palace. This part of the LaSalle property will accommodate the Minister and his staff. All other staff of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs will be moving with their existing furniture.
2.	The project is 50 per cent complete and occupancy is scheduled in two phases for June 15, 1975 and December 31, 1975.
3.	The Department of Public Works has not expropriated and has no plan at this time to expropriate any properties for this project.


PLANS FOR SURFACE CAPABILITY IN CANADIAN ARCTIC ARCHIPELAGO
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Was a curtailment of aerial surveillance by the government of the Canadian North recently announced and, if so, will the plans for surface capability in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago on a twelve month a year basis be accelerated?
2.	(a) Do these plans include the construction of icebreakers with true polar capability (b) do they still provide for the 60 to 90 day capability possible with the R Class vessels?
3.	If the plans for surface surveillance in terms of vessels with ice-breaking capability do not include vessels with greater capacity than the R Class proposed, how does the government with no sub-surface, reduced aerial and 60 to 90 day surface capability intend to maintain mobile presence above 60 degrees?


John Mercer Reid: 
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, in utilization of the ammunition you gave us the other day in terms of a vehicle to express grievances, I rise on a question of privilege to express my regret that it has taken the government since late last October or early November to respond to this question which in fact is a starred question and quite properly should be responded to within a week or ten days.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-REDUCTION OF CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Forrestall: Is the decision to reduce Canadian Armed Forces levels a reversible one and (a) if so, under what circumstances can it be reversed (b) if not, for what reason?


James Armstrong Richardson: The overall strength and military capability of the Canadian Armed Forces is made up by a combination of numbers of personnel, quality of equipment, and the amount of funds available for operations. It is the intention to maintain and, whenever possible, to improve the military capability of the armed forces. In this sense any reduction in overall strength is reversible. It is the government's policy that the Canadian armed forces continue to perform all four of the main roles as set out in the White Paper on Defence in the 70's.


LIP-APPROVAL OF PROJECTS
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Does a letter dated November 20, 1972 to the Honourable Robert Andras, Minister of Manpower and Immigration and signed by the Honourable Jack Davis, Minister of the Environment at the time, state as follows in regard to the Local Initiatives Programme "as the Minister with the responsibility to review these projects for British Columbia, I ask that no project be given final approval until clearance has been obtained from this office"?
2.	Does a letter, dated December 6, 1972, from the Honourable Robert K. Andras state in part "certainly my office will make every effort to ensure you are properly consulted on LIP projects in British Columbia ..."?
3.	(a) How many Local Initiatives Programme applications were referred in any way for examination or approval to the Honourable Jack Davis or his office when he acted as Regional Minister for British Columbia in connection with the LIP Programme (b) how many projects did Mr. Davis or his office (i) approve (ii) not approve?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	(a) Mr. Davis would have been in a position to comment on 1,640 projects, (b) Not applicable. The final authority for approval rested, as always, with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
28996-3S'/2

March 5, 1975
Order Paper Questions



Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the memo dated January 25, 1973, signed by Mr. J. M. DesRoches, Deputy Minister of Manpower and Immigration, and addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, saying in part with reference to the Local Initiatives Programme "no project is approved without concurrence of the Regional Minister" (a) what are all the reasons the so-called Regional Ministers were given such veto power (b) for what reason was the existence of the Regional Ministers never made known to all Members of Parliament (c) was such information to Members of Parliament withheld because of political manipulation of the Local Initiatives Programme which the Minister did not wish to disclose to Parliament and, if so, will the Minister now disclose full details of such political manipulation?


Robert Knight Andras: (a) See sessional paper 291-2-2319, tabled in the House of Commons on September 5, 1973 (b) The existence of Regional Ministers was made known with specific reference to the Local Initiatives Program, in Sessional Paper 291-2-2319 which was tabled in the House of Commons on September 5, 1973 (c) Not applicable. See above.


UNIT OF CBC TELEVISION CREW TO BROCKVILLE AND LEEDS
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	(a) What are all the reasons that a visit is to be made to Brockville and Leeds on or about December 19, 1974 by a CBC television crew (b) what is the identity and job designation of all persons instructing this crew to make any kind of survey in regard to the promotion of French language television for viewers in English speaking Leeds?
2.	(a) What is the identity and job designation of the persons at the highest level involved in the decision to take this action (b) is the Secretary of State aware of this situation and was he involved in the decision (c) were any representations towards taking this step made by any other member of the Cabinet or by the Prime Minister or anyone acting on their behalf?
3.	(a) What is the estimated cost of this project (b) how many TV personnel will be involved (c) what are the names of all those who will be involved and what are their job designations and annual salaries?
4.	(a) What are the names of all persons that have been contacted, or will be contacted, for interviews on this subject in Leeds (b) how many of these contacts were made by a Mr. Brickenden (c) what is Mr. Brickenden's position with CBC (d) who instructed him to make such contacts?
5.	Is this incident part of a government decision to speed up implementation of bilingualism in English speaking areas of Canada?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: In reply to Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4. I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. No CBC crew visited Brockville and Leeds on or about December 19, 1974, for any reason.
2 and 3. Not applicable.
4.	(a) Public relations visits are being made to six communities in south east Ontario including Brockville in connection with the extension of CBC English and French coverage under the Accelerated Coverage Plant. Various members of the communities were contacted, but the CBC wishes to respect the privacy of the individuals concerned in such contacts, (b) All contacts were made by Mr. J. S. Brickenden. (c) Public Relations Officer, (d) Manager, Public Relations, Toronto Region.
5.	No.


PRIME MINISTER'S LIMOUSINE
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	(a) On what date did the Prime Minister cease using the 1973 Cadillac purchased for him from public funds (b) what was the total mileage on the vehicle at the time (c) for what reason was it considered obsolete after only two years and what are' the names and addresses of all persons suggesting, recommending or in any way whatsoever advocating that a 1975 Cadillac should be purchased for the Prime Minister's use from public funds to replace the 1973 vehicle?
2.	On what date did the 1975 Cadillac go into service and (a) what was its cost (b) what was the cost of the basic vehicle (c) what is the complete list of every extra installed along with the cost in each case?
3.	Were tenders called for the 1975 Cadillac and (a) if so, what were all the tenders received (b) if not, for what reason (c) from whom was the vehicle purchased, including the name and address of any automobile dealer receiving a commission or in any way involved in the purchase?
4.	How many persons will the 1975 Cadillac seat and what are all the reasons that the Prime Minister requires a car of such size for his personal use?
5.	(a) What is the colour of the 1975 Cadillac and was one of the reasons for replacing the 1973 black-coloured Cadillac that the Prime Minister and his family did not like its colour (b) to whom and by whom were any such colour complaints made (c) for what reason was the 1973 vehicle not repainted another colour to avoid the expense of a new automobile?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of the Solicitor General (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) and Supply and Services as follows: 1. (a) December 9, 1974. (b) 19,390 miles (31,024 kilometres), (c) The vehicle was not considered obsolete and the purchase of a second limousine was part of the original plan to have two special limousines due to a specific requirement for State and VIP visits without having to deprive the Prime Minister of his vehicle which he requires for security reasons. On occasion when Heads of State/Governments are required to visit another major city, i.e. Toronto, Vancouver and Winnipeg, departures and arrivals often have to be delayed in order that the single vehicle can be transported by air from one city to another. This creates unnecessary confusion and delay on the principal's part. On occasion, vehicles have been required at separate locations simultaneously due to the nature and high security involved in simultaneous visits. Under the previous system, with only one vehicle, it necessitated a decision as to where to put the vehicle. Should an incident have occurred, it would have had serious repercussions to the Government. The R.C.M.P. recommended the purchase of the second limousine.
2. December 9, 1974. (a) $83,530.94. (b) $13,413.34 (including factory options), (c) The following factory options were installed on the vehicle, however, individual prices are not available as they were included in the General Motor's price: Basic Vehicle: Cadillac, 1974, Model Fleetwood 75, 6DF33. Options: Standard air conditioning; Colour: Georgian Silver No. 13; Tires: WSW (5) 8.90 x 15 8 pr. "D" included in SRX-26; Power door locks; Lamp monitoring system; Opera lamps; Steering wheel-tilt and telescopic; Licence plate frames front and rear; Front and rear AM/FM stereo signal seeking radio with controls in rear compartment. To be equipped with a power antenna on right hand front fender as near as possible to the windshield; Trim: Standard black leather front compartment. 725 medici blue in passenger compartment; Bumper: special with impact strips; Glass to have standard configura-

tion but to be clear not shade-lite; 145 amp. delcatron- SRX. 24. In addition, special security equipment, which cannot be publicized for security reasons, was installed at a cost of $70,117.60.
3.	No. (a) Not applicable, (b) The only known commercially available chassis that met security requirements was the Cadillac Fleetwood manufactured by General Motors, (c) General Motors of Canada Ltd., Oshawa, Ontario. No dealer received a commission or participated in the transaction for the purchase of the basic Cadillac.
4.	The vehicle, which will seat five, is required for the reasons outlined in paragraph 1(c).
5.	(a) Silver-grey. There is no indication the Prime Minister or his family objected to the colour of the 1973 Cadillac, (b) No complaints were made, (c) The colour of the 1973 Cadillac was not a factor when considering the purchase of a second security limousine.


PRIME MINISTER'S TRIP TO SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	In regard to the Prime Minister's recent trip to Saskatchewan to address the Saskatchewan Liberal Association (a) what means of transportation to Saskatchewan did the Prime Minister use (b) did he travel on a government owned aircraft and, if so, what is the description of the aircraft (c) was the cost of any aspects of his trip to Saskatchewan paid for by public funds and, if so (i) what were the items involved (ii) what was the cost in each case?
2.	Will the Prime Minister cease using government owned aircraft for political and personal purposes and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, for what reason?
3.	(a) What are the names and job designations of any government employees travelling to Saskatchewan with the Prime Minister (b) what are all the reasons justifying such persons who are paid from public funds attending political meetings sponsored by the Liberal Party (c) were they paid their usual salaries from public funds for the time spent in attendance at this Liberal Party gathering or with the Prime Minister in Saskatchewan?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Department of Transport and the Prime Minister's Office as follows: 1. (a) Government aircraft, (b) Ministry of Transport Jetstar CF-DTX. (c) Ministry of Transport total cost-approximately $4,500 consisting of:
(i) Items	(ii) Costs
Fuel	approx. $1,715
Flight crew expenses	approx. $ 225
Other aircraft operational costs	approx. $2,560
Total $4,500
In so far as the Prime Minister is concerned, yes:
(i) Travel expenses	(ii) $643.12
2.	See page 8618, House of Commons Debates, Volume 117, Number 189, 1st Session, 29th Parliament and page 2136, Volume 118, Number 50, 2nd Session, 29th Parliament.
3.	(a) Robert Murdoch, Executive Assistant; Courtney Tower, Assistant Press Secretary; Michel Rochon, Director of Policy; Kent Jespersen, Special Assistant; James Moore, Special Assistant; Ralph Coleman, Press Assistant, (b)
Order Paper Questions
The travel involved visits to both Winnipeg and Regina during which the Prime Minister kept an engagement to attend and speak at a civil Centennial banquet in Winnipeg, and held discussions in Regina with two groups of leading Saskatchewan farmers and businessmen. Members of his staff were present in their normal support functions, (c) Yes, also see (b) above.


RACE TRACK SUPERVISION REGULATIONS
Mr. Bawden: 1.	For what reason were sections 211, 213, 214 and 215 of Part V of the Race Track Supervision Regulations governing the use of narcotics, unacceptable medications or other stimulants, as approved in 1973, not enforced during the 1973 and 1974 horse racing seasons?
2.	Will these sections of Part V of the Race Track Supervision Regulations, or others similar to them be in effect during the 1975 racing season?
3.	Does the government intend to introduce legislation making it an offence any time a jockey or driver is involved in a conspiracy to "fix a race" with any other persons having access to an entered horse, in the use of narcotics, unacceptable medications, the use of electric battery or stimulating device?
4.	Will Royal Canadian Mounted Police Officers supervise operations at Canadian race tracks during the 1975 racing season to ensure all government racing regulations are complied with?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by Agriculture Canada and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as follows: 1. These sections of the regulations were revoked on June 15, 1973.
2.	These former sections of the regulations are being reviewed in consultation with the Provincial Racing Commissions.
3.	No. Legislation currently exists under the Criminal Code.
4.	At present, the R.C.M.P. is committed to provide one member for each racing circuit in Canada.


PUBLIC WORKS-PROJECTS IN HUMBER-ST. GEORGE'S-ST. BARBE
Mr. Marshall: What projects were carried out by the Department of Public Works in the constituency of Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe during 1973-74 and what were the costs involved?
Hort. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works): The
locations, descriptions and related costs of projects carried out by the Department of Public Works in the constituency of Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe during 1973-74 are as follows:
Location	Project	Cost in $St. Barbe	Wharf Repairs	10,984Stephenville	Federal Building	621,900Bird Cove	Wharf Repairs	7,345Cox's Cove	Wharf Repairs	9,979Fort Aux Choix	Wharf Improvements	127,555Stephenville	Wharf Repairs	71,141Black Duck Cove	Wharf Repairs	20,296St. Paul's	Shipway Repairs	4,329Pond Cove	W'harf Repairs	5,675Plum Point	Wharf Repairs	19,136Cow Head	Breakwater Repairs	600
March 5, 1975
Order Paper Questions
Location	Project	Cost in $Blue Cove	Wharf Repairs	4,500Benoit's Cove	Wharf Repairs	6,300Norris Point	Wharf Repairs	1,410Sandy Cove	Wharf Repairs	9,357St. George's	Wharf Repairs	5,265Corner Brook	Renovations Fed. Bldg.	18,284Corner Book	Renovations 2nd Floor	Plumbing Fed. Bldg.	4,265Corner Brook	Renovations Fed. Bldg.	58,984Deer Lake	Cleaning P.O. Bldg.	6,120St. George's	Cleaning P.O. Bldg.	3,360Stephenville Crossing	Cleaning P.O. Bldg.	3,792Port Au Port	Cleaning P.O. Bldg.	3,120Corner Brook	Rehovations OOC Bldg.	6,855The following projects were carried out for other government departments:	Location	Project	Cost in $St. Barbe	Wharf Reconstruction	284,202Brig Bay	Wharf Repairs	04,376Cooks Harbour	Wharf Reconstruction	168,799Bear Cove	Groyne Repairs	13,990Cox's Cove	Wharf Extension	46,771Flower's Cove	Community Stage	159,945Trout River Gros Morne	Breakwater Repairs	23,328National Park	Paving Highway 73	886,905


PUBLIC SERVICE-NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN RECEIPT OF SALARIES IN EXCESS OF $25,500
Mr. Orlikow: How many people in the Public Service, excluding those in the SX salary range, are earning salaries equivalent to or more than $25,500, which is the minimum SX 1 salary?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: As of September 30, 1974, 3,307 public servants, including those in levels of groups deemed to be equivalent to Senior Executive Officer levels, earned salaries equivalent to or more than $25,500 per annum.


STOL FARES FOR PUBLIC SERVANTS AND MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Huntington: What is the cost to the Federal Treasury (a) for the year ending March 31, 1974 (b) for the period April 1, 1974 to December 31, 1974 for fares on STOL for federal employees and Members of Parliament?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The
commercial STOL service for farepaying passengers started in July 1974. There were, therefore, no expenditures for fares of federal employees in the year ending March 31, 1974. Reports kept since the start of commercial services to December 31st, 1974, indicate that 4,400 tickets were purchased through Central Travel Services for federal employees. This represents about 12 per cent of the tickets purchased. The cost was about $90,000 to the federal treasury. Federal employees and members of parliament can,

however, also purchase tickets directly from the STOL carrier, Airtransit as private citizens or for business reasons. It is estimated from spot surveys that another 6,800 trips were made by people who, when surveyed, described themselves as government employees, in addition to those above. If these are included, some 30 per cent of the trips were made by government employees. This would represent an additional cost of about $140,000. Some of this amount may have been claimed as travel expenses from the federal treasury.


GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT IN CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Rynard: 1.	Has the government, as the sole common shareholder of the Canada Development Corporation, already invested in the order of $400 million in cash and assets in the Corporation without commitment for interest of dividends and, if so, what is the mechanism for management and performance accountability imposed by the government on the Corporation?
2.	Is the objective of the Corporation to develop Canadian-controlled and Canadian-managed corporations and operate profitably and in the best interests of the shareholder and, if so, on what policy basis has almost 90 per cent of all cash invested so far by the Corporation been utilized to acquire shares of, or interests in, foreign corporations and businesses?
3.	Has the permanent head office of the Corporation been established in western Canada and, if so, how many full time operating officers or staff are employed in the Vancouver head office and how many are employed in other operating centres?


Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is somewhat lengthy. I have provided a copy to the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) and I wonder if it could be taken as read.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The answer is as follows:]
1.	The government has purchased $250 million of common shares of the Canada Development Corporation for cash and has also sold to the CDC the former Polymer Corporation Limited for CDC common shares. These common shares entitle the government to receive any dividend declared by the corporation. The declaration of dividends is the responsibility of the CDC board of directors. The board has not yet considered it advantageous to declare a dividend. The government appreciates and shares the view of the CDC board that at this early stage in the life of the corporation it has been beneficial to both the CDC and the government as a shareholder to keep the earnings invested in the corporation. Two senior government officials are ex officio members of the CDC board of directors and the Minister of Finance currently elects the balance of the board of directors at the annual shareholders meeting. This enables the government to effectively monitor the management and the performance of the corporation.
2.	Pursuant to the CDC Act, the corporation's objectives are to help develop and maintain strong Canadian-controlled and Canadian-managed corporations in the private sector of the economy, and to operate in anticipation of

profits and in the best interests of shareholders. I think that the CDC's resources have effectively been used in order to achieve these objectives. The purchase of a 30% interest in Texasgulf incorporated at a cost of 271 million dollars to this time represents the CDC's major cash investment. Although incorporated in the United States Texasgulf donives about two thirds of its revenue from Canadian operations and is planning major additional investments in Canada which will develop Canadian natural resources. Through Polysar, which was acquired by means of an exchange of shares rather than for cash, the CDC is further investing substantial amounts of funds to build a Canadian petrochemical plant which will be comparable in size to the larger ethylene producing plants in the world. This new petrochemical complex represents an investment in excess of 400 million dollars. The establishment of Connlab Holdings Limited in which the CDC has already invested 35 million dollars represents an attempt to create a major Canadian controlled and managed company in the health care field. The CDC has also invested over 10 million dollars in three Canadian venture capital firms, helping to create two of those in Vancouver and Montreal. The corporation is also a partner in the group planning the development of the Mackenzie Delta gas pipeline. From the preceding it is clear that the CDC's investments have been undertaken in furtherance of its major objectives.
3. The CDC's head office has been established in Vancouver. The full time operating officers or staff amount to seven in the Vancouver head office and seventeen in the other operating office in Toronto.


MONCTON AIRPORT-PLANS FOR IMPROVEMENT
Mr. Jones: 1.	What plans are there for the enlargement and improvement of passenger and baggage facilities, as well as terminal facilities, at the Moncton Airport?
2.	Has consideration been given to require Air Canada and Eastern Provincial Airlines to improve air service in and out of Moncton, the transportation centre of Atlantic Canada, to meet the needs of the Maritime Central Region, where the greatest density of population exists in the Maritime Region, Moncton being the centre of the region?


Jean Marchand: 1. Future requirements regarding all facilities at Moncton Airport are being evaluated in context of a master plan development project due for completion later this year.
2. Following the CTC Hearings immediate arrangements were made between Air Canada and Eastern Provincial Airways to improve services between inter-city pairs in the Atlantic provinces. The federal/provincial committee on Atlantic region transportation is currently conducting a study in conjunction with the airlines to further improve inter-city services. The recent announcement by Eastern Provincial Airways to acquire three of the Canadian built Dash 7 aircraft will further enhance communications between centres in the Atlantic provinces.
Order Paper Questions *3 PER CENT PERPETUAL BONDS


Mr. Rynard: 1.	As of January 1, 1975, how many 3 per cent perpetual bonds were still held by the original holders?
2.	What percentage of the original bonds issued in 1936 have been
cashed?
3.	Is consideration being given by the government to pay off these perpetual bonds?
4.	What is the purchasing power of today's dollar as compared with the 100 per cent invested in 1936?
5.	How many of these perpetual bonds are privately held?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows: 1. Approximately 1.7 per cent or $561,000 of the registered 3 per cent perpetual bonds are still held by the original holders.
2.	None of the original bonds have been cashed. The original $55 million is still outstanding.
3.	The government has for some time been seeking an equitable solution to the problems posed by the 3 per cent perpetual bonds.
4.	The purchasing power of today's dollar is 72% less than a 1936 dollar.
5.	48 per cent of the outstanding registered bonds are held by individuals and estates.


ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. Howie: Is consideration being given to taking any steps to provide heavy transmission lines and facilities to assure adequate power supplies at the lowest possible price throughout the Atlantic Provinces?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Yes. In recent months the federal government has taken the following actions to assist electric power supply in the Atlantic provinces. (1) An offer to New Brunswick to finance up to 50 per cent of the cost of a
600,000	kilowatt nuclear reactor. (2) An $18 million grant and a loan of up to $9 million to establish a cable interconnection between the power systems of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. (3) A loan of up to $343 million towards the cost of a high voltage electrical interconnection between the Gull Island power site on the Churchill river in Labrador and power markets on the Island of Newfoundland. The investment referred to in item 3. also involves an electrical interconnection between the proposed Gull Island project and the Churchill Falls project, thereby connecting the Newfoundland power system with the other interconnected systems of Eastern Canada.


IMMIGRATION-FURTHER DETAIL ON THREE YEARS IN CANADA
Mr. Friesen: With reference to Three Years in Canada, the First report of the longitudinal survey on the economic and social adaptation of immigrants, a volume of the Green Paper on Immigration, what groups comprise the category "Others", the largest category listed in Table A.7 on page 146?

March 5, 1975
Order Paper Questions


Robert Knight Andras: Immigrants to Canada in 1969 were born in almost every country in the world. In addition to those countries listed in Table A.7, the following were the countries in which 1,000 or more immigrants were born:
Immigrant Immigrant
Country of Birth	Arrivals 1909	Sample 1969Czechoslovakia	5,029	87The Netherlands	2,412	51Egypt	1,839	30Ireland, Republic of	1,627	26Switzerland	1,606	14Poland	1,563	15Canada	1,134	3Hungary	1,132	15


PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACCOUNT
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	What was the total amount at credit in the Public Service Superannuation Account as at (a) March 31, 1972 (b) March 31, 1973 (c) March 31,1974?
2.	What rate of interest has the government paid for the use of this money during the fiscal years ending on the dates noted above?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the Public Service Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1972 (b) March 31, 1973 (c) March 31, 1974?
4.	What was the total amount paid out of the Public Service Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1972 (b) March 31, 1973 (c) March 31, 1974?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1.
(a) $4,488,549,951; (b) $4,945,750,813; (c) $5,427,502,239.
2.	Quarter ending: June 30, 1971, 1.3838 per cent; September 30, 1971, 1.3896 per cent; December 31, 1971, 1.4004 per cent; March 31, 1972, 1.4157 per cent; June 30, 1972, 1.4601 per cent; September 30, 1972, 1.4659 per cent; December 31, 1972, 1.4778 per cent; March 31, 1973, 1.4931 per cent; June 30, 1973, 1.5042 per cent; September 30, 1973, 1.5252 per cent; December 31, 1973, 1.5364 per cent; March 31, 1974, 1.5490 per cent.
3.	(a) $163,707,472; (b) $184,190,199; (c) $202,866,916.
4.	(a) 118,635,547; (b) 137,073,425; (c) 163,297,280.


PUBLIC SERVICE-USE OF STANDARD PAPER SIZES
Mr. Herbert: On what date will the 8 1/4 x 11 3/4 metric stationery presently in use in Ministers' offices be made available for general use in the Public Service?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: The Canadian Government Specifications Board Committee on Standard Paper Sizes, representing a wide range of Canadian interests, including paper manufacturers, printers, and users, federal and provincial governments, is actively engaged in preparation of a national standard for paper sizes in Canada. When the standard has

been approved it is anticipated that the use of standard paper sizes in the Public Service will be implemented in accordance with the standard through the Federal Identity Program developed by Information Canada. The standard is expected to be available in mid-1975.


PUBLIC SERVANTS-TRAVEL EXPENSES ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS
Mr. Blackburn: 1.	As a general rule, do government employees, when travelling on official business at public expense, travel in first-class accommodation
or in economy class?
2.	Are there any exceptions to the general rule and, if so, what are they?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1.
Government employees on official business generally travel economy air and, for one way rail trips of four hours or less, coach class.
2. Exceptions to the general rule are: Paragraph 2.03 of the Treasury Board Travel Directive, "... A higher standard of accommodation may be authorized only when, in the opinion of the employer, the extra cost is justified by program-related reasons, such as: (a) when no less expensive accommodation is available and a delay in arrival is not acceptable, or (b) when travel is within a country or between countries when economy class air travel present health hazards or discomfort to the employee, or (c) when in exceptional circumstances, such as for reasons of protocol, an employee officially accompanies another person travelling first class." Paragraph 2.09 of the Treasury Board Travel Directive referring to rail travel in excess of four hours, " ... For longer trips a higher standard shall be authorized with Canadian roomette or equivalent accommodation being provided for overnight travel." A deputy minister may authorize first class travel if in his opinion it is appropriate to do so.


CALGARY AIRPORT-TILE CONTRACTS
Mb. Schellenberger: Will the government look favourably upon granting the contracts for tile in the new Calgary Airport to a Canadian firm to encourage the development of that industry here and require that the tile be specified according to the government's Master Construction Specification?


Jean Marchand: Canadian materials are preferred where they are available and can meet Government Master Construction Specification. Tender bids from any Canadian manufacturer who can meet the requirements will be considered.


DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES-100,000 FUR CAPS
Mr. Halliday: 1.	Were tenders called by the Department of Supply and Services for the supply of 100,000 fur caps for issue to servicemen, which, when received, were two-sizes too small and, if so, was the lowest tenderer awarded the contract?
2.	What is the name of the company awarded the contract?
3.	What has the Department done with these fur caps?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes, tenders were called and the contract was awarded to the lowest tenderer.
2.	Parktown Hat and Cap Ltd., Toronto, Ontario.
3.	In accordance with directions of the customer department (DND), the fur hats were shipped by the manufacturer to No. 1 Canadian Forces Supply Depot, Downsview, Ontario.


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many employees of the Public Service, Crown corporations and federal boards enrolled in language classes, either undertaken with the Public Service or financially supported by the taxpayer, in each fiscal year since the passage of the Official Languages Act?
2.	Of the total number of employees enrolled, how many enrolled for (a) English language training (b) French language training in each of the fiscal years?
3.	Of the total number of employees enrolled, how many were (a) successful (b) unsuccessful in the passage of the courses enrolled in (i) English language training (ii) French language training?
4.	Of the total number successful in securing language courses, how many qualified for the special language incentive payment?
Return tabled.


LANGUAGE TRAINING FOR INDIVIDUALS OUTSIDE PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Coates: 1.	Have any individuals, who are not employees of the government or any of its boards or agencies, received language training that has been paid for by the taxpayers and, if so (a) what are the names of such individuals (b) for what reason were they selected to receive such language training at public expense (c) are they associated in any way with individuals who are members of the Public Service Commission, boards, Crown corporations or other government agencies?
2.	What was the total cost in each instance of providing the training in question to the individual in question?
Return tabled.


LIP-ALLOCATION OF FUNDS IN CONSTITUENCY OF LANGELIER, 1972-73
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 46 of the Second Session of the 29th Parliament, which states in part that a total of $1,710,761 was allocated under the Local Initiatives Programme for 1972-73 in the constituency of Langelier, Quebec (a) what are the names of all projects involved along with their addresses and the names and addresses of those signing the applications (b) in each case what is a detailed description of the actual project, specifically including the functions performed under the project?
2.	What are the names and addresses of all persons or organizations who recommended each project in any manner whatsoever to the Department?
Order Paper Questions
Return tabled.


LIP-ALLOCATION OF FUNDS IN CONSTITUENCY OF HOCHELAGA, MONTREAL, QUEBEC
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 46 of the Second Session of the 29th Parliament, which states in part that a total of $689,437 was allocated under the Local Initiatives Programme for 1972-73 in the constituency of Hochelaga, Montreal, Quebec (a) what are the names of all projects involved along with their addresses and the names and addresses of those signing the applications (b) in each case what is a detailed description of the actual project, specifically including the functions performed under the project?
2.	What are the names and addresses of all persons or organizations who recommended each project in any manner whatsoever to the Department?
Return tabled.


RATES OF UNEMPLOYMENT AND WELFARE RECIPIENTS
Mr. Reid: With respect to Question Nos. 20, 21, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 and 61, what were the estimated rates of unemployment and the number of welfare recipients in each constituency?
Return tabled.


SUBSIDIES TO FISHING INDUSTRY
Mr. McKinnon: For the past eight years, by province, how much in direct subsidies was paid to the fishing industry (a) to fishing boats (b) to fish packing and/or processing plants?
Return tabled.



PERSONNEL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What are the (a) present salary ranges (b) official duties assigned to each of the following Section Heads in the Personnel Planning and Development Division of the Department of External Affairs (i) Director (ii) Classification (iii) Manpower Planning and Forecasting (iv) Personnel Planning Groups (v) Personnel Data Bank Group (vi) Language Requirements Unit (vii) Training and Development (viii) F.S. Orientation (ix) Non F.S. Officer Groups and pre-posting (x) Language Training Officers (xi) Administration and Financial Control?
2.	(a) What was the actual written output produced by each of the above sections from August 1, 1973 to August 1, 1974 (b) how many of these publications (per section) were used by (i) that division (ii) other departmental divisions (iii) the public?
3.	(a) What was the overall budget for the Personnel Planning and Development Division of the Department of External Affairs for the fiscal year 1973 (b) what percentage of this budget was used to pay salaries for this division?
4.	(a) How many persons are presently employed by each section of the Personnel Planning and Development Division of the Department of External Affairs (b) how many persons (per section) were actually involved in the production of the written output for that section (c) what is the present salary range for persons employed by these sections?
3800

March 5, 1975
Order Paper Questions
Return tabled.



EXPENDITURES AND CONTRACTS OF CIDA AND SUPPLY AND SERVICES FOR FIVE YEARS

Mr. Broadbent: 1.	For the years 1972-73 and 1973-74, what amounts were expended by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce (a) by programme (b) by province?
2.	By province, during each of the past five fiscal years, what were Canadian International Development Agency (a) contract expenditures (b) consulting services (c) expenditures on materials and supplies made by the Department of Supply and Services?
3.	What were Department of Supply and Services expenditures during each of the past five fiscal years (a) by province (b) abroad?
4.	By province, what has the distribution of Department of Supply and Services contracts during each of the past five fiscal years?
Return tabled.



TREASURY BOARD CONSULTANTS

Mr. MacKay: 1.	From the 1968 fiscal year to date (a) how many consultants were hired (b) what were the terms of reference and time length of the work assignment (c) what was the amount paid to each (d) what was the name of each for the Treasury Board?
2.	What are the names, positions, number and salaries of public servants for the Treasury Board that held a position similar to that of the outside consultant hired by the government?
Return tabled.



PEMD-GRANTS IN FISCAL YEAR 1973-74

Mr. Rodriguez: What were the names of recipients of grants or loans under the Programme for Export Market Development (PEMD) in the fiscal year 1973-74, and what were the amounts paid out in each case?
Return tabled.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS-RESEARCH EXPENDITURES

Mr. Symes: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 by the Department of Public Works on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
Return tabled.



LIP-FUNDS ALLOCATED IN CONSTITUENCY OF HOCHELAGA, MONTREAL, 1973-74

Mr. Cossitt: 1. What was the total amount of money allocated under the Local Initiatives Programme for 1973-74 in the constituency of Hochelaga, Montreal, Quebec (a) what are the names of all projects involved along with their addresses and the names and addresses of those signing the applications (b) in each case what is a detailed description of the 
actual project, specifically including the functions performed under the project?
2. What are the names and addresses of all persons or organizations who recommended each project in any manner whatsoever to the Department?
Return tabled.



LIP-FUNDS ALLOCATED IN CONSTITUENCY OF SASKATOON-HUMBOLDT

Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the total amount of money allocated under the Local Initiatives Programme for 1973-74 in the constituency of Saskatoon-Humboldt, Saskatchewan (a) what are the names of all projects involved along with their addresses and the names and addresses of those signing the applications (b) in each case what is a detailed description of the actual project, specifically including the functions performed under the project?
2.	What are the names and addresses of all persons or organizations who recommended each project in any manner whatsoever to the Department?
Return tabled.



NATIONAL DEFENCE-CONTRACTS TO LAPOINTE TRANSPORT LTD.

Mr. Grafftey: 1.	What transport contracts have been awarded by the Department of National Defence to Lapointe Transport Ltd., 105 Industriel Blvd., Longueuil, Quebec, since January 1, 1972?
2.	What was the amount of the contract in each case?
3.	Were public tenders called in each case and, if not, for what reason?
Return tabled.



LIP-FUNDS ALLOCATED IN CONSTITUENCY OF CAPILANO

Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the total amount of money allocated under the Local Initiatives Programme for 1973-74 in the constituency of Capilano (a) what are the names of all projects involved along with their addresses and the names and addresses of those signing the applications (b) in each case what is a detailed description of the actual project, specifically including the functions performed under the project?
2.	What are the names and addresses of all persons or organizations who recommended each project in any manner whatsoever to the Department?
Return tabled.



LIP-FUNDS ALLOCATED IN CONSTITUENCY OF STORMONT-DUNDAS

Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the total amount of funds allocated to LIP projects in .he constituency of Stormont-Dundas in each year 1972-73 and 1973-74?
2.	What were (a) all the project numbers (b) the project names and addresses (c) all the names appearing on applications (d) the names and addresses of absolutely all persons recommending such applications in any way?
3.	Were there any cases where an amount of a grant was decided upon and subsequently changed and, if so (a) what were the details of such cases (b) where were the increases or decreases made (c) what

specifically was done with the amount deducted from any grant and was any such total added to another grant?
Return tabled.



CONTRACTS AWARDED BY DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES FROM 1969-70

Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): From 1969-70 to the present, what was the complete amount of contracts given by the Department of Supply and Services to corporations and companies which receive a single contract of at least $250,000?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
\English]
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 8 and 9 are acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservation concerning confidential documents and the authorization of the governmental authorities concerned.



COPIES OF ALL CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO TUNNEL BETWEEN LABRADOR AND NEWFOUNDLAND

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 8-Mr. Marshall:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, telegrams, minutes of meetings, and agreements between the government and the Government of Newfoundland having to do with participation of both parties in the creation of a tunnel between the land masses of Labrador and Newfoundland to transfer hydro cable from Lower Churchill Falls.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 9-Mr. Marshall:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, telegrams, minutes of meetings between the government and the Province of Newfoundland regarding the development of the Lower Churchill Falls in Labrador.
Motion agreed to.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 25 and 27.
Motions for Papers



COPIES OF REPORTS BY JOINT FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL COMMITTEE CONCERNING FISHERMEN ON WEST COAST OF NEWFOUNDLAND

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 25-Mr. Marshall:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all reports and recommendations concerning the areas from Cape John to Cape St. Gregory on the West Coast of Newfoundland submitted by the Joint Federal-Provincial Committee charged with considering the designation of areas in which fishermen were to receive compensation for fishing gear losses due to ice damage in 1971.
Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, since the province of Newfoundland is not agreeable to the publication of such correspondence, the Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc) therefore is unable to table the documents requested, the release of which might be detrimental to the future conduct of federal-provincial relations.
I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Marshall:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



COPY OF PEAT-MAR WICK CONSULTANTS REPORT ON JACQUES CARTIER TERMINAL FACILITIES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 27-Mr. Forrestall:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Peat-Marwick Consultants report on the Jacques Cartier terminal facilities prepared for the National Harbours Board.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the National Harbours Board engaged the services of Peat-Marwick and Company as consultants to review traffic forecast and facility requirements for eastern Canadian ports. The study was broad in nature and did not relate to any specific facilities, certainly not to Jacques Cartier terminal. The results are confidential as they deal with the continuing competition for traffic with United States east coast ports. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as I apparently did not word the question narrowly enough I will withdraw this one and change
it.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
28996 - 3614
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
March 5, 1975

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister concerning the very important conference on oil called by France for April 7 I believe, involving some ten countries including France, representatives of the producing countries, representatives of the consuming countries, and representatives of the third world, a conference to which Canada has not been invited. I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the Government of Canada approves of this conference or disapproves of it and whether it accepts the fact that it has not been invited or whether it has protested its not being invited.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might respond on behalf of the Acting Prime Minister. For some time Canada has favoured in general terms a meeting between both the producing and consuming countries as well as the developing countries and has sought to participate in the preparatory meetings which will be taking place in Paris in the near future. The position that was taken by the various parties to the international energy agency and indeed by the Government of France, was that the conference should be confined to a limited number of participants in all three categories. The Government of Canada would have preferred to have participated in the preparatory meeting but I think that with Canada and all other countries participating it would have been of such a scale that would have perhaps hindered the making of effective arrangements in the preparatory meeting. We agreed on that basis not to participate.


OIL-CONFERENCE OF PRODUCING, CONSUMING AND THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES-CANADIAN POSITION ON SUBJECTS TO BE DISCUSSED AND THROUGH WHOM ADVANCED
Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Due to the fact that this conference, if it is successful along the lines that the Government of France, which is calling this conference, may lay down some very important guidelines for the future relating, for example, to the concept at least of negotiated prices between the producing and consuming countries-a negotiated world price-and the possibility of agreements in principle on a floor price or even the range of level of that floor price, does the Government of Canada have a position on these matters and if so how is this position to be put before this conference?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, may I remind the Leader of the Opposition that this conference, of course, is preparatory to a full conference which will be taking place later this year on the assumption that the preparatory meeting is successful. The government of Canada will be keeping in close touch with these discussions and with the partici-

pants at the conference of the international energy agency, and of course we will be making our views known with regard to the various items which the hon. gentleman has mentioned. The International Energy Agency meeting will take place in the agency on March 6 and 7, that is to say this week. At that time we will be discussing the question of the floor price, among others. We have not taken a final position with regard to the various comments put forward until the propositions are better defined, although we recognize that the floor price could be of significance to Canada with the relatively high cost petroleum resources in the future, and on that basis we will be pursuing the floor price discussion, bearing in mind our interest over the long run in maintaining protection of our own industry.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is my understanding that if the international agency is present at the conference, it will be present only with observer status. I am asking the Acting Prime Minister or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, if the Government of Canada has views to be expressed at this conference, through whom does it propose to express these views, through Mr. Kissinger?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Speaker, obviously the views of the Government of Canada will be made known to all participants with whom we have diplomatic relations, but in particular with the members of the international energy agency who will be participating. In no sense will Canada be bound by the results of the preparatory meeting, and of course we reserve the full right to express our views at the plenary conference when it is held, whether or not we are in agreement with the preparatory meeting.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Has the minister any reason to believe that Canada will be invited to the full conference, or that the full conference will not be restricted to the original countries that have been invited?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, we have the assurances of all parties that it will be a full conference and Canada will be a full participant.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: My question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the minister's statement on November 18 that barring "unforeseen shocks at home, the Canadian economy is expected to grow at a rate of about 4 per cent 1975", and in view of the minister's statement yesterday that he had scaled down his forecasts, would the minister indicate what is his current guess for real growth in the economy for 1975, bearing in mind that his forecast last May of a 5 per cent growth for 1974 has turned out to be only 3.7 per cent?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: In the
volatile world in which we are living-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
March 5, 1975


John Napier Turner: -forecasts have been difficult to make and difficult to achieve.


An hon. Member:: Bring back the group of seven.


John Napier Turner: I might say to the hon. member that virtually every forecast in this country, both public and private, has been revised considerably, as have those in the United States and those of the European trading partners. After I review the effect of the stimulus injected into our economy as a result of the November 18 budget, after we are able to review whatever negotiations evolve between the U.S. congress and the administration as to what the stimulus will be and how it is injected into the American economy, I will be in a position on an appropriate occasion to revise my estimates before the House.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In view of the minister's answer, and in view of his statement yesterday in justification of his failure to introduce a new budgetary stimulus to the economy in which he referred to the Conference Board of Canada figures that forecast, he said, an upturn in the third and fourth quarters in 1975, is the minister aware of the fact that the Conference Board figures referred to by him were issued before his budget and that subsequent to the November budget the Conference Board scaled down its forecast for the third and fourth quarters of the current year so that the fourth quarter, according to the Conference Board, is now reflected in a growth of only 1.7 per cent, compared with its earlier estimate of 3.6 per cent? If he is aware of this, would he not accept this as sufficient indication to cause a new budgetary stimulus in the economy?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I could refer to the hon. gentleman selective quotations from the report of the Institute of Qualitative Analysis at the University of Toronto, which was published just a few weeks ago and which bears out what I have said. I might refer him to another authority for which he may have even more respect, namely, the Leader of the Opposition, who on February 16, on the program "Question Period", in answer to the question as to whether the Minister of Finance should bring in another budget as soon as possible said, no, not necessarily; basically he recognized that things are difficult. He was then asked the reason for the proposal of the Conservative Party for a $500 million tax cut and replied that the 5 per cent tax cut proposal was put forward, not particularly as a stimulus to the economy, but as a means of forcing the government to exercise restraint in terms of expenditures. The hon. gentleman really ought to get on the same wavelength as his leader and have a discussion about the whole thing.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe it is the practice in question period for a lead-off question to be heard from each of the opposition parties.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Because we are a democracy.
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is with the proviso, however, that Your Honour permits supplementary questions to be asked by other members of the Official Opposition following the first question. But I suggest that the questions asked by the hon. member for York-Simcoe were in no way supplementary to the questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that it is this kind of abuse of the question period which gets us into trouble.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I wish to say a word in your defence. I am certain that Your Honour called on the hon. member for York-Simcoe because Your Honour assumed his question would be a supplementary. On the other hand, there was no attempt by the hon. member for York-Simcoe to pretend that he was asking supplementaries at all. I agree, however, with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that it is the tradition of the House to call on a questioner from the New Democratic Party and the other parties in the House following the opening questions. I do not think there is anything here today but a misunderstanding. I do not object to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre calling attention to it, but I do not think he should suggest that anyone is trying to take advantage of anyone and thereby destroying the question period.


An hon. Member:: You are a good man, Bob.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Temiscamingue on a point of order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the statement of the Leader of the Official Opposition, but the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is right when he says that the supplementary question of the hon. member for York-Simcoe had no bearing on the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, and everybody knows that the Progressive Conservatives have freedom enough to ask their questions, so much so that we are almost ignored in this corner of the House. So, I do not think the Leader of the Opposition or the hon. member for York-Simcoe are entitled to complain about their treatment.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised a point of order, and for the benefit of hon. members interested in the point I might say that I have tried, in the last two or three days, when points of order or questions of privilege have arisen during the question period, to extend the question period at the end by as much time as these points absorb in order to make sure that those members who want to put questions are not deprived by legitimate points of concern to the House.
The hon. member raised a point which occurred to me immediately the hon. member for York-Simcoe began his

March 5, 1975
Oral Questions
questioning. It has been a standing practice since I assumed this office-which is really not that long, but it has been an understanding for that period of time-that I would try to recognize, following the first questioner from the Official Opposition, the lead off speaker for the other opposition parties unless followed by supplementary questions. It was obvious today that the questions were not supplementary, and my intention was to speak privately with those representatives who have made the suggestion as to who might follow the leader.
The point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is therefore a point of order well taken. I take also the word of the Leader of the Opposition, as I am sure hon. members do, that it was simply a misunderstanding which has occurred for the first time today and which I am sure will not recur.


LENGTH OF TIME BEFORE INTRODUCTION OF MEASURES TO STIMULATE GROWTH-SUGGESTED INCREASE IN FUNDS ALLOCATED TO HOUSING
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Considering the decline in the real growth of the economy which we have experienced in the last few years, as documented by figures released by Statistics Canada, which also relate to the forecasts that the real growth in the Canadian economy is likely to be in the neighbourhood of just one per cent for 1975, I would like to ask the minister, in light of this information and in light of his own acknowledgement three or four weeks ago that his own forecast made in the budget of last fall needed revision, how long he intends us to wait before he will bring forth these new measures to deal with the Canadian economy which the revelation of these facts fully justifies.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that will have to remain a question of judgment. The House should put the situation in perspective. The three month period-and I gather it was a three month period to which the hon. member was referring-was already evident to the government at the time I brought down the budget on November 18. The stimulus injected into the economy at that time, which was in the realm of $3 billion cash deficit, primarily by way of tax reductions, is already being felt by the economy as of January 1 in the form of tax reductions for the 1974 and 1975 taxation years, and when the bill which the House passed last week is passed by the other place, further refunds will be in the hands of Canadian taxpayers.
I would like to say to the hon. member as well that since this stimulus is already injected, since capital investment in plant and equipment is holding up reasonably well, and since, as against the figure of 3.7 per cent real growth for the economy in 1974 we had a figure of 6.8 per cent in real domestic product, that the economy in domestic terms fell off only marginally from the 8.3 of real domestic product in the year before. What really happened in our economy was a drag from our exports, a falling off of our exports caused by a stagnant recessionary American economy, a stagnant Japanese economy and a flat European economy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: It is for those reasons that I am examining the situation in the United States, in Europe and in Japan because they are crucial to our exports. I am also examining the effect of the stimulus already in the enonomy.


John Edward Broadbent: A good part of the statistics revealed by Statistics Canada flatly contradicts what the minister has said or argued and specifically I refer to their singling out of the 10.4 per cent drop in residential construction which has nothing to do with foreign export sales. With the 10.4 per cent drop in residential construction in 1974 being one of the major reasons for the decline in growth of our GNP, I would like to ask the minister if the government has any intention of bolstering the housing market to provide houses which are needed, and to provide jobs, by injecting a large amount of money soon into the construction of new housing.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is perfectly right that a major factor in the slow growth was a sharp drop in real consumer demand in housing and in some durable goods. One of the priorities in the budget was a further allocation of funds to give some leverage to my colleague the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. The fact remains that in analysing the figures for 1974 which have just come in, the difference between 6.8 per cent for real domestic product and 3.7 per cent for the total real growth in the economy or the gross national product is represented by the drag on our economy of falling exports.


GOVERNMENT ACTION TO STIMULATE AND DIVERSIFY EXPORT TRADE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce following what the Minister of Finance has just said. What steps has the government taken in recent weeks to do something about our export trade, both in terms of achieving new markets for goods and in terms of diversifying our exports to manufactured goods instead of raw materials?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we have launched a number of programs to diversify Canadian markets for both raw materials, food products and manufactured goods. We have also made some major changes in the Export Development Corporation to assist the financing of Canadian capital goods. There is also a ministerial mission which I shall be leading in a matter of ten days to Cuba and Venezuela.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: Let me make it quite clear that we have been increasing our exports to our non-traditional markets at a far greater rate than to our traditional markets. We have set up a joint working group with France as part of
March 5, 1975

the France-Canada Economic Commission and we expect to conclude a joint economic commission with Iran shortly. We will be participating in 55 international trade fairs during 1974-75 and 100 incoming missions.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby rising on a point of order?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of getting another catalogue from the minister, I should like to ask him, in view of his initiation-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


John Edward Broadbent: -of all these steps-


An hon. Member:: That is not a point of order.


John Edward Broadbent: -if he can give the House one concrete example of increased sales as a result of all these projects?


Alastair William Gillespie: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to supply a list to the hon. member.


Mr. Baldwin:: It will not increase the sales of Hansard.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I shall put my question to the Acting Prime Minister.
In view of the report that CIDA has awarded an important contract for the establishment of a telecommunications network in Zaire to the Quebec Sintec Company which is facing bankruptcy, could the minister tell us all about this contract and indicate to the House in what circumstances everything was arranged so that we realize now that the main agents of the companies are people such as Rene Mantha, union leader evicted from James Bay, Gilles D. Bergeron, a former deputy minister dismissed following a case of forged social security cheques, and Andre Deom, founding president of the company and Liberal member of the National Assembly for Laporte in Quebec?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, as Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, and without admitting the allegations and accusations contained in the hon. member's question, I undertake to ask the department to inquire into those facts and shall report to the hon. member as soon as possible.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
In his answer, could the minister say whether hon. members will be able to know if the contract was awarded after tenders, who were the tenderers and what were the amounts involved?
Oral Questions


Gérard Pelletier: I shall inquire also about that aspect of the question, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] * *


GOVERNMENT ACTION TO STIMULATE EXPORT OF MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, as you might imagine I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the volume of exports of fully manufactured products, which are the ones that produce the jobs, have decreased by 4 per cent during the past year and the volume of imports of those same products increased by 13 per cent in the same period, thereby having a very serious effect on employment, does the minister intend to introduce specific measures to improve this situation? I ask this in view of the fact that the measures he has introduced are not working, measures such as incentives to increase productivity and thereby lower costs and make our products more competitive in the marketplace and introduce more aggressive selling aid to manufacturers.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, there was so much noise from the other side when the hon. member was asking his question that I did not get the last part of it.


John Napier Turner: You didn't miss a thing.


Alastair William Gillespie: If the hon. member had studied the budget he would see that incentives are built in for the manufacturing industry to expand. On the other point, I should like to ask him if he is suggesting that we should adopt a protective policy to prevent imports from coming into the country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are some rules in connection with the question period that are difficult to enforce and are very vague, but one is abundantly clear: it is this side that asks the questions of that side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: A supplementary. Obviously the minister transcended the rules but he did so because he had to ask somebody who knew something about it what ought to be done!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Is the minister not aware by now that the measures introduced in the budget to increase productivity simply are not doing the job and will not do the job. Any manufacturer will tell him that. Will he get together with the Minister of Finance to try to induce him to introduce real incentives to increase productivity and stop it dropping every single day that we are here?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are a number of members seeking the floor on points of order. I hesitated to interrupt the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings in midsentence, so if the hon. Minister wishes to respond to

March 5, 1975
Oral Questions
that question he may do so before I take the points of order.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the hon. member's attention to the new program for the shipbuilding industry. If he looks at it he will see that there are some very basic incentives built into it.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps in the interests of orderliness I will recognize a final supplementary question by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings. In case the points of order that have come from my right are related to offended sensibilities, I am sure hon. members on the right realize that in recognizing questioners from that side that my statement a moment ago that questions should come from that side to this side is something of an over-simplification.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister not aware that the program which he announced will aid marine industries mostly, as well as other friends of the government, and not other people nearly enough?


Alastair William Gillespie: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, I think that program will have a very wide appeal, from the west coast through the Great Lakes area down to the east coast. It will provide an opportunity for those shipyards which have been specializing in a distinctive competence and have shown themselves now able to compete internationally. I think that program, through the incentives built in for productivity, will further ensure that the industry can compete internationally in the future.


Mr. Guay (Levis):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) on a point of order.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, after the statement of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings, I rise, as the representative of 18,500 workers in the industry involved, because even if the hon. member says that we are favouring large undertakings, we must just the same give consideration to the 18,500 workers earning their living there.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General arising out of the growing concern of the public about Canada's on-again-off-again postal service. Can the Postmaster General deny or confirm reports that following a meeting of union officials last week, a telex was despatched alerting union officials across the country to prepare for a strike?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm nor can I deny because I do not know. I suppose that a strike in the post office is not inevitable. It is not needed. What is needed is for the bargaining committee to come forward with their demands. If they are reasonable, there is no reason for a strike.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In view of the widespread support expressed by postal workers for the continuation of negotiations for a new contract through the established procedure of collective bargaining, will the Postmaster General assist in achieving an understanding on these issues with the union leaders by the process of consultation?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to do it by consultation, but I am prepared to do it by negotiation. We have been doing that with the letter carriers since early January. There are only half a dozen issues and money separating-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The workers of Canada are entitled to a decent living wage. The only academic problem is what is a decent living wage.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Revenue and I may have a supplementary. In view of the delays in the mail and in view of the delays by many employers in preparing T-4 slips-I received my own from the House of Commons on February 26-will the minister consider extending the time limit for registered retirement savings plan contributions for 1974 from February 28 to March 31?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, this question was examined by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, and it was decided that no extension would be made. Where it is indicated that contributions have been in the mail since on or before February 28, although not postmarked because of what are undoubtedly temporary difficulties, the revenue department will take a fair and equitable attitude in recognizing these contributions as having been made prior to February 28.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Is the minister aware of delays in providing T-4 slips, in some cases by the government of Canada itself? This basic information on which taxpayers rely for the purpose of making maximum contributions simply was not in their hands by the deadline.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of a delay in some cases, but it is felt that most taxpayers wanting to make a contribution were able, prior to February 28, to make a decision on what their taxable income would be.

Oral Questions IMMIGRATION



CITIZENSHIP


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Can the minister confirm that Mr. Joe Lanza, formerly of the Hamilton Harbour Commission, the individual who was recently so warmly endorsed by the Minister of Labour and later undermined by the Minister of Transport, was touted for a judgeship in the Canadian Citizenship Court in 1969, and can the minister also indicate those persons who actively sought his appointment?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, the only relevant question is whether or not he is a judge.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. Will the minister indicate why Mr. Lanza has been consistently rebuffed in his several attempts to have his criminal record expunged? He has been turned down by the National Parole Board. Was it solely because of continuing suspicions about his attitude-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: 1 have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. With upwards of one quarter million tons of feed grains presently being imported into Nova Scotia each year, most farmers in Nova Scotia are becoming extremely skeptical about expanding their livestock or poultry production without some form of guarantee as to feed availability. In light of the fact that the future of Nova Scotia's agriculture industry hinges on the establishment of a central grain elevator to serve the industry, is the minister giving any thought to establishing a moderately sized elevator with a capacity of some
120,000	bushels in Nova Scotia, with grain drying equipment and grain grading facilities geared to produce products similar to those accepted under western grades?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the possibility of grain production and so on in the maritime provinces is under concentrated study and research. We hope to announce soon what our intentions will be to assist those people in producing forage from grain and so on.



ALLEGED RCMP INVESTIGATION INTO RACIAL TROUBLE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA-POSSIBILITY OF INTENSIFIED PROGRAM OF DEPORTING ILLEGAL ENTRANTS

Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. The general malaise that seems to be growing in our country today seems to call for more and more RCMP investigations. Is the minister aware of an RCMP detachment investigating racial trouble in the lower mainland of British Columbia?


Robert Knight Andras: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some difficulty relating this to the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.


Benno Friesen: I have a supplementary question. I am sure the minister is aware that Australia, because of a 6 per cent unemployment rate, has intensified its program to deport those who are in that country illegally. I wish to ask the minister whether his department has plans to conduct a like intensification of such a program here.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of deportations taking place. Where we find that illegal immigrants overstay their welcome in Canada, we take the necessary action.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. On Monday the minister denied he had said the alternative to a consensus is prolonged and bitter industrial strife even though in his speech of September 13 he stated "We can come together through a process of consensus. Alternatively, we can allow the balance to be determined by the process of prolonged and bitter industrial strife." Will the minister now advise whether it is still his position that the alternative to a consensus is prolonged and bitter industrial strife?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I said when I linked those two subjects I did not put them in terms of alternatives, I put them in terms of the general scenario. What I can say to the hon. member is if some sort of consensus is not arrived at, not only will we all be making excessive demands on the economy, but one of the results of that might well be industrial strife. Yes, I said that.


John Allen Fraser: I remind the minister that in his answer he said "I did not put them in terms of alternatives". Clearly, he did. Can the minister advise whether since his speech in September he has sought a consensus on the question of

Oral Questions
strikes affecting the national interest, and has he had any success in this regard?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the prime thrust of the consensus that I and my colleagues are trying to achieve on the inflationary scene is to see whether we can evolve some way of moderating the demands on the economy. My colleague, the Minister of Labour, has been more specifically involved with the idea of some tripartite arrangement between leaders of the labour movement, business leaders and government to see whether new ways of settling industrial grievances can be arrived at.


John Allen Fraser: I thank the minister for his reply. Can he tell us definitely that in his search for a consensus on ways of meeting inflationary pressures he raised the question of damage to employment, productivity and supply caused by prolonged strikes, especially strikes affecting the national interest-I am referring specifically, of course, to the strike which is stopping all grain movement on the West Coast?


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have said so. I want to make it clear that the purpose of the consensus exercise is to try to level out and diminish the inflationary impact of demands on the economy. One of the side effects of continued inflation is, of course, the exacerbation of the labour sector.


An hon. Member:: What are you doing about it?


John Napier Turner: I will spell that word for the hon. member after the question period is over.


An hon. Member:: Get your mobile ratchet.


John Napier Turner: In the course of these discussions, when the opportunity arose, I have drawn the attention of both employers and leaders of labour to the fact that last year we lost more than 9 million man-hours of work by strikes, which gave us the worst record in the industrial world except for Italy.



INQUIRY AS TO STANDARDS FOR ASBESTOS FIBRES IN AIR-CONDITIONS AT CLINTON CREEK MINE IN YUKON

Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. According to the CBC show, "As It Happens", there are no federal legal standards with regard to the presence of asbestos fibres in the atmosphere. In view of the fact that the largest asbestos mine in Ontario is now closed down because of an excessive number of fibres in the air, and since there is at least one mine-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member and saddle him with responsibility for what has been taking place-it has happened several times today- but I think on behalf of all members who are trying to take part in the question period I should call attention to

the fact that there has been a tendency recently to add sentence after sentence, if not paragraph after paragraph, to preambles to questions. The hon. member for New Westminster is doing it now. Members have prefaced their questions with lengthy preambles, a practice which, of course, reduces the number of questions which can be asked. It is not done at the expense of the Chair in any way but at the expense of others who wish to participate in the question period, and I really think this practice is one which ought to be severely limited.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I appreciate the stricture, Mr. Speaker, and I will try to limit my preamble-it will certainly not be longer than the answer the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce gave a while ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: My question is this: will the minister advise us whether there are any enforceable federal standards with regard to the presence of asbestos fibres in the air for the protection of those who now face serious health hazards, including cancer, when working with asbestos in mines and factories?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, there is now before the House a bill which has been debated but which unfortunately has not been passed. It deals with environment polluters. I hope it will be passed as soon as possible. It would be most useful to the government and would enable it to apply the necessary measures.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I take it the answer is no. My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact that the Clinton Creek mine in the Yukon is now under sole federal jurisdiction and since we learn that within the minister's own department there is a report stating that the concentration in this mine amounts to 18 asbestos fibres per cubic centimetre, would the minister tell us whether he has investigated the health of the miners who work in this mine? Is there an unpublished report in his department, indicating that a danger of these proportions is threatening the mine workers?


Marc Lalonde: An investigation was carried out by my department's Bureau of Health Hazards and an environmental engineer for the Department of Indian Affairs. The figure quoted by the hon. member is quite wrong. I heard him refer to 18 fibres. There is no such figure. The figures mentioned in that study were around two to four fibres per millimetre of air and outside the plant the concentration was between 0.0 and 0.04 fibres per millimetre of air. We expect a detailed report of the results of that survey within two weeks, and I hope I shall then be able to provide the hon. member with more information. We plan to recommend certain measures to improve the situation inside the plant.



REQUEST FOR ACTION TO CONTROL HAZARDS FROM ASBESTOS FIBRES AT THETFORD MINES

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a supplementary for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Since a very recent study shows that 61 per cent of the Thetford Mines workers in Quebec having more than 20 years' experience suffer from pulmonary and other diseases, did the minister get in touch with these people, in view of the bill which should be adopted soon, and does he in any event consider meeting a need which seems urgent in this area?


Marc Lalonde: As the hon. member said, a bill is now before the House. However, the hon. member knows for sure that these matters, within the provinces, come under work security measures which are controlled and administered by provincial authorities themselves who have complete jurisdiction in this area.



FINANCE


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question with regard to the problem posed by the 3 per cent perpetual bonds and the need to find some equitable solution. Is the minister considering some form of compensation dating back to 1964 when the coupons were all used up?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker, the difficulty being that a large percentage of those bonds are in bearer form. As I have told a number of hon. members who have met me singly and collectively on this subject, it is difficult to achieve a just solution as between those who have already sold and those who retained the bonds. It is a difficult problem to resolve, particularly since it involves other government obligations at interest rates which might not reflect current market rates; the question of reconciling those rates with present rates would also be raised.
As I say, it is a difficult problem to solve, although I have had the co-operation of a good many members on both sides of the House in attempting to do so.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the new rates charged for some senior citizens residences exceed the combined total of the old age security pension and the
Oral Questions
guaranteed income supplement, what action does the government plan to take to meet the needs of this large group?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the question of residences for senior citizens who receive a guaranteed income supplement is under the jurisdiction of the provinces. However, the federal government provides the provinces with large amounts of money, through my colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, to enable them to meet those needs. The provinces themselves establish the rents for every institution, and I am afraid the question should be referred to the provinces concerned.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. It is brief and to the point. Did the minister meet today with two important delegations from New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island concerning potato prices. If so, what conclusions were reached?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we had a lengthy meeting with the Minister of Agriculture from New Brunswick and the minister from Prince Edward Island, along with delegations from both provinces.


An hon. Member:: On potatoes?


Eugene Whelan: No decision was reached. We discussed many ways of assisting potato growers in that area. I am sure that if hon. members want to participate this afternoon in the debate on the stabilization legislation, which will be before the House, they can make some good contributions.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister in a position to say that the federal government will contribute to an emergency scheme to relieve the financial situation of potato growers this year, provided the two provincial governments concerned come up with a feasible program?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we did discuss this and, to refer to past history, it has been suggested seven or eight times since 1957 by former ministers of agriculture that "if you help them this time they will organize a better marketing system for themselves". However, growers in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick cannot establish a marketing system for themselves without allowing growers from Quebec and Ontario to join with them, because their markets, too, will be affected in that area and they will all need to work closely together. We discussed that. It is the opinion of the Canadian Horticultur-

March 5, 1975
Oral Questions
al Council that these growers must work more closely together in order to provide more security in that market. We will be working on a longer term basis to that end.



BEEF AND VEAL-DATE OF REPORT OF INQUIRY INTO MARKETING

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture.
Since the difference between prices paid by consumers on the one hand and prices paid to producers on the other hand for beef and veal is constantly increasing and since on January 7, 1975 the Prime Minister announced the creation of a board to investigate the methods of marketing beef and veal, can the minister tell the House whether that board has already done some work, whether he is kept informed of the preliminary findings of the board and whether he intends to make recommendations to the House to correct the situation before the Easter adjournment?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked many questions and made some suggestions. The terms of reference for the beef inquiry were made public, published, gazetted and so on. I announced in the House some time ago that we were reviewing support programs for beef and veal and we are considering extending them. I cannot tell him anymore at present.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a supplementary question.
I think my question was clear but the minister's answer was not. I was not referring to the Prices Stabilization Board, but to a board which was formed on January 7 by the Prime Minister to examine the difference between prices in the marketing of beef and veal. May I ask the minister whether the date when this board will report to the House has been determined?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have asked them to report to us as they proceed with their investigation and findings. We know that a complete report on beef and veal marketing in Canada will take some time to make. It will not be done in an easy two weeks or one month. If they complete the hearings and make a full and detailed report on beef marketing in Canada available within one year, we will be satisfied.



AIR CANADA


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister looked into the circumstances surrounding the rather hasty departure of Mr. Yves Menard of Air Canada, in
[Mr. Whelan.)
light of that gentleman's rather questionable arrangements with EconAir, a subsidiary of Air Canada which runs a resort operation in Barbados.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, all I know is what I read in the newspapers this morning, namely, that the president of Air Canada is making an inquiry into this affair. I think we should await the results of that inquiry.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As EconAir, the Air Canada subsidiary for which Mr. Yves Menard was responsible, lost about $1 million on its operations last year, and in view of Mr. Menard's questionable involvement in this affair-this is how it appears on the surface-does the minister not think it is incumbent on him to look into this particular matter and report to the House?


Jean Marchand: Sure, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on which I hope Your Honour will rule. It concerns an important ministerial statement which was made today outside the House a few minutes before the House commenced to sit at two o'clock. The point concerns an important statement made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) who announced a new government shipbuilding program. I might say there is nothing wrong with that. However, there are two things I wish to draw to Your Honour's attention. Because our Standing Orders limit the duration of the question period it was not possible for me to raise this matter during the question period. Second, I submit that the minister acted contemptuously in ignoring the long-standing traditions of the House when he made a statement outside this House on a day when the House was sitting.
The statement was important because it announced a new government program, a new government initiative. What is important, however, is that the manner in which it was made denied members of the official opposition and of other opposition parties in the House the opportunity to respond in the House to this new government initiative. If I had succeeded in catching Your Honour's eye and getting the floor, I would have asked questions about this new multimillion dollar shipbuilding program which is to assist the shipbuilding industry in Canada. The program contains provision for the payment of $265 million to a company now under investigation by the RCMP for defrauding the Government of Canada. I am talking Marine Industries Limited of Quebec. I would have asked a question about that matter. However, we were not given the opportunity to raise that question or to respond in the House to the minister's statement. I believe, in view of the circumstances in which the statement was made, that the minister showed contempt for this House. He showed it by making a statement outside the House while the House was in session, thereby denying, as I have said, the opportunity for opposition parties in this House to respond. The matter was not touched on during the question period, apart from the oblique reference to the statement which the minister made in response to a question asked by the
March 5, 1975

hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees). There was no opportunity to refer to this matter; a question dealing with it was not raised and therefore there was no chance to ask a supplementary question.
I believe ministers are obligated to adhere to the traditions of this House. One of those traditions is that statements shall not be made outside this House while the House is in session. I therefore believe that the minister was in contempt of the House, and I hope Your Honour will take note of that.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if I may speak to the point of order, may I reassure the hon. member that there is ample precedent for the issuing of a communique of this kind. If he so wishes, I would be pleased to table that communique at this time. I want to assure him that the communique was issued to all members at the same time and favouritism was not played in any way. If he is concerned that this new program was announced outside the House when the House had to give its approval, let me reassure him that this particular program did not require parliamentary approval.
I would also draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that this matter was raised during the question period. Indeed, I referred to it, as did the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees), although obliquely. If there had been any interest on the part of the opposition to pursue this matter through supplementary questions, they had the opportunity. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it quite clear that the main and the supplementary estimates will be before the miscellaneous estimates committee and there will be plenty of opportunity for opposition members to put questions to me on that occasion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In respect of the point of order raised by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), there was an aspect of the response by the minister that perhaps touches on the responsibility of the Chair; if it does not relate to the responsibility of the Chair, perhaps it does relate to the invidious choice the Chair has to make each day in deciding which questioners will be recognized and which will not. It is clear there were several hon. members who today wanted to pursue the matter through supplementary questions but did not have the opportunity of being recognized. I think the record should reflect that, as I think there are members to my left who were prepared to do that, one being the hon. member for St. John's East, another being the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), and I think there were others. However, the shortness of time available makes it impossible to recognize all members who want to ask questions on any given day.
Getting back to the point of order, the hon. member has raised the point and has put on the record his grievance in this regard, to which the hon. minister has responded. I do not think we ought to carry on with that. It is well known that whether or not that constitutes a reflection of the attitude of the minister toward the House, the fact of the matter is that it does not constitute a point of order or a question of privilege.
Agricultural Stabilization Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Eugene Whelan: that Bill C-50, to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


Mr. McKinley:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I had some discussion with the chairman of the committee on agriculture about a meeting which was scheduled for this afternoon. I believe there was agreement that the meeting would be cancelled because of the agricultural legislation in the House this afternoon. I wonder if that could be confirmed or denied at this time.


Mr. Smith (Saint-Jean):: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to state that it has been agreed that the meeting be cancelled for this afternoon, but the meeting for tomorrow is scheduled as usual.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have heard an awful lot about food production and guaranteeing producers of food some kind of security, particularly when we ask them to go all-out on production. Whether or not we have a constant supply of domestically produced food in Canada in the coming years is not totally in the hands of the farmers whom we have asked to go all-out on production. Even though our farmers are the top food producers in the world, it takes more than that to be sure we have this kind of production. Farmers also need legislation that will give them the guarantees they need in order to continue producing. Their basic need is a floor price that will protect them against low prices that will ruin them overnight. If we ask them to produce without giving them any kind of security, they will go down the drain.
I was asked earlier in the House whether I had met with the ministers of agriculture for Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick concerning a problem those provinces face today. This problem, which has existed for some weeks, concerns the disastrous prices they are receiving for potatoes in those areas and in other areas of Canada. The price of potatoes has gone down drastically. There is no denying the fact that the provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island depend to a great extent on returns from potato crops to support their economies. With present prices, these provinces will receive for their potato crops this year less than half of what they received last year; and the situation may become even worse. In any event, the prices received at the present time are disastrous.
Some people think that low prices are beneficial and that producers should go all-out on production, giving away the product in order to offset inflation. All one has to do is check what has happened in the past to find out that this is not so. What happens is that you have a tremendous glut or overproduction, with tremendously depressed prices. This is followed by a shortage of production and an increase in price. So there really is no benefit to the producer and no benefit to the consumer.

March 5, 1975
Agricultural Stabilization Act
We have stabilization legislation on the books at the present time and it did the job in its day. However, today this legislation falls short of being the sort of over-all legislation the farmers need. It is outdated. A guaranteed floor price is required to keep the farmers producing enough of certain commodities to fill the demand, and if we want a strong farm economy in the future we must give the farmers the kind of legislation they need. Statistics Canada has indicated that net farm income is expected to nose-dive by 12 per cent in 1975.1 would like to know what other parts of society are being asked to accept such a nose-dive in 1975. Many segments of our society are refusing reasonable offers such as a 25 per cent increase.
Farm input costs have gone up by more than 25 points over the increase in consumer costs during the same period. Statistics indicate that many of those who are producing these important commodities in Canada have not received an increase in income comparable to increases received by people in other parts of society and in other segments of agriculture. I have in mind at the present time the potato growers to whom I have referred. Having regard to the potato growers, let me read a telex which I received from the Quebec minister of agriculture. He said:
Further to my telex regarding low prices obtained by Quebec potato producers and disastrous situation which may follow with regard to spring sowing, I would like to know immediately if you are planning a special program within the framework of a stabilization bill or other to assure stability of income for our potato producers thus permitting them to be more optimistic about their future.
I might add that the Canadian Horticultural Council is also concerned about this situation. This situation, coupled with other uncertainties that face our farmers, is prompting many farmers to pick up the phone and cancel fertilizer orders, or to call a real estate agent to see if they can get out while the getting is good. Faced with these uncertainties, we cannot have all-out food production. It is legislation of this kind which will prompt farmers to decide not to sell-out but to keep on producing.
Legislation already on the books gives farmers a deficiency payment if the market price in any one year is less than 80 per cent of the average price of the ten preceding years. Nine commodities were automatically covered, but the number of commodities covered by the new bill is somewhat greater. This bill calls for a series of important changes. The first and most important is that farmers will be guaranteed an average of 90 per cent of the average market value, up from 80 per cent. The base period would be the last five years instead of the last ten.
One of the real weaknesses in the old act was that rapid increases in farm input costs could put the guaranteed support levels so far below the cost of production that the legislation would become a farce. This is exactly what did happen in the last two years. We want stabilization legislation to do its job; that is why this bill calls for indexing the support levels to reflect production costs. In this way our legislation will be able to cope with any quick swings in the marketplace. Some people say that is not good planning. I would ask them how they expect, in a world trading pattern, and so on, to do things in any other fashion.

The amendments go even further. They allow for stabilization programs to be set up for products which are produced and sold in a specific region. This will make the legislation much more valuable for commodities such as potatoes and tobacco. We have already spoken about potatoes. When we talk about potatoes, we think of the area of Canada which produces potatoes, commonly known as eastern Canada, with the hope that we can regionalize it. I do not think in this case it would be satisfactory to have a region such as Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick alone. Quebec and Ontario, I believe, should be part of that region. Those provinces produce potatoes, although they do not produce sufficient for their own consumption and import from the maritime provinces.
Anything that can be done to improve the price of potatoes in the maritimes would necessarily be affected by what the market for that commodity is in Quebec or in Ontario. They are all Canadian producers, producing the same commodity for the market. Their costs are similar regardless which province is concerned. Under the new legislation, a region could be that part of eastern Canada which produces potatoes that are consumed mostly in that area. Of the total amount of potatoes we produce, we export only about 6 per cent and many of these are used for seed. The amendments also provide for top-loading. By this I mean that provincial governments and/or producers can increase the stabilization base higher than 90 per cent if they want to pay the extra cost. This gives needed flexibility to the act.
The general stabilization programs undertaken by the federal government for products sold in a national market will be uniform across the country. However, by agreement with provinces and/or producers the prices may be established, as I said, higher than the 90 per cent figure if the additional funds are provided by the provinces and/or producers whether by government grants or by producer levy. None of these programs can work without proper supply management. If we give the producers the kind of program that will give them an efficient operation, they will produce things until they come out of their ears. You cannot have pork or broiler chickens or eggs or anything else coming out of your ears, unless you have to plan a market and a market for all those products. You cannot afford to give them away or, better, ask the producers to give them away. We do not do that in respect of any other commodity, whether it be food or otherwise, in this nation, to my knowledge. At least the person who produces the product is not asked to give it away.
We may be able to use some of these products in food aid programs, but we must make sure we know we have the processing facilities for them. In essence I am saying that we must know where the market is domestically, we must know where it is in the world, and we must know what the requirements are for food aid programs no matter what they be and in what part of the world. Then we produce for that. You do not produce merely in the hope that someone will give you a decent price for your commodity, because in that case you would end up as in deep trouble, as has happened with many of our producers. Some will say that we will destroy the open and free market. I would say there is an open and free market in some of these commodities for some people, but not in general for all the

primary producers, the most important part of our society. They produce the mainstay of life, food.
The bill also does some house cleaning. Wheat produced outside the Canadian Wheat Board will no longer be automatically covered under the act because it is already covered under Bill C-19. The Canadian Dairy Commission sets support prices for butter and cheese, so they will no longer receive mandatory coverage. Neither will eggs which come under the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act. When this bill is passed, the list of mandatory commodities will be industrial milk and cream, corn, soybeans, oats and barley produced outside the Canadian Wheat Board area, cattle, hogs and sheep. There is also provision for any other farm commodity to be included under the act by the governor in council.
In essence, Mr. Speaker, in respect of the commodities covered under this act, no commodities really are excluded from protection. Under a clause dealing with designated commodities the legislation allows the governor in council to select a new product for stabilization if conditions warrant. There is also a provision in the bill which some of my colleagues in cabinet suggest gives the Minister of Agriculture a blank cheque to support the food producers of the nation. Never before has agriculture and its representative in the cabinet, the Minister of Agriculture, been given that authority. But I want to remind members of the House that before the Minister of Agriculture is granted that authority, there is an inter-departmental committee made up of five departments which studies all things pertaining to agriculture before a decision is made. There also are five cabinet ministers who decide on anything we do. That has been the situation for some time in cabinet. They consider the matter before any major decision is made which affects not only the agricultural producers but also the consumers in this country. Anyone who says that is not so is not stating the fact.
I think this is good, because agriculture is the largest and most important industry in the whole of Canada. One out of every three jobs in Canada depends on a healthy agricultural community. It is most important that the federal government is now probably giving more leadership than in the past, which is so important for the producers of many of these commodities which are produced not only in one province, which are consumed not only in one province, but which are consumed in the large metropolitan areas where our largest concentration of population is located in Canada, and are exported to world markets.
It is most important that we have a national program for these commodities. Some of the provinces have gone ahead on their own with insurance programs. I can tell members of this House that hardly any province which has gone ahead with some kind of program on its own has not asked me when we will get the federal legislation going so that we can work together on the programs already started. We have had lengthy discussions with the farm organizations and provincial authorities in Canada concerned with this legislation. There has been lengthy discussion interdepartmentally concerning the legislation. We have received requests lately from certain groups who wish to appear before the agricultural committee to discuss this legisla-
Agricultural Stabilization Act
tion, to seek information and to have input. Some of them already are suggesting certain amendments to this bill.
It is a far reaching bill. It is not a lengthy bill, but it is one of the most advanced that any country in the world is providing for its agricultural producers at this time. As I said before, the U.S.A., our big competitor to the south, is asking its producers to go all-out to produce everything they can for society. At the same time they are not offering one bit of security. At the present time in the United States, in some of the most productive areas of that country the farm organizations are taking up a petition not to ask their farmers to increase production but to decrease production by ten per cent. This has not happened in Canada and we do not want it to happen. We want to build confidence in the producers of agricultural products in Canada not only for the good of the producers but also for the good of our society, so that constant production of those commodities will be achieved; this is not only for the betterment of the agricultural community, and not only to guarantee that young people stay in agriculture, but also for the betterment of Canada as a whole.
So long as we have properly planned programs such as this stabilization program, it will cost the government hardly anything, if anything at all, in the long run. It will not cost the producers anything, and it will be a good form of insurance for the whole nation and for all the countries in the world which depend on Canada to supply them with a certain amount of food.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question? It will save the House listening to a speech by me later. The minister has had notice of the question and I understand that he will accept it.
I ask the minister if he and the government have given any consideration to including honey as a product which will be covered by this legislation. I ask this question on behalf of the honey producers, particularly those in the Peace River country, who have by blood, sweat and tears made a viable industry, producing a product which hon. members have some reason to know is of high quality through distributions which were made.


Eugene Whelan: We have received representations from the honey producers. As I said earlier in my short presentation to the House, no commodity is excluded from protection; but it is difficult to include a perishable product as a named commodity without a special kind of program being created. However, if the honey producers want to present a program to us showing their marketing abilities, etc., I am sure it will receive careful consideration, and the product could be placed under the authority of this bill, by order in council.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to debate Bill C-50 may I first point out that, naturally, I was very interested in the minister's remarks and in particular pleased to hear him say that interested groups would be welcome to appear before the committee when this bill is studied there. Right across this country today a great debate is taking place in the farm communities, and perhaps even in some of the larger cities, regarding farm income security, which principle is conceived in wide

Agricultural Stabilization Act
terms and generally accepted. The challenge to parliament is how to bring it about so that, as the minister said, it will not cost the government too much, it will provide farmers with security and ensure that consumers can obtain food at a reasonable cost, a concern which has been frequently voiced by consumers in the past year or so.
Therefore, I am pleased to know that this bill will be debated at length, because if a debate is going on in the country the same subject should be debated here where the people's representatives have a chance to amend this legislation or to bring in new legislation to meet the concerns of the people. The minister said that this is a great bill, with wide ramifications. I do not consider this bill to be all that great, nor does it attempt to solve many of the problems faced by the agricultural industry in Canada today. Bill C-50 amends the Agricultural Stabilization Act which came into effect some 17 years ago, back in 1957. At that time it specified the nine major commodities which would be covered by the act.
With the relatively slow rate of inflation at that time, it was felt that a ten-year period for establishing the base price of a commodity was practicable. A mandatory support level of 80 per cent was established for those commodities in 1957. It makes sense that if you cannot control inflation, legislation must be adjusted. That is what this bill proposes to do. When the minister says that the bill is a major improvement because it reduces the base period from ten years to five years, let me point out to him that it is not a major improvement but an absolute necessity. If the country's economy continues to inflate at 16 per cent or 17 per cent a year, I am not sure that the five-year period proposed in the bill is short enough.
If we could be assured of some kind of stability in the economy, I would say that five years is ample, but in view of the inflationary spiral this period should be shortened. The minister himself said that the ten-year period laid down in the act was too long and that in the last two years the program has not worked. This was apparent in the last two years. Therefore, I think the minister should reconsider the five-year period and perhaps shorten it to two years on the basis of his own figures.
I should like to make a few comments about the percentage of support which should be mandatory. As I said previously, in 1957 the act provided for mandatory support of 80 per cent. It is a well known fact today that it takes a large amount of money to produce anything in an industry as labour-intensive industry as agriculture. To cut down on the amount of labour, machinery must be purchased. It is extremely difficult to get men and women to work on farms today as they did 30 or 40 years ago, and therefore farmers are forced to use machinery to replace manpower. It is obvious that with the greater use of machinery, production and efficiency are increased.
There is a question which I should like to put to the minister. I listened closely to him when he said that 90 per cent support by the federal government was mandatory. Am I to understand that provincial support and the support of producer organizations would be on top of that? Am I to understand that the federal government will not go higher than 90 per cent?


Eugene Whelan: No, that is not so.


Mr.   Homer@: I am glad to hear the minister say that assumption is wrong, otherwise I would have castigated him severely because I believe that from time to time there are commodities which because of economic and regional pressures should receive more than 90 per cent support. I would like to think that the federal government is not limited to 90 per cent. Certainly 90 per cent is the floor; however, it is only that for the mandatory commodities. What Bill C-50 is doing is reducing the mandatory commodities. It is taking wheat, butter, cheese and eggs out of the act. We started out with nine commodities and now we are left with five. So, really, when the minister says to the agricultural communities in this country that this is a revolutionary and far reaching bill, he must realize that it also narrows down the responsibility of the federal government to the agricultural industry.
We started with nine mandatory commodities and we are ending with five-four less than we had. It is all well and good for the minister to say that the commodities which are being taken out are covered in some other way, but we are actually dealing with six commodities out of the nine, not four as I mentioned, because wheat, oats and barley will be covered by Bill C-19. Does that legislation give the same 90 per cent coverage? When saying that cheese and butter are covered by the Dairy Commission, we must ask ourselves if there is any guarantee that they will cover cheese and butter. Is there any written guarantee in the Dairy Commission legislation? Some of us would like to think there is. There may be a moral obligation, but that is about all; there are no guarantees.
Consider the famous egg question. Eggs will no longer be covered by this stabilization bill. Let us consider what the minister said, quite rightly, that eggs are protected under the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act. What kind of guarantee is there in this agency with respect to eggs? Is there as good a guarantee as in the Agricultural Stabilization Board? Here, again, I have to say no, there is not. What assistance has the Farm Products Marketing Agency received from the government? It received $100,000 to become incorporated and to start buying eggs, and that is all. What does it cost the provinces? I do not know what it costs Ontario and Quebec, the large producers in the egg business, but I know what it costs the province of Alberta. The provincial egg marketing agency in the province of Alberta started the year with a surplus of $160,000. After it had paid its dues to CEMA it was in the red by $447,000. That totals a little better than $600,000. If the Farm Products Marketing Agency had the same support as the Stabilization Board, the federal government would be picking up part of that cost.
The $600,000 which applies to Alberta was for 8 per cent of the total market. One has to ask how widely supported they were. What support did the Agricultural Stabilization Board give to the egg agency, the minister's great dream? The minister is now changing it from 80 per cent to 90 per cent. He could have increased it to 102 per cent, 120 per cent or 130 per cent in the past year if he had wanted to help the egg agencies and CEMA to operate. He did not. The floor price on eggs, in 1974, under the Agricultural Stabilization Board was 3014 cents, and that was the bare
March 5, 1975

mandatory limit of 80 per cent. The ten-year average was 38.2 cents a dozen.
The minister did not use the authority he had under the act and increase the percentage to help the egg agencies and the egg producers across Canada. He was not interested. He thought the Farm Products Marketing Agency could handle it. That agency put the bite on the egg producers. Alberta egg producers would have to charge 6'A cents per dozen on eggs alone to pay the debt to CEMA for one year's operation. That 6 lA cents per dozen is about 10 per cent of the price the producer receives for his grade A eggs. That takes most of the profit out of egg production. What percentage of eggs are breakers, and what does 6'A cents do to the price of breakers? It means something like 20 per cent.
If the minister thinks he can hoodwink anyone by suggesting that this bill has wide-ranging ramifications and that it will be the answer to agricultural problems, he is mistaken, because he could have helped the egg producers of Canada without this bill. Why didn't he; that is the question that should be asked by the egg producers across Canada if they come before the committee. They should be asking why the government was not interested in helping them in setting up the Farm Products Marketing Agency to handle poultry and eggs. The minister thinks he can divorce himself from responsibility for those commodities. In his speech this afternoon he said something about supply management being the answer. Supply management has been tried, without government help, and it did not work very well. The government, with the present minister, I suppose can enjoy some degree of popularity among farm communities, but when the truth is known about their callous disregard for our farm communities, as they demonstrated to the egg producers, they may not be quite so popular.
What is the aim of Canada in respect of agriculture? I think it is the aim of many countries to be as self-sufficient in food as possible. We discovered that in the sugar industry. We found world sugar prices rising. We had no cushion or guarantee whatsoever because we only produce about 9 per cent or 11 per cent of our sugar requirements, mainly through sugar beet in Manitoba and Alberta. I think every country attempts to become self-sufficient in agricultural production. It is one of the first things a developing country attempts to do. We must also look at the world in which we are producing food. We must ask ourselves whether we have an obligation to produce more than we need for our own requirements. If we have the ability to produce, should we encourage that production so we can get into other markets and help the many starving and less fortunate people throughout the world? I think that a country as rich in resources as Canada should proudly indicate that it is prepared to help. We should use our resources to help the world meet its food requirements.
Let us consider the present and the expected world population. I think by the year 2000 the world population will have more than doubled. However, the area required to produce food will not have increased and in fact may well have decreased with the urbanization of some areas in the United States and Canada using up valuable agricultural land. Canada should aim to be as self-suffi-
Agricultural Stabilization Act
cient as possible and make an attempt to get its products into world markets. If that responsibility is accepted, a very long and careful look at this question of supply management must be taken.
I can understand the concern of many people over the cost of agricultural products today. Huge amounts of money are needed to capitalize, to increase production and to create greater efficiency of production. I can understand the desire for income security on farms because of the amount of money borrowed, the amount of money spent and the high interest paid on debts. But I say that if we accept the obligation we must take a long look at the concept of supply management. When I consider the Agricultural Stabilization Board, some of the mandatory commodities, how well we have done and how much money we have poured into certain aspects of agriculture, I wonder whether that money has really promoted more production or whether it has had a tendency to decrease production.
One of the industries most often referred to is the dairy industry. I have the figures here to show how much money was spent to maintain it. I am not going to put them on the record, Mr. Speaker, because as a member of this House for 17 years I am ashamed of them. The money spent has not maintained the industry. A few years ago the province of Alberta was losing four dairy farmers every day, and I think that figure was pretty well representative of the whole of Canada. As legislators, we must ask ourselves why we are still losing the industry in spite of all the money that was spent on it. I do not think I have eaten Canadian butter in my own home in the past two years, Mr. Speaker; it has all been New Zealand butter.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr.   Homer@: Yes, I think it is a shame.


An hon. Member:: You could buy Canadian butter.


Mr.   Homer@: I suppose I could if I went to the hon. member's province, but the stores around my home do not sell Canadian butter.


Eugene Whelan: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has risen for the purpose of asking a question. This can only be done with the consent of the hon. member.


Mr.   Homer@: Certainly.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member is aware that on the average, industrial milk producers in Canada get $2.80 per 100 pounds more than producers in the United States at the present time. Also, that there is an increase in milk production now.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I am not arguing about how much farmers are paid. I said I had the figures here. But we as legislators must question the manner in which the money is spent, if we are still losing the industry. What is wrong? That is what I want to know, and I hope in the debate on this bill that question will be dealt with. Why

March 5, 1975
Agricultural Stabilization Act
have we spent so much money and yet continue to lose dairy farmers all across the country?
The minister admitted that our neighbour to the south is our main competitor in the agricultural market. They are going all-out to produce as much as they can. Just a few years ago the United States had a program which paid their farmers not to produce. They also had a land retirement program through which some 60 million acres were retired, but it is now back in extensive agricultural production. They are being encouraged to put the land back into production because that country has a balance of payments problem with regard to energy. They want to sell agricultural goods throughout the world to offset their high expenditures in energy. We must recognize that they are a keen competitor.
It is all very well for this bill to give mandatory support and have the object of farm income security, but this should not be at the expense of efficiency on the farm. I am a farmer and I know how farmers hate the word "efficiency", but I am speaking generally of the agricultural industry. I am very concerned when I hear of Australian cattle selling for eight cents, nine cents or ten cents per pound. I wish I could do something about their costs, but I cannot. We should be able to do something about costs in this country, however, to ensure that we remain competitive throughout the world.
We should be as self-sufficient in agriculture as possible, but we cannot isolate ourselves from the trading communities of the world. From time to time we may put a temporary embargo on commodities coming into Canada in order to provide some protection to the industry. For instance, strawberries should only be allowed into British Columbia after their crop is in. We should not allow dumping of agricultural commodities in this country. But we should recognize legitimate competition. If the object of this bill is to isolate our community from the rest of the world, that is a step in the wrong direction.
It is up to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to help the industry remain as competitive and as efficient as possible. When the Agricultural Stabilization Act was passed, its purpose was to shore up the industry from time to time. The nine commodities it covered were considered to be those that affected our agricultural economy; butter, cheese, eggs, wheat, hogs, sheep and cattle all had an economic effect on our various regions and, indeed, on the whole of Canada. This bill narrows the responsibility.
The minister spoke of Canada's aim. This is something which concerns me also, Mr. Speaker. Having chosen agriculture as my vocation, I am very proud of that way of life. As more and more capital is required, agriculture becomes pretty big business; and when that happens perhaps some of the zest for that way of life is lost. I think the minister's remarks on this bill should be examined. It is not good enough for him to be suddenly concerned about the potato industry.


Eugene Whelan: I used that as an example.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister's remarks about the price of potatoes in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are too little and too late. Potatoes have been around for a long time, and in the past they have been supported by the Agricultural Stabilization Board. If the minister had been

as concerned as he would have people believe, he could have given the industry support without coming to parliament. He did not have to wait. He must have known the situation because surely the figures were available. It does not take a genius to realize that if it costs $600 an acre to grow potatoes in New Brunswick and the farmer receives only $200, he cannot survive. If the government had been really concerned about the potato industry it did not need to wait for Bill C-50 to offer some help. The same thing is happening with potatoes as happened with eggs. The minister tried to put that matter in the hands of another board. Another board is not the answer. The aims of Canada and the Minister of Agriculture have to be guided. Let us consider the cattle industry. I did not particularly want to speak about that industry because I am involved in it and some people claim one becomes self-motivated when looking at one's own industry. The minister blundered about in that industry for a whole year with on again, off again subsidies.
A couple of weeks ago I asked the minister in the House for some assurance with regard to the 42 cents a hundred on beef. I asked whether that assurance was being given to the beef industry. The minister replied yes, it was. I then made the modest request that it be averaged twice a year. The minister's answer is recorded in Hansard: he said "impossible". I was so dumbfounded that I did not ask a supplementary question. I thought there must be something wrong and I would ask the question the next day. In committee, I put that suggestion to the livestock people of the minister's department. They said, "No, it is not impossible. We are averaging it every month right now." Certainly it could be done every six months. It is a question of not doing it too often and not having to make the payments too often. It is a value judgment. Being civil servants, I knew it was not their judgment as to how often would be too often, but surely the minister cannot say that every six months is too often. Some provincial ministers of agriculture would like this to be done quarterly. I have nothing against doing it quarterly. I am perhaps more generous and understanding of the minister's problems. Every six months would satisfy me and I am certain it would satisfy the agricultural industry.


Eugene Whelan: I told you we are reviewing it.


Mr.   Homer@: The minister says he is reviewing it. That is what he told the potato producers of Prince Edward Island. That is what he told the egg producers after it had cost them $75 million.


Eugene Whelan: They have never had better prices for their
eggs.


Mr.   Homer@: Last year it cost the egg producers $75 million. Only $100,000 came out of the pocket of the federal government. It is not good enough to come along after the fact. The minister should be on his toes. The Stabilization Board gives him plenty of authority and plenty of time. Last fall I spoke about the problems in the cattle industry. I said in this House that the minister should pay $50 a head with respect to every cow that goes to slaughter. Possibly the minister could have obtained some assistance
March 5, 1975

on that from the provincial governments. It would have been a step in the right direction. It would have removed a certain number of cows from the market. We would then have been able to look at 1975 in a more confident way. It was all well and good for the minister to come along last September with a two-bit program on cow slaughter. It was really a 2 per cent program; 2 per cent of the cow herd over three months.


Eugene Whelan: It is $8 a hundred more than they are getting in the United States.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister should check his figures. Yesterday his officials told me it was $6.70.


Eugene Whelan: I am going on the average for that length of time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In any event, it was a 2 per cent program that was introduced in December. It will only last until April 1. It should have been brought out in September. It is no good having a minister of agriculture who looks and talks like a farmer but does not have the ability to stay ahead of the agricultural industry. It is easy to criticize the minister's program and say it is too little and too late. Provincial ministers of agriculture came to Ottawa in the past year asking the federal Minister of Agriculture to show some leadership because this is a national problem.
The minister made a rather interesting speech this afternoon. He said that under Bill C-50 the program can be regionalized. I think that is good, because that has been part of the problem in the past. For example, the embargo on potatoes in the maritimes hurt the maritimes, Alberta and other parts of the country. I listened to the minister closely when he said we can regionalize. However, he said the maritimes must realize that the region will include Quebec and Ontario. I am sure the maritime members would welcome the chance to govern Quebec and Ontario, but that is hardly regionalizing.


Eugene Whelan: It is.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister says it is. Well, he can go to the maritimes and tell them it is regionalizing. He can go to the farmers in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island and tell them how this regionalizing will give them income security. Quebec producers of potatoes can outproduce those in New Brunswick. There is no regionalizing.


Eugene Whelan: They have to be together.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister says they have to be together. That is an amazing statement. Anybody looking at a map of Canada can see that is not possible.


Eugene Whelan: Co-operation can solve anything.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It may solve everything, but don't go around saying that under Bill C-50 the program can be regionalized.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who has the
floor?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Agricultural Stabilization Act


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I appreciate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) trying to defend me. I am going to end my remarks because I realize my time has nearly expired. As we look ahead there will be many challenges to face. The energy crisis caused some problems in agricultural production. Japan and Germany have ceased to take any more agricultural products than they absolutely need to feed their nations. However, we must also realize that the energy crisis that is causing problems for the industrial world is bringing money to underdeveloped countries. They will be able to buy agricultural commodities and we will be able to sell to them.
The minister said it is very difficult for the government to buy products under some kind of support program because you cannot then give them away. He said you cannot do this, and you cannot do that. I say there is no difficulty whatsoever. The government can buy all the goods it wants. There is no problem in canning meat; it has been done before. There is no problem in buying potatoes from Prince Edward Island or Alberta; it has been done before.


Eugene Whelan: What are you going to do with them?


Mr.   Homer@: I just said the underdeveloped countries will have money. They will demand food. They will want a higher standard of living. The government has bought these products before. It has bought potatoes and it has bought pork. I quote from the 1973-74 annual report of the Agricultural Stabilization Board:
Quantities of board potatoes were processed into starch-
Why can the minister not do this now? Why did he not do it last December when prices were falling? I say to the minister that the underdeveloped countries will have money. Take Nigeria, for example. That little country which is almost in the centre of Africa produces as much, if not a little more, oil than Canada. It has no means of using that amount of oil. It is for sale. Nigeria is going to be wealthy, and it will be wanting food. We can produce and we can also turn off production. Farmers want to produce. That is why they go into agriculture. They want to see things grow. They want to run their hands through the soil to see what it will produce.
It is the same with livestock men; they want to see animals grow; they want to produce more animals. Don't turn the farmers off by saying, "I don't know what to do with these potatoes. I don't know what to do with these cows." The government must show some imagination. Between 1972 and 1974 the minister enjoyed a great deal of support in cabinet. Since then the hon. gentleman's popularity has declined. They do not need him now, so they are cutting down the amount in his pocketbook. He can no longer envisage great programs. He asks, "What shall we do with these potatoes?" He brings a bill before parliament and describes it as the most revolutionary legislation in the free world. Mr. Speaker, legislation will not solve the problems of the agriculture industry. Heart and desire will. The minister appears to be burdened with a great load; on some days he looks tired. Let us gear him up. We are prepared to push ideas at him and help him with his job.

March 5, 1975
Agricultural Stabilization Act


Eugene Whelan: Give us some ideas, then. I have not heard any from the hon. member.


Mr.   Homer@: What he now proposes is too little and too late. Let him get on with the job and show leadership in the field of agriculture. Do not turn off production but, rather, turn on production because the underdeveloped countries are waiting for this food.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, when the minister opened this debate I expected to learn about some new direction the government intended to take in order to improve the position of those engaged in agriculture. However, as the previous speaker has said, this bill is completely unnecessary; it does nothing that the old bill could not do, and it contains no new ideas. It sounds very much as though the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) had drafted it. It is merely a reworking of a bunch of words. The minister and the department will have to produce new solutions to agricultural problems.
When the first bill was introduced, prices of agricultural products were relatively stable; declining levels were relatively easy to calculate and predict. That is not the situation today. The government, by one means or another, has been able effectively to eliminate all surpluses in all agricultural commodities. This afternoon the minister talked about potatoes. There is no surplus in potatoes. What has happened is that in most parts of Canada potatoes are so expensive that people are not using the quantities they used in the past. It seems to me that when potatoes are selling to the public for 79 cents for five pounds, and when the farmers in the maritimes find there is no relationship between the price they are getting and the price paid by the consumer, there is something very wrong with the whole process and that the minister should be looking at it.


Eugene Whelan: What do you think we are doing?


William Arnold Peters: Well, if you are looking at it, it is not being reflected in legislation.


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member knows as well as I do that there is legislation on the books.


William Arnold Peters: I wish the minister had made his speech when he had the opportunity.


Eugene Whelan: You were not listening.


William Arnold Peters: The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has not made a speech for a long time, and the agricultural economy has changed drastically since I last heard him. I expected him to say something about these problems. If the minister wanted to pay a subsidy to farmers in the maritimes who are producing potatoes, all he had to do was pay it; the legislation providing for subsidies is wide open.


Eugene Whelan: We did it for seven years.


William Arnold Peters: Certainly it was done for a number of years. But why does the hon. gentleman not have the guts to do it now? Why must he wait until farmers are destroying potatoes which ought to be going to feed consumers who need them either in the domestic market or elsewhere?

The minister talks about an arrangement between Ontario, Quebec and the western provinces. In other words, he is not talking about regionalization at all. Regionalization implies dealing with the area in which the problem has arisen. This is what the minister should be doing, and he has not done it.
Frankly, this amendment to the stabilization legislation is not needed. The Agricultural Stabilization Act set no ceiling, no limits. The governor in council could put any price under potatoes he wished as long as it did not fall below the 80 per cent level on a ten-year average. The minister cannot say he was unable to make changes. He may not at present have the staff to enable him to do it, but it is certainly not because the act fails to provide him with the necessary authority.
We gather from the minister that he has unlimited access to the financial resources of the country, not subject to the control exercised by five of his senior cabinet colleagues. In that case, why does he not take action? It is not difficult to set a fair price. The minister could set the price for potatoes at 10 cents per pound; he would not find any flood coming back from other parts of Canada.


Eugene Whelan: Check the storage in Quebec, Ontario and the maritimes. It was about 40 per cent up, compared with last year.


William Arnold Peters: The minister says he has checked the storage in the maritimes and Quebec and that there is a large quantity of potatoes in store. He says there is a surplus. In that case, the surplus is not only in the maritimes; it is in the rest of the country as well. This does not mean he cannot put a decent price on potatoes. It does not mean the potatoes have to be fed to the pigs, as we did during the depression. People are paying high prices for potatoes in the stores.
Farm problems become compounded when there is a surplus and when the minister is unwilling to impose controls. Subsidizing the production of some commodities does not always solve problems. Let me refer to three commodities which were very much to the fore in days gone by-butter, skim milk and sugar beets. Sure we had problems with those commodities, and sure we solved those problems. How, Mr. Speaker? We discouraged production. Now there is a shortage of skim milk powder. Looking ahead, it is easy to foresee that not enough fluid milk will be produced in this country unless farmers are given some assurance that markets will be stable.
Today, the farmer is a specialist. In the old days he was content if he planted four or five acres to potatoes, to sugar beets, turnips and other crops. He grew his own corn, kept some beef cattle on the property, and about 500 hens. If he encountered problems, they had to do with only one or two commodities. What has happened? We established quotas and drove small butter producers out of business. At one time there were many farmers in Quebec. Ten or 15 years ago, in my area, there were 1,400 farmers; now, about 400 work about three-quarters of the original land. They work harder than ever and make less money than ever.
March 5, 1975

The other day I talked to a relatively prosperous farmer in my area who runs a farm operation worth between a quarter and half a million dollars. He said that he made more money from the interest on his bank deposits than from his farm operation last year. He made less than $10,000 from his farm. If we want to lend young farmers $150,000 as an inducement to take up farming, we must create the kind of climate in which farmers can make a living and pay the money back.
Also, we have a responsibility to consumers. We must make sure that farmers produce all the commodities which consumers use, and in sufficient quantity. Only if we give guarantees will farmers stay in business and produce food. What has been happening, Mr. Speaker? In Ontario not enough of certain commodities is being produced. For example, fluid milk production is down. It is possible that not quite enough is being produced. Not enough cheese is being produced and not enough butter. Oh, yes, we can stabilize production of these commodities, but at some cost. You stabilize markets by creating shortages. The Canadian Dairy Commission paid out, in the period 197374, about $143 million for industrial milk production. That is how much it cost us to stabilize a market.
The minister must know which commodities need stabilizing, which need designating and what are the problems in agriculture. Price, as well, can be designated. I do not think Canadians have complained about necessary farm subsidies. All the same, I do not think the minister has met his responsibilities adequately. Consider what has happened to cattle. Farmers listened to the government and slaughtered low grade cattle; the government provided a subsidy for top category cattle. Clearly, the cattle business needs help. The governments of Ontario, Quebec and the western provinces subsidized the cow-calf operator because he was the weak link in the beef production chain. Despite this help, the price of day-old calves dropped from a high, two years ago, of between $67 and $70 to a low of $2 and $3. This happened in my area. Although the provinces and the minister wanted to help the cattle industry, they did not do enough to help the cow-calf operator.
Perhaps the minister does not really understand agriculture; perhaps he only knows how to grow corn and soybeans. In any event, his attempts at stabilizing production have not always helped. In the case of eggs, government intervention was not helpful in the least. But one thing is clear: if you want agriculture to continue, you must give people incentives to stay in the agricultural business. Today our farmers, on average, are reaching the age of retirement. Most of them are over 50. Unless we entice young people into agriculture, it does not matter very much what we do about the price structure. What difference does a price structure make if you cannot induce people to take up an occupation in which they must work sometimes seven days a week for unlimited hours? If young people do not want to take on the job, there will not be an agricultural industry in this country's future.
Farmers are mors necessary than ever, because so-called industrialized farms do not work. Some time ago one heard a great deal of talk about vertically integrated farm operations or corporate farms which many thought would be a great success because of their supposed access to
Agricultural Stabilization Act
markets. Well, the experiment was tried and found to be not successful. My hon. friends from Quebec know of the experiment in the broiler industry. Farm corporations hired farms and farmers to look after the hens, gave them 10 cents per bird and supplied all the money for the operation. The farmer had to supervise the operation. The corporations rented the buildings, paid for the feed, bore all costs and were responsible for marketing. But, Mr. Speaker, such farm corporations time after time have gone broke. Clearly, farming does not lend itself to vertical integration. That is the case not only in this country but in other countries such as Russia where corporate farming does not work. You cannot run a farm on an eight-hour day. When the sun shines, you make hay, and when it rains-


An hon. Member:: You make love.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: Perhaps you whitewash the barn or you do something else. With government intervention in agriculture today, requiring income tax forms, farm reports, unemployment insurance payments, compensation payments and all the other things, the farmer has to spend all his rainy days doing the necessary bookkeeping rather than taking it easy. In any event, there has not been much success in corporate farming in this country or in other countries such as Russia, but that appears to be the direction in which the minister is moving. I suggest the alternative is simple. We must help young people to get into the agricultural industry, and to do that we must have stabilization of prices.
What is wrong with stabilized prices? What is wrong with the formula we used before? In the past we took 80 per cent of the ten-year average as the prescribed price for given commodities. Inflation has had its effect on this ten-year average and there is absolutely no relationship between the input costs to produce a farm commodity ten years ago and the input cost of producing that commodity today. Let me give an example. If you were feeding poultry ten years ago, you were probably buying feed concentrates at $35 or $37 a ton. Today the cost could be anywhere from $200 to $300 a ton. So there is no relationship. And, of course, we do not have indexing. This should not be accepted as an excuse for the government's inaction in respect of the use of the Agricultural Stabilization Act. Perhaps at the time this act was adopted the members were smart in that they did not put in a ceiling. When you stabilize things there is no need for a ceiling. This is within the minister's discretion and he can take into account the increase in input costs and the fact that the use of fertilizer has become more necessary and it is more expensive. It is very necessary to use fertilizer in order to produce on farms that have been in production for a long time.
We must develop a program to provide reasonably stable prices. I do not believe it is acceptable across the country to have the potato producers in the maritimes or in Ontario selling their product at such a loss that they will not be able to buy fertilizer for their crops next year. In fact, if there is any danger of a large portion of the potato

March 5, 1975
Agricultural Stabilization Act
crop being lost this year, many of those growers will not be able to buy the gasoline necessary next year to operate the equipment required to put in the crop.
I suggest that would not be in my interest, certainly not in the interest of the producers and, more importantly, not in the interest of the Canadian public. We will all depend on the production of potatoes next year, the year after and the year after that. If these producers leave the farm, they probably will not return. I do not see any evidence to indicate that this government realizes that in order to keep the young people in agricultural production, they will require a great deal of assistance. Unless we keep these people on the farms we will have shortages of potatoes and many other agricultural commodities.
It is a national disaster to have energy resources limited, because we will not be able to enjoy the kind of life we have enjoyed in the past. This is a very unfortunate situation and I am sure everyone will lament the end of a period of energy abundance. This does not have to be the case in respect of agricultural production because these commodities are renewable. We can increase production as long as we are willing to stabilize profits. Before the end of this debate I would like the minister to tell us why he has done nothing about the present problems in respect of potato production or the cow-calf operation. Why has he not done something about these situations?
From my understanding and experience, there is very little the minister cannot do to help the agricultural industry. I am not suggesting that he should take measures that will result in cutting off commodities from the United States, but any minister of agriculture who allows commodities to be dumped across the border into Canada at a lower price, or even at a competitive price, is not doing his job. The Minister of Agriculture should not allow another country to use Canada as a surplus warehouse for potatoes, tomatoes, root crops or anything else. As long as the minister allows that to happen, he is failing this nation which depends on our agricultural industry as a cheap source of food. Our industry has always provided Canadians with food at reasonable prices and the industry is still doing this.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy if the minister made a speech in closing this debate, before the bill goes to the committee, rather than ask questions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. The minister seeks the floor on a point of order.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member would not want to leave the wrong impression on the record. He suggested that poultry feed supplements today cost about $300 a ton. The highest price I can find on record for poultry supplements of any kind is $183, with soybean meal running at an average of $150 a ton. I just wanted to correct that figure as the hon. member suggested it was $300 a ton.


William Arnold Peters: I suppose it depends on what you are talking about, as there are many prices for concentrates. I was not really being specific; I was just trying to draw a comparison between input costs over the last ten years. If the

minister says that concentrates sell for $110 a ton, and will agree that they used to sell at $10, $15 or $20 a ton, that is all right with me. The minister apparently missed the point I was trying to make, so I had better say it again. Input costs have gone up out of proportion to the price of the commodity whatever it may be. If you take 80 per cent of the ten-year average, you are relating it to the selling price of the commodity but the input costs are not really taken into account.
This bill does have a clause for indexing, but that indexing is not tied to input or anything else. It seems to me that all it is saying is that there will be an indexing aspect, but even without that indexing clause the minister still has the right to stabilize prices. There was never any doubt that he could set the price of a particular commodity. We had a floor, but there was no ceiling on it. We could have continued to subsidize as high as necessary. That was a judgment the Stabilization Board made concerning the level. Over the years many commodities have been subsidized. We might look at the list which appears in the annual report. We find, for instance, that potatoes were subsidized. The report reads:
Order in Council P.C. 1972-8 of January 18, 1972, authorized the board to purchase a minimum of 200 hundredweight and a maximum of 1,333 hundredweight of Canada No. 1 grade potatoes from individual producers. Initial payment on acceptance of the board's offer to purchase was to be 75 cents per hundredweight to each eligible producer, plus an additional 75 cents per hundredweight on delivery to the board of all potatoes purchased by the board from the producer. Quantities of board potatoes were processed into starch, or fed to livestock, and the total expenditure in 1973-74, exclusive of the principal amounts paid in the 1971-72 and 1972-73 fiscal years was $35,927.
The subsidization was l'/2 cents. That does not seem to me to be any great bargain. I presume that because there was no particular fuss last year, it was a help; but it cost the Canadian public $35,000. If we could reduce the price of potatoes in the store by 20 cents on a ten-pound bag, we could pay the producer an extra three cents. It really does not make any difference to the consumer whether he pays it in the form of a tax or over the counter.
I do not believe we have done anything to solve these problems as they have developed. We have been too generous with our friends south of the border who have caused this country immense difficulty for many years. Now, in looking at GATT, it would seem that it is time we gave a new definition to "dumping" in this country. It has always been held that if hot-house tomatoes sell for 69 cents a tube, and tomatoes come in from the United States or Mexico, from the field, at a price in keeping with their own price and below our price, no assistance could be provided. So the stabilization bill over the years did provide assistance in this field. I think most members will support this bill. I believe it should be kept in mind, however, that in reducing the ten-year period to five years, if we cannot in some way compensate, by indexing for the rise in input costs to the farmer, and cannot bring that into relationship with the price he receives in the particular year for his commodity and use that as an index so we will be in a much better position to decide what is a fair price to the farmer and decide on it in conjunction with the farmer, we will not have the kind of stability we want.

The five-year average has not solved this problem. My impression is that indexing will not solve it. In effect, in respect of this bill we are agreeing that although we set a floor price there is in fact no mandatory floor price established for any commodities that are outside the designated commodities, and there is a floor price only for those designated commodities when they meet the requirements of the five-year average. That is totally out of line. It does not take into consideration the escalation of costs. It would appear to me that there is no way that the index, which is not spelled out in the legislation, can apply to that five-year average so as to create a solution to the problem I have indicated. If we look over the period in which the Stabilization Board has been in operation, and consider the fact that in those years we have paid roughly $1 Vi billion for the subsidization of agricultural commodities, and if we apply that to the assistance that has been provided to the individual from that payment, we will find it has been responsible to a large extent for keeping many of our farmers in production and has made it possible for them to continue in a viable industry.
It is interesting to look at what some of these products have been. The major one, of course, has been milk, mostly butter products. The amount in that case is $136 million. The amount in respect of skim milk is $15 million. In respect of milk for manufacturing the amount is $154 million, and for cream for manufacturing the amount is $83 million. Other products we have supported over the years received amounts considerably less that the amounts for that industry. These involved such things as hogs, in respect of which we paid $92 million so that the producers would remain in the hog production industry in this country. It is much easier to get into this type of production than it is to get out of it.
We have assisted producers in respect of lamb, wool and potatoes over a period of 16 years by paying almost $9 million to stabilize the prices. Here is an interesting one: we paid $38,805,119 to stabilize the sugar beet industry, yet this government allowed the closing of all the sugar beet factories in Ontario. While the government embarked on an open market sugar policy, it made it possible for only a few sugar beet plants to exist in Manitoba. This is a field in which we would have been able to provide a buttress against the world price of sugar. I am surprised that some friends of the minister did not tell him this when the industry closed in Ontario, because we were in a position where we could have produced, had we had the factories, probably 50 per cent of our own sugar without much difficulty.
In my opinion, this legislation has been a valuable asset to Canadian farmers. I also believe it has been a valuable asset to the consumers of Canada. It has enabled the government to provide assistance to agriculture in this country. Farmers have not become rich on any agricultural commodity in this country, not even on soybeans. Many times they have had to give up making payments on their farms so that they could provide Canadians with a cheap product. When things became really desperate we assisted them, but only in a very small measure, through the stabilization act.
Agricultural Stabilization Act
My criticism of both the old act and this bill is that it is left entirely up to the Minister who administers the act to decide whether or not an order in council will be passed, and whether it will be passed soon enough to be of assistance to farmers. Right now there are many young farmers who cannot make payments on their farms because they cannot sell their calves at a price that will carry the cost of the operation. I am sure that many producers of potatoes in the maritimes which sell at 1.5 cents per pound are not able to carry their production costs and therefore are not able to make their payments. These are two agricultural products on which the minister could ask for an order in council in cabinet tomorrow.
Under the act some things are prohibited, but the minister is certainly not prohibited from designating any commodity that he wants to designate, and set any price he thinks is appropriate. Another thing that has never been impossible to do is for this House to pass support legislation for agriculture, because all consumers in this country know very well that farming is a marginal operation which brings marginal returns, yet it has been providing consumers with food of a very high calibre, often at unreasonably low cost.
In closing, I would say that the minister should make the speech at the end of this debate that he neglected to make at the beginning. I have defended this minister day in and day out to farmers in my constituency. I say that as Minister of Agriculture he is responsible to farmers, and he is excercising this responsibility. But I say that responsibility to consumers belongs to another minister. Yet farmers ask me why, if the minister is responsible for looking after them, they are in such bad shape. I say this is a question that only the minister can answer. This bill would have allowed him to do many things which he has not taken the opportunity to do.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, it is always quite interesting to follow a debate dealing with problems in our farming industry. During the past few years, some strange things have been said on the condition of farmers. I remember among others that a former minister of agriculture had stated that a farmer merely needed four cows and two sows to realize a net income of $2,000 yearly. The minister was not re-elected, because nobody took his word. It is really absurd to say such things.
In my opinion, if it were so easy there would be no marketing problems for farm products. The problem highlighted during consideration of Bill C-50 has existed for many years. We are beating about the bush. We are looking for solutions and when they are found to be inefficient, they are altered and we then say that we will try over again if necessary.
This reminds of the day when, in the Standing Committee on Agriculture, the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) as a member of parliament, reminded the former minister of agriculture of a few things and asked him whether the alternative formula had been drawn up by economists or other civil servants. He added that economists have a gift for making us try a formula, of getting us down in the hole and then dropping us in it, but

March 5, 1975
Agricultural Stabilization Act
that they do not produce formulas allowing you to come out of it.
How true! Even today. To wit, the many studies made in Canada, by the provinces, commissions of all sorts, on farming problems. Reports have been tabled, studied; laws have been passed but the problem remains the same because we do not delve into the basic issues.
This is so true, Mr. Speaker, that during the 1957-58 session, at which time I myself was active as a farmer, we had marketing problems, if not total chaos, and we could not make up from the sale of our products our production costs, let alone make profits.
An election was held at that time. A program was submitted to the electorate by a party which assured us that legislation would be passed to stabilize farm incomes, farm product prices. We were quite happy. We followed closely the debate that took place in this House. It was a debate on the Agricultural Stabilization Act, Chapter A-9, that could be summed up as follows:
Considering the advisability of enacting provisions in order to stabilize farm product prices to help the agricultural industry get a fair return on its work and its investment, as well as to maintain a fair balance between prices received by farmers and the cost of commodities and services they buy, that is what will provide farmers with a fair share of the national income. It was the way I just quoted during the 1957-58 session.
We are now in 1975 and working to amend that act which did not give the results we had hoped for; we are now patching it up, and trying to amend it in the following way:
His Excellency the Governor General has recommended to the House of Commons the present measure to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act to amend in the manner prescribed the definition "agricultural commodity";
An agricultural commodity is not difficult to define. It includes all commodities produced by farmers, by agricultural producers. There are many of them, and I think all producers need to have some protection so as to be assured an income from that operation.
It goes on to say, and I quote:
to shorten from ten to five years the period from which the base price for each agricultural commodity is determined, and to alter in the manner prescribed the method of establishing the prescribed price in relation to a named commodity and in relation to a designated commodity;
I quite agree on setting up a period, I quite agree on shortening this study, because it would only be fair to the producers of today, to do away with the five years of starvation and low prices. Keeping this in the Act would not be fair to them.
In fact, what I find quite surprising is this: to enable the Board to exercise powers for the purpose of stabilizing the price of an agricultural commodity; under the circumstances prescribed to empower the Board to enter into agreements with provinces and/or producers to provide for a greater prescribed price that would otherwise apply and, for any increased costs to be borne by the province and/or producers;
I am somewhat surprised at finding that this board will determine prices on the basis of these factors. Will all

relevant factors actually enter into the calculation of production costs, and will this calculation be done by people who really possess the skill required and who will be able to submit figures which will not have to be reduced later by a given percentage, to conform with a price set beforehand and which would not be fair to the producers.
This is another factor on which the minister will have to provide much explanation when the bill is studied in committee, if we are to improve the present legislation, make it more efficient and more generous for producers, without neglecting consumers. We must have justice for everyone. But the purpose of the bill is first to protect farm producers.
The recommendation goes further when it says that the governor in council will be able to establish-
... ceilings on the quantity or value of an agricultural commodity eligible for price stabilization; and to provide for consequential
matters.
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to believe that it is necessary to determine the quality of agricultural commodities, to meet adequately consumers' needs. But I do not agree on a few points. Nowhere in this bill is it provided that this provision will also apply to imported products.
Again recently in the province of Quebec, and perhaps this happened also elsewhere, 1 don't know, we heard about poultry producers setting their own quotas and limiting their production. A few days ago they lowered their production quotas to meet the demand, the needs on the domestic market, and to maintain price stabilization just so they would make decent profits.
But they have been fooled. There are some people who have taken the liberty of importing similar products which come from our neighbours and are marketed in our country. This has resulted-and I hope this situation will be rectified before it is too late-in disrupted production. Our producers went ahead and barbecued their chickens in the street as a mark of protest. This has been a waste of food at a time when there are needs unsatisfied in many homes of our country and elsewhere. This we term disorder. And I take the opportunity of recommending to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) an amendment he might incorporate into the bill.
One cannot be too cautious. If we want the Minister of Agriculture and the Agricultural Stabilization Board to be in a position to operate and get results, they must have the tools, they must have teeth, to enable them to dig on whenever appropriate. I have already suggested to this House-and I think several members agree with me, that since the Minister of Agriculture is responsible for food production-he should see to it that food supplies are adequate to meet the needs of the whole population. He should also be allowed to exercise control over the importation and exportation of the products we might need. At the present time, another minister is exercising this control, although he does not have as many responsibilities in this field as the Minister of Agriculture has-


Roch La Salle: He is not taking them.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: The hon. member for Joliette says that he is not taking them. I am inclined to believe him, because when a question was put to him in

the House this week on this subject, he said he would look into it and report later.
Mr. Speaker, I want to believe that the ministers do not have to remember everything and be able to give point-blank answers to all the questions they might be asked. I understand that very well. But to such important questions as the one he was asked, I think a minister has the obligation to give the House a more satisfactory answer.
Mr. Speaker, in connection with the 1958 Act, section 2 did define the commodities covered by the legislation. Maple syrup had not been included. Well, Mr. Speaker, this is another suggestion I am making to the minister, in order that maple syrup, a natural produce, be included under the new legislation.
Several hon. members are aware that maple syrup producers now have serious difficulties. Many have not been able to get paid for their 1973 crop. Many have not been paid for the 1974 crop either and the 1975 crop is coming. These are agricultural producers whoinvested money but did not get any return. They are in a bad situation.
I understand that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) made an effort-and I thank him-to come to an agreement between his department and the Maple Syrup Producers Association, under which financial institutions can make cash advances to enable these people to stay in business. However, since the market situation is not excellent, as I could see, financial institutions did not accept to go along with the program and nobody could get money for these products.
The hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy) motions that it is not true. If I am mistaken I would be pleased to know it and if the situation is better, I will withdraw my words with pleasure. I am honest enough to do this.
I am told that there is now an agreement between Quebec and Ottawa for the purchase of these products. I hope that this time it well prove operative and that producers will be able to get their money as quickly as possible for their production. We shall see afterwards how to dispose of it because, after all, we are talking about sugar. With white sugar at 75 cents a pound, at least we should not have to pay that price for our own sugar- maple sugar-and it should be possible for us to find buyers here with a little promotion in all the provinces.
There is another matter with which I would also want to deal, that of middlemen. I am quite upset Mr. Speaker. As soon as an increase in the price of an agricultural product is announced, newspapers immediately print in large headlines that it is scandalous, as it has just happened in the province of Quebec. In February, Quebec's Agricultural Marketing Board decreed that whole milk would be sold 51 cents a quart as from March 1. There was a general outcry.
The public, the consumers were led to believe that they would be gouged mostly by those wicked producers, those bad farmers. There is a total lack of information. Education is needed in that regard.
Mr. Speaker, last weekend, I had the opportunity of meeting a group of farmers' wives and they asked me a question. Of course, those ladies are interested in the
Agricultural Stabilization Act
operation but are not necessarily involved in the production. They wanted to know why milk was selling at 51 cents a quart. I told them that, well, it was because we had to support diary farmers if we wanted to have milk to drink. If the producers get no money, they will quit. After they have gone out of business, we shall have to buy milk somewhere else and then pay $1 a quart. Would the situation be any better? I worked out this calculation for them: 51 cents a quart, 40 quarts per hundredweight, that puts the price per hundredweight at $20.40. I asked them: Can you tell me how much of the $20.40 goes to the producer? They did not know that he gets less than $12 per hundredweight. They were not aware of that. Who is pocketing the difference?
Another point: 8 oz. softdrink bottles cost a quarter each. Take 5 bottles to get a quart or 40 ounces and you get a cost of $1.25 per quart, or $50 per hundredweight. They only ingredients are water, sugar and colouring additives. There are no complaints about that. People pay $50 per hundredweight for those drinks. They buy them, but they no longer buy fluid milk at $12, Mr. Speaker.
It can therefore be taken for granted that the Food Prices Review Board will have plenty of work to do, not only with regard to farmers, but also with respect to groceries and shopping centres in order to check the quality and price of other commodities, make comparisons and check whether imported products which compete with Canadian products really are of the same quality and at the same price, and if they help save anything. That would be a fine assignment for the Plumptre Commission, and an efficient, meaningful task.
Mr. Speaker, a few amendments should be made to this bill. We shall certainly discuss them when it is studied in committee, but I should like first, since this is a matter of urgent necessity, to ask the Minister of Agriculture for some information dealing with the Commission appointed to inquire into beef and veal marketing. I wish we could get a report before the year 2000, because it is getting urgent.
The present situation is disastrous: consumers probably pay less for beef, but how much do producers get as compared to last year?
I would like to back my remarks with strong arguments showing that producers, even if sometimes people accuse them of being bleeding hearts, do sometimes have reasons to complain, and that can be proven by comparing the following two stages: February 1974 and February 1975 with respect to the cost of beef as reported in La Terre de Chez Nous. For instance, a bull sold for $36.50 in February 1974 and only $19.25 in February of this year. Has there been an equivalent reduction at Steinberg's and Dominion. I would not think so. Anyway, price have sunk down by approximately that amount for the producers.
Take, for instance, the No. 3 cow: in 1974, it was sold for $38.75 a hundred, and in 1975, $18.75 a hundred, that is $20 less. The difference is substantial. Did feed grain prices change during the same period? The answer is also important. Well, in 1974, the price of barley in Montreal was $5.67 a hundred, and oats, $5.46. In February 1975, it rose to $6.26 a hundred for barley and $6.17 for oats. Production costs go up while the sales price goes down. As a result, the difference between the cost of production and the cost
3824

March 5, 1975
Agricultural Stabilization Act
price widens continually. No wonder our young people do not want to become farmers.
We have also seen a shocking increase in the price of farm machinery, and a commission, the Barber Commission, conducted an inquiry in that field. It did an excellent job, and if its report is to be implemented, there must be an agreement between the Canadian government and the other countries where our farm machinery imports are manufactured. And nothing is happening there either. The recommendations in the Barber report are not being implemented, and companies make fabulous profits at the expense of the buyers, our Canadian farmers. For this reason, things are getting worse instead of getting better.
Another area of tremendous interest to Canadian producers is that of fertilizers. What should be done? We were taught to use fertilizers. Our agronomists, after tests made in experimental farms, taught us their use. Of course, they work, they promote growth. But we are now realizing that the chemicals we are now buying at unreasonable cost are harmful to men, because they pollute the water that goes into our rivers. Our cattle have to drink that water, they graze on fast-growing grass through the use of fertilizers. This gets into their flesh, into the milk of cows, and affects human health. But that is not the problem we face today. The problem is that fertilizers are so expensive this year that many farmers will not be buying enough in proportion to their acreage. I fear a decrease in the production of feed grain. And if this happens, it is possible that next fall, more herds will disappear. Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter. A number of producers are killing their calves. They do not keep them more than an hour. That production will not be in the market next fall. The situation is far from brilliant for those people. They do not know whether they must breed them or not, because they are not ensured a price which will allow them some return. I know what I am talking about. I do visit farms, and I am not afraid or ashamed of doing so. So I know what happens. It is for that reason that I ask the minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to urge the Commission to inquire into beef and veal marketing. We must not wait until the amendments to the agricultural stabilization board are effective. We must act now. Tomorrow, it may be too late.
There is another area on which I would like us to be on the watch and to look closely: In the course of the hearings of the special committee on egg marketing, Mr. Speaker, we examined very closely the matter of production costs. We heard many witnesses who showed us with figures what is the real production cost of a dozen of eggs. We have also heard the representatives of the Consumers' Association of Canada who showed us that they cannot afford to pay more for the eggs they have to buy for their family. But there is another "gimmick" between consumers and producers, and I would like us to examine this "gimmick", this sanctuary, in order to find out what happens in there.
I am not talking about the small retailer or the corner grocer, absolutely not. He is not the one who sets the prices; he has no authority to do so. He must pay what he is charged, and since he has paid, he wants to make a reasonable profit. It is the powerful, those we do not see,

the big companies, the magnates, and all those who know all the tricks to take over the production, store it, control it and market it at prices that they have set. Not many of these companies have gone bankrupt, but many small ones do go bankrupt. Why? Because small undertakings are powerless, because they must submit to the cartel set up by the big companies.
If we really want to go to the bottom of things, Mr. Speaker, I believe we should really have an independent body with as much courage as Mr. Justice Robert Cliche in Quebec. There is a courageous man, apparently he is doing his duty, and I congratulate him for it. I wish there were at the national level a commission with that kind of courage, headed by a chairman with the same courage, to go to the bottom of things, to tell the consumers that it is not the farm producers who are guilty if the price of food products keeps going up, and to point out to them the true culprit so that the consumers and the producers could come to an understanding and support a government which would bring law and order in this area and which would be ready to face up to the situation.
Unfortunately, we often are under the impression that our governments are weak when faced with the strong and strong when faced with the weak and it should be the opposite. We should have courageous governments who are strong when faced with the strong and who would treat them as equal. Governments should say: You are strong; I am strong because of democracy, because I have been elected, because I have been chosen to play such a role and be understanding for the weak, the low income families, the poor, those who are defenseless. If a government were understanding, if it helped those people, no one would complain.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding my remarks I hope that the Minister of Agriculture understood at least the two amendments I would like to be made to Bill C-50. I do not want to be critical; on the contrary, I do it to make my contribution so that the bill may be more comprehensive, that the legislation may be more efficient and that civil servants may get the tools needed to function and achieve the mission we wish to give them under this legislation. I shall come back to this matter in due time when we shall review it in committee. I hope that once we have reviewed this legislation together, suggested ideas to improve it and accomplished our duty, we shall be able to expect more efficiency from this legislation so that producers may be finally satisfied. Consumers will know at last to whom they pay and why they pay.


Mr. Frank Maine (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my farmers tell me that there is no question that this bill is an important step in the right direction. There are three provisions that constitute a particular improvement: first, shortening the base period on which support is calculated from ten years to five years; second, increasing from 80 to 90 per cent the percentage of the base prices which will be guaranteed; third, indexing the support levels to reflect changes in production costs. Perhaps the most promising aspect of this legislation, however, is that provision which provides for the development of federal-provincial agreements to co-ordinate the federal programs in this area with provincial programs and which anticipates the de-
March 5, 1975

velopment of programs with joint federal, provincial and producer participation.
More and more provinces have been developing their own farm stabilization measures. There is a growing need for someone to step in an co-ordinate these activities. British Columbia has an income stabilization plan in operation; Saskatchewan is planning to extend its grain stabilization scheme; Quebec seems to be considering a major project to guarantee the income of milk producers. The amendments in this bill will make it possible for the federal government to co-ordinate and integrate its measures with these provincial programs into a package, with maximum effectiveness. By providing for programs with producer participation, these amendments will make it possible for producers to be involved in stabilizing their own industry. This, too, is a step in the right direction.
I represent a constituency which produces one of the widest varieties of agricultural products in this country. To keep in close contact with those of my constituents in agriculture, after I was elected I set up an agricultural advisory committee with 14 members who, together, represent all the different types of farms in Wellington constituency and cover the whole area geographically. I would like to acquaint this House with my advisory group to show how members can maintain close contact with the farmers and, therefore, assess how valuable this legislation will be to them. The chairman of my committee is a young farmer, a recent graduate of the Ontario Agricultural College of the University of Guelph, who farms 600 acres in Guelph township. Petter Hannam, of R.R.2,
< Guelph, is a past president of the Wellington County Federation of Agriculture and is presently a director of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and chairman of its resource development committee.


An hon. Member:: I bet he is a socialist.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: I bet he is a Liberal.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: He is not a lawyer, anyway. He certainly contributes a lot more to the country than do a number of members of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Did he write that speech?


Francis William (Frank) Maine: On this committee, in R.R.6 Guelph, is Gordon Crow who raises beef cattle and pigs on a hundred acres. Not all the pigs are in my riding, though.


Some hon. Members:: Right on!


Francis William (Frank) Maine: In R.R.5, Guelph, Jack Gilchrist raises corn and barley and beef cattle on 200 acres. In R.R.l, Puslinch, Ken Gunson farms 90 acres near Morriston with potatoes as the prime crop as well as corn and hogs. We are familiar with the potato problems being experienced down east. They affect us, too, in Ontario. Cedric Harrop, of R.R.7, Guelph, markets 1,800 hogs per year. I am sure all members are aware of the difficulty experienced by hog producers in the past year in making ends meet. In R.R.2, Guelph, Robert Harvey raises hens. He has a capacity for
Agricultural Stabilization Act
16,000	laying hens but is not presently producing at capacity. We have experienced at first-hand the problems which have arisen in connection with the CEMA operation. Quotas have been cut back and Mr. Harvey is presently producing well below capacity.
In R.R.6, Guelph, Edgar Hutton raises beef cattle and hogs; he has 400 acres planted to corn and wheat. We in our riding are concerned about land utilization, and this gentleman is a member of the Puslinch Township Planning Board and of the Wellington County Land Division Committee, aimed at ensuring that prime agricultural land continues to be kept for agriculture and that food will be available for consumers both today and in the future. In R.R.l, Rockwood, George Leslie raises pork, beef and sheep on 130 acres. Earl Osborne, in R.R.5, Rockwood, raises 130 head of purebred Holstein cattle on 400 acres. Murray Smeltzer, in R.R.3, Rockwood, produces cream and raises hogs and beef cattle on 45 acres in Eramosa township.


An hon. Member:: Have you got any more constituents?


Francis William (Frank) Maine: In R.R.l, Ariss, Ed Thompson farms 350 acres of corn. He also operates a fertilizer dealership. We are well aware of the difficulties the fertilizer industry has caused to farmers by reason of its rapidly escalating prices. Marshall Vanderhout, of R.R.l, Waterdown, has three acres under glass and in his greenhouses he grows tomatoes and long, seedless cucumbers. The greenhouse industry is facing serious difficulties brought about by the increase in the cost of heating oil, in particular. Hon. members will appreciate that in the greenhouse industry fuel costs are the major item of expenditure.
In R.R.l, Millgrove, John Veltkamp is another egg producer. He is at the southern end of my riding. His operation has a layer capacity of 10,000 hens. He, too, is fully aware of the great efforts which must be made if Canada is to have a viable egg producing and egg marketing industry. Dick Weatherston rounds out my agricultural advisory committee. He is in R.R.2, Dundas, and farms 160 acres. He specializes in dairy cattle and has 60 Holsteins. He also has experience with hog raising. These men are all involved in crop associations having to do with the commodities in which they are most interested. Consequently, they are able to reflect the views of their colleagues as well as their own views.
Women are on the farm, too, and they help their husbands. Children, too, continue to work on the family farm. All members of the family contribute to the work on the family farm, as hon. members well know.


Mrs. Campagnolo:: They know their place.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Francis William (Frank) Maine: Husbands, wives, children-it doesn't matter as long as they help produce food. These men are the representatives of my farmers. They have experience of a number of crops, as I have mentioned. They include wheat, corn, beef cattle, pigs, barley, potatoes, eggs, sheep, milk, cream-


An hon. Member:: Grits.
28996 - 3714

March 5, 1975
Agricultural Stabilization Act


Francis William (Frank) Maine: -fertilizer, tomatoes, cucumbers and dairy cattle. This is a good, representative cross-section of farm products produced in Canada. I have made sure that all these people have received copies of the bill we are considering. The feedback I get convinces me they are in favour of this kind of measure. I think it is important to ask the people who are directly concerned what they think. I am confident the farming community will welcome this measure.
A bill which improves farm stabilization policy is also of benefit to consumers. The food industry is of key importance not only to farmers but to all consumers. Measures such as this improve the reliability and efficiency of Canada's long-term food supply. They moderate the sudden fluctuations in the market which can lead to alternate shortages and surpluses, and in so doing they ensure a stable and growing Canadian food industry. This benefits all Canadians and protects them from actions such as have been taken with respect to oil and sugar, where we rely on imports to supply our markets.
Last fall, the United States undersecretary for agriculture spoke to a group of Canadian farmers in Hespeler, Ontario. He outlined his own country's plans to set aside a $10 billion fund to bail out American farmers. There is no way in which we can compete with this, but the American proposal underlines the need to look after our own producers who could be swamped by surpluses from across the border. The egg and beef producers have already been faced with this situation. More than ever before, we must work hard and quickly to maintain a strong agricultural industry in Canada.


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on Bill C-50 I can only call it a disaster bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


George H. Whittaker: I hear members on the other side saying "Oh!" But it was brought in years ago as an insurance for the farmers. It has served as disaster insurance. Take the bill the minister is bringing in now and compare it with the bill he is amending; you will find there is very little difference. The main difference is that he is reducing the ten years to five years, and taking the 80 per cent and bringing it up to 90 per cent. This is not even in the class of being what stability is all about in this day and age.
It would not be so bad if the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) had not been stomping the country telling farmers he was going to bring in a stabilization plan which would mean stability for farmers. This legislation does not begin to compare with what some of the provinces are doing. We went to the agricultural congress in 1969 and again in 1970. The congress was called by the government because the farmers were saying the government had no agricultural policy. The farmers are still saying it. The main theme of those meetings was the need for stability in the industry. This government has done absolutely nothing to bring about stability. Now we find that the tired old stabilization plan is being amended. The farmers are being asked to accept it as a plan for bringing about stability.

At one time farming in Canada used to be a way of life. There was a much greater percentage of people on farms in previous years than now; in the neighbourhood of 30 per cent of our population was in farming. That percentage has been dwindling, until now less than 10 per cent of our people are on the farm. One of the reasons people are turning away from farming is that it is hard to make a go of farming; it is hard to make a go of that way of life. So now the people who are left on the farms are dedicated to farming and we find that they are in upper age brackets. This cannot go on. We must make an effort to bring young people into farming and replace older farmers, because older farmers just cannot go on forever.
The farmer of today is established, organized, knowledgeable, and he wants to produce. Not only does he want to produce; he can produce. The Minister of Agriculture was going around the country saying to farmers, "Produce all you can." They did. Then he went to the horticultural council and said that potato growers in New Brunswick are in trouble because they produced too much. He has spoken on many occasions about stabilization, but in many ways he has done absolutely nothing to bring about stability in the price of commodities farmers produce. He compared this year's New Brunswick Farm production with last year's. I do not think this year's was much above average.
Farmers in Canada are nervous about producing surpluses. They are nervous because of the ups and downs which have been experienced in agriculture over the years. They do not particularly want to carry on agricultural operations which are subject to these kinds of ups and downs. They see others in Canada insulating themselves against inflation. Others belong to unions, and have bargaining agents, which help them to insulate themselves.
Farmers can see that the buyers of their produce are few in number; their power is concentrated in very few hands. They know who sells most of their produce to the consumer chain stores. They know, for instance, that in the fruit and vegetable industry buying power is concentrated in the hands of about seven buyers in North America, not just in Canada. They know that their produce is handled by large organizations which deal with chain stores. They know that we have had a policy of cheap food in the past in Canada. They also know that the consumer can buy more food with one hour's work than ever before. They know they are consumers themselves; they must buy many things both for their farm organizations and to feed themselves and their families.
But, Mr. Speaker, the new generation of farmers today is not in farming for a way of life. They want some stability in their operations. This is the message they have tried to get through for some time to this government. They are not too interested in the old ways with their ups and downs, ways in which an "up" lasted maybe for two good years and a "down" for quite a few more years. After the agricultural congress was held, we experienced a couple of pretty fair years in the farming industry. But farmers are nervous: they do not feel that this is going to continue. They know the people of Canada are concerned about the loss of land from agriculture. They know there is talk of
March 5, 1975

land freezes and that in some provinces agricultural land has been frozen. They know the people of Canada like the idea of green belts and do not want everything paved over in Canada, especially in those areas where people are concentrated, usually where conditions are good for the growing of fruits, vegetables and other kinds of foods.
The Minister of Agriculture has gone stomping around Canada taking credit for all the good things which have happened in agriculture and saying many things farmers like to hear. But he had the opportunity to bring in
Agricultural Stabilization Act
legislation which could provide for stability and this is the bill he introduced. Look at the bill before us. I think he should be ashamed for having brought this bill before the House, for introducing it in this forum, especially after what he has been telling farmers for the last two years. May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, March 6, 1975