1975-03-11

PRIVILEGE


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises from the remarks made last evening by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). He referred to his comments on the subject of racism inside and outside the House last Friday. [Translation]
I raise this issue with deep sorrow. I do not wish to belabour the point and would much rather put it to rest. [English]
Last evening in the House the Minister of Transport stated, and he repeated it, that he had not charged any member of the House with racism. He kept emphasizing it and returning to what he had said in the House on Friday. Last evening, referring to what he had said outside the House on Friday, in response to questions from me the Minister of Transport said the following, and I quote from page 3963 of Hansard:
I think that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is an honourable man. He will take my word that I never referred to the House. On the contrary, the only place where it is clear is here, and it is in Hansard. When I was talking outside the House-and some day I will say it openly-I excluded the House and I excluded the whole opposition, and I say that the debate did not take place on racism.
I have listened to the tape of what the minister said outside the House on Friday, and I quote him again in my admirable French:

The minister was speaking.
It means that I was here in 1965. So I have witnessed the Lamon-tagne affair, the Favreau affair, the Tremblay affair, and wherever there were French Canadians, they tried to attack them. And whom are they attacking now in the House? The Minister of Transport, Chretien, Yves Pratte. Right? Well, all I have done is indicate to them that we are aware of it. Because if you look up the oral question period for the past month, you will see that this is what is going on.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that the minister was clearly referring to the House and to the question period. He said last evening that he was only referring to Mr. Fisher and an editorial in the Ottawa Journal, but they do not ask questions in the House of Commons. I call the attention of the Chair once again to the use of the words "en chambre". These remarks could only be interpreted by the viewers on television, the listeners on radio, especially French-speaking listeners and viewers, as meaning that in the opinion of the minister the opposition was trying to injure or destroy ministers because they are Francophone.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The charge is absurd: we have paid a fair amount of attention to the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp), to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), to the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) and to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan).


An hon. Member:: Even Jim Richardson.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But I say that it is not acceptable for the minister to make that kind of statement outside the House and to pretend inside the House that his remarks outside the House about the question period were not made and did not relate to members of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister is in this position, I submit: in the House he has not charged any member of the opposition with racism, but outside the House that is the only interpretation one can draw from his remarks. The listeners and viewers who heard him and believed him must believe now that Francophone ministers are under attack because they are Francophone. That amounts to a charge of racism and I think the minister will agree with me, otherwise he would not have gone to such lengths to ask me to believe, last evening, that he had never made any reference to the House when he spoke outside the House on Friday. I cannot accept, and I suggest that the House cannot accept, a minister taking one attitude in the House and another attitude outside on a question such as this.
One can never catch up with this kind of statement having been made to the public: that harm is done. But I believe the minister is an honourable man. When he said last evening that on Friday he had not referred to what was going on in the House, and when he said last evening that on Friday he had excluded the House specifically, he misled the House; but I do not say, and I do not believe, that he did it deliberately. I assume that he forgot precisely what he had said on Friday and that perhaps in his enthusiasm at that moment he got carried away outside the House on Friday.
But I do say that it is a breach of the privileges of the House for the minister to go outside the House and suggest to the public that members of the opposition are trying to injure Francophone ministers in the House during the question period, simply because those ministers are Francophone, and then to come back into the House and say that outside the House he never said any such thing. I repeat, I believe the minister is an honourable man, and I ask him to withdraw the inference in the charges that he made against members of all opposition parties last Friday

Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Acts
outside the House and which, last evening, he denied having made.
Mr. Speaker, I think the minister has committed a breach of privilege but my main concern is to have an end to this whole unhappy episode.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I presume you are accepting the question of privilege as presented. I shall therefore limit myself to a few brief comments. I believe the way in which the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has explained the facts is honest and I have no quarrel with it.
Mr. Speaker, when I rose on a point of order yesterday, I made it very clear that I did not feel that anyone had racist tendencies in this House, or tried to attack Francophones strictly because they are Francophones. That part, I believe, was made clear to the House yesterday. I believe the only point the Leader of the Opposition has made is that outside the House I inferred there were racist goings-on in the House. If that is the case, then I understand that he should link the two together and I am willing to withdraw my words without any restrictions. I am convinced that no one has attacked me in my duties as Minister of Transport because I am a Francophone, nor any of my colleagues, and the use of the word "House" had another meaning for me at that time. In any event, I am in the wrong and not my colleagues opposite. I have always understood that there are not just hon. members in the House. Be that as it may, I withdraw what I said and recognize that the Leader of the Opposition is right in his interpretation.


Mr. Speaker:: In the circumstances, I am sure it is not necessary to prolong the matter by adding, although I should perhaps do so for the record, that the nature of the question of privilege raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) was most interesting and important. As the House knows, it was not followed by a motion asking for action of the Chair. In any case, it seems to me that its intention or declaration was equally well met, and that would seem to have disposed of the matter finally and very forcibly.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, in both official languages-Mr. Guilbault.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to direct to the Minister of Finance. As he is not here, I will wait until he enters the chamber.


Mr. Sharp:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think I ought to inform the Leader of the Opposition that the Minister of Finance is engaged with the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States at lunchtime and perhaps will not be here in time for his questions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, since the matter I am about to raise comes under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister, perhaps I might direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. As the Minister of Finance has recognized that strikes provoke more unemployment and as he has admitted that without some kind of national consensus on inflation and income restraints this country will face prolonged and bitter industrial strife, can the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that before Easter he, the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance will present to the House a full report on the consensus talks and a clear outline of what the government wants to achieve. Will he do that before the Easter recess?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give an undertaking that we will report before Easter. These conversations have involved various ministers and members of the community at large, employers, trade unions, consumer groups, and so on. I know these talks are reaching the point where it will be desirable to enter upon the second stage. It would be the desire of the government to proceed with the second stage after making a public announcement, but I am not absolutely certain whether it will be possible to do this before the Easter break.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Now that the first stage is nearing termination, perhaps the Acting Prime Minister could take the House into his confidence just a wee bit and tell us what this stage is, the first stage that has just about terminated.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it has been a very useful first stage. I have not had the privilege of being able to participate in these discussions because of my added responsibilities at the moment as Acting Prime Minister. But I have talked with my colleagues, who have said they received offers of co-operation from all groups in the community. That, I think, is the first stage.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I know that the House leader has been very busy as Acting Prime Minister. I assume, since this question comes under the general jurisdiction of the Prime Minister, that there have been discussions in the government on
March 11, 1975

the precise purpose of this first stage. Can the Acting Prime Minister not tell the House what this first stage is all about? Does it involve more than simple assurance of co-operation? Can he tell the House briefly and succinctly what it is, in this first stage, on which the government has been asking for co-operation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and other colleagues of mine have explained this to the Leader of the Opposition on many occasions. He seems to be expecting something that is not there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition seems to have forgotten that his particular approach was rejected by the population. We are pursuing a procedure which we believe will bring better results and be more acceptable. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will have a sufficiently open and flexible mind to understand a different approach.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a specific question for the Acting Prime Minister. Has the government been advised by the mediator mediating the Longshoremen's strike if a negotiated settlement which will permit the movement of grain and other commodities will be arrived at within approximately, the next 48 hours.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Acting Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, if I may reply, I should like to report to the hon. member that Mr. Kelly, the Assistant Deputy Minister, is now in Vancouver. He has met both parties and is carrying on further discussions. He is actively mediating at the moment.


Jack Burnett Murta: I wish to ask the Acting Minister of Labour if he could get in touch with Mr. Kelly this afternoon, review the situation and report back no later than today as to whether there will be a settlement within the next two days. I say the next 48 hours because of the urgency of the situation at Vancouver. Will the acting minister get in touch with him today and inform the House as to specifically what the government is going to do, making a statement some time this afternoon or this evening?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the way the hon. member describes the situation, it becomes almost clearly impossible for a mediator to do his job. I should ask the hon. member to let the mediator do his job. I am convinced Mr. Kelly is as keen as all other Canadians on reaching a settlement as soon as possible.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, the acting minister's reply raises another question. I now ask the Acting Minister of Labour in all seriousness how long he feels the mediator
Oral Questions
will need before a report can be made to the House? Surely to God the minister can answer that.
[DOT] * *


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. According to figures released today, compared with a year ago last month, unemployment in Canada increased from 6.8 per cent in February 1974 to 8.6 per cent in February 1975. In real terms, that represents a growth in unemployment from 635,000 to 839,000. Does the government intend to recognize the seriousness of this unemployment situation by bringing in a new budget soon with the prime purpose of generating employment in this country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government, of course, keeps the situation under constant review. There has been no decision to have a new budget nor any decision not to have one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: As the Minister of Finance has said on several occasions, at the moment the effects of the budget that was approved a few months ago are still working through the system. Until the results are clear, it would be unwise to make a definite decision as to a new budget.


John Edward Broadbent: It is working through the system like a dose of salts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


HOUSING
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. As housing starts last month were down some 44 per cent from the rate for the same month last year, running at an annual rate for this year of only 156,000 units, which is substantially below the minimum target of 210,000 set by the minister, does the minister have any new program in mind to provide the needed housing in Canada soon and also to provide jobs for the lumber industry which is so badly affected at this time?
Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I share the hon. member's concern about the low rate of starts. It is difficult to compare with last year which was a record year. This year certainly is not. One of the difficulties has been a slackening of demand. There is some existing housing stock which is being sold. We have programs that are functioning. We have other programs that will function if hon. members

March 11, 1975
Oral Questions
will co-operate in getting them through committee and through the House so that we can get to work.


John Edward Broadbent: Since in 1970 when we were confronted with a similar situation in terms of unemployment the minister's department directly financed some 42 per cent of the total housing starts, a marked increase over previous years, and since his present budget proposes to finance only 21 per cent of the starts for next year, I would ask the minister whether he has any plans to inject substantial amounts of increased capital into the housing market so as to take direct responsibility instead of relying on a system of incentives to get new housing under way?


Mr. Danson:: If the hon. member really appreciated the scope of the existing program he would know that it was designed to bring a further $1 billion into the housing market without using public funds, and he would help in speeding up the process in getting the necessary legislation through.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INQUIRY AS TO ARRANGEMENTS FOR COMPENSATION TO THALIDOMIDE VICTIMS
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Following a question asked in 1973 about the victims of thalidomide, the minister had suggested that he had already had talks with Canadian manufacturers of that drug, and that he hoped to be able to give details on the nature of the agreement in the near future. In view of the time elapsed since then, is the minister now in a position to tell the House, for the guidance of the victims of the drug, whether they can still hope for fair compensation?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised at the hon. member's question, since I have already answered similar ones in the House in 1973, and I answered a question from the hon. member for Joliette a few weeks ago. An arrangement was made which is still available to the parents of thalidomide victims. These measures were announced through a press release in 1973. They are still available to these parents. So I am very surprised to see that the hon. member does not seem to be aware of the arrangements that were made then and that are still in force.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question.
How is it that some of the victims of that drug are still not able to get answers or a satisfactory settlement from the companies concerned?


Marc Lalonde: First of all, if there are specific cases to which the hon. member is referring, I shall be happy to be informed of them and to discuss them with him. But the cases which were on the headlines of newspapers are those

of parents who preferred to go to court in the United States rather than making a private arrangement. Of course, nobody can force someone to make an amicable arrangement if he prefers to go to court and that is what happened in this particular case.


HARBOURS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for Regional Economic Expansion. I should like to ask him whether he was aware in the summer or fall of 1972, when he was Minister of Transport, that there were allegations of illegal conduct involving the activities of the Hamilton Harbour Commission and, specifically, whether he received a letter from Hamilton City Councillor Herman Turkstra dated September, 1972, requesting that there be an inquiry into the activities of the Commission?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to
answer the question but in the interests of correct parliamentary procedure I should like some guidance from the Chair.


An hon. Member:: Oh!


An hon. Member:: Answer the question!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I should like to know whether a minister can be asked about matters which are not within his responsibilities. I repeat, I am quite prepared to answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has put a question which is related to the minister's responsibilities as they were at the time the question was effective. The minister raises a valid point of order. I submit that responsibility for the Ministry or Transport now rests with another minister. Questions relating to ministerial responsibility ought to be directed to the minister who currently holds the portfolio. It might well be that a minister who was several years ago responsible for matters which were the subject of questioning would not, subsequently, be a minister and for that reason not be among those to whom questions in the House can be addressed.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On the sort of point of order raised by the minister, Mr. Speaker, in view of the very last statement made by Your Honour about the difficulty, I would say that if ministers are not responsible for the same ministry, they are still administering this government, this land, so obviously one should be able to raise questions. There has been an issue raised in this House for the last couple of weeks involving activities which come under the present Minister of Transport or the Department of the Solicitor General and one of the issues is just when did knowledge of some of these details come to this administration or the previous administration. While certainly I could not ask
March 11, 1975

questions of ministers no longer in the House in any capacity, if there is a minister here I do not understand why a question as framed asking what was within the knowledge of the minister while he was minister is out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The House ought not to get itself into a dialogue over this point of order. The fact is that the rules surrounding the question period give members the privilege or the right, whatever they may wish to call it, of directing questions to ministers in the House pertaining to their responsibilities at the moment. Questions directed at any minister have to touch at least on his responsibility at the time the question is being asked and not at the time of some occasion in the past.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I shall not prolong the question period at this point, Mr. Speaker, but I want to make it crystal clear, in view of the ruling, that certainly from the nature of this country and the question of privilege raised by my leader earlier today we may not now direct to the former Minister of Transport questions involving a question which now affects the present Minister of Transport. I should like to ask the present Minister of Transport, and make it perfectly clear that I am asking him questions as Minister of Transport and not as any pretended cultural czar-


Some hon. Members:: Cheap!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -did he have any conversations with his predecessor in that department in September or after the administrative responsibility changed involving problems in the Hamilton Harbour Commission?


Jean Marchand: I think I am perfectly authorized in the circumstances to say I will check the file and see exactly when the first complaint was made.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. The hon. gentleman having said very clearly today that high and rising unemployment as reported by Statistics Canada is not sufficiently high to cause the government to bring in new policies to stimulate the economy to a satisfactory degree, I would ask him what is the level of unemployment the government has decided must be reached before new and innovative policies are brought in to stimulate the economy?


Mitchell William Sharp: The considerations which would lead the government to bring down a budget are many and extremely complex. The hon. member and his party have been criticizing the government for following policies designed to stimulate the economy; they have been critical of spending; they have been critical of taxation policies of this kind and I suggest
Oral Questions
they should make up their minds what line they want us to follow.


George Harris Hees: As the opposition has put forward many suggestions for getting the economy moving, such as a comprehensive income tax cut as has been introduced in the United States, I would ask the Acting Prime Minister how long the government is prepared to remain on square one without making any attempt to move off it.


SUGGESTED POSTPONEMENT OF TRIP OF MINISTER OF FINANCE IN VIEW OF ECONOMIC SITUATION
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Perhaps I may put a question to the Acting Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. With 839,000 people out of work, thousands on strike and real growth predicted this year at one per cent, and inflation continuing to rise,-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -has consideration been given to postponing the Minister of Finance's trip to the middle east where many of the countries he is to visit appear to have fewer economic problems than this country?
e (1440)


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House would expect the Minister of Finance to carry out his international responsibilities in one of the most important tasks that has ever been assigned to a Canadian.


SUGGESTED INCREASED CABINET SUPPORT FOR PROPOSALS OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Being concerned with domestic issues, and taking note of the Minister of Finance's rather unsettling statements this morning to the effect that budgetary policies are dictated in cabinet more by political expediency than economic realities, has the Prime Minister given any assurance to the Minister of Finance that he will get more support in cabinet for his economic proposals in future than he has been receiving in the past, bearing in mind that this morning the Minister of Finance complained that he is constantly outvoted in cabinet when he proposes economic measures?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would doubt very much that the Minister of Finance ever made any such statements. In fact, he has just told me that he denies having made them. Moreover, the Minister of Finance has the confidence of his colleagues and we have confidence in him.

March 11, 1975
Oral Questions IMMIGRATION


POSSIBILITY MR. BAINS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA SHOULD BE DEPORTED-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the seditious statements made by one Hardian Bains, can the minister inform the House whether his department is conducting an investigation into whether or not this man should be dealt with under section five of the Immigration Act?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I noted the hon. member's comments yesterday.


MANPOWER
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister and it is really supplementary to the questions asked by the hon. member for York-Simcoe. It arises from the jump in unemployment among Canadians under the age of 25, which is even greater than that of people over 25. May I ask the Acting Prime Minister what special programs the government has drawn up to cope with the high rate of unemployment among young people that can be expected this summer, and specifically, is the government intending to reconsider its decision to cut back somewhat dramatically the funds allocated to the 1975 Opportunities for Youth Program?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government has been defending the Opportunities for Youth Program and LIP very vigorously in face of the opposition. We intend to continue them and will be allocating funds for these programs and other programs within the control of the Canadian government. I hope we will have the support of the opposition and not their continued criticism.


Henry Perrin Beatty: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that apparently the minister will not answer a straight question may I direct my supplementary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I ask the minister specifically, in light of the fact that it can be anticipated in Canada that the unemployment rate among young people will be higher this summer than last summer, for what reasons is the government cutting the funds allocated to the Opportunities for Youth Program in 1975?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the total amount allocated to the student summer employment program for 1975 is precisely the same as it was for 1974.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Considering that since the beginning of the year the broiler chicken producers of Quebec have been complaining about the import of American chicken, that the Sain-Lin Maxi Poultry Company is said to have imported 1.3 million pounds of American chicken and that Quebec producers have decided to reduce their quota to 70 per cent, does the minister intend to recommend some limitation on these imports to help Quebec broiler chicken producers?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, if I were to make any recommendations to my colleagues that we use the import act, for instance, then it would be for the poultry producers of all Canada. They know how they can prove to us that they have supply management. We cannot act in respect of one province's productivity; plans have to be national in scope.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary
question.
I mentioned Quebec producers to give a concrete example, but I believe chicken imports may be also prejudicial to other provinces. Could the minister tell the House if he intends to let the farmers settle this whole problem themselves or whether he is considering efficient measures to be taken as soon as possible to help broiler producers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have offered to help the poultry producers of Canada. They fully know, as I am sure the hon. member knows, that hearings have been held regarding the broiler producers marketing board. They have not pushed at all to go ahead with this at the present time, and until they have some properly controlled and planned production and supply management programs, there is nothing very much we can do. Poultry producers in other provinces are also affected by this, not only those in Quebec.


NATURAL GAS-REQUEST FOR ESTIMATE OF RESERVES
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It arises out of statements which he made in recent days in St. Paul-Minneapolis and Estevan, Saskatchewan, to the effect that we are likely to face a natural gas shortage in the 1970's. In view of the fact that the National Energy Board report of March, 1974 stated that our marketable gas reserves had risen to 64.2 trillion cubic feet, which on the basis of our committed exports and domestic consumption represents a life index
March 11, 1975

of 20-25 years, may I ask the minister this very simple question: What is the minister's present estimate of Canada's marketable reserves, and what life index does this represent?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I made no such statement that there was a shortfall. What I indicated was that there had been concern about it, and for that reason the National Energy Board has been conducting a hearing into supply and demand for Canadian natural gas. As the hon. gentleman may know, the board has now completed the hearing and is preparing its report. It seems to me that the most useful thing for all of us is to wait until the report is ready, which will be within a matter of some months, so we will be able to have a definitive report on the matter.


NATURAL GAS-POSSIBILITY STATEMENTS CONCERNING SHORTAGE MADE TO INFLUENCE OPINION ON MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If I may quote from the minister's own press release, at page 9 the following is stated:
From the evidence presented, it is clear that a shortage of gas is likely to develop in the 1970's, but if gas from the Arctic was connected a large new supply would be available.
I ask the minister whether these statements of his represent either faulty forecasting by his department and the National Energy Board or an attempt by the minister to join with the Canadian Arctic pipeline consortium in trying to frighten the people of Canada into accepting the Mackenzie valley pipeline?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on the second point, as the hon. gentlemen knows there were no attempts by the government to make any judgment on the Mackenzie valley pipeline before the National Energy Board reports. As the quotation just read by the hon, gentleman indicates, there has been evidence presented at the hearing that there is a shortfall. It seems to me that the most appropriate action for all is to await the National Energy Board report.


NATURAL GAS-SUGGESTED REDUCTION OF EXPORTS IN VIEW OF POSSIBLE SHORTAGE
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has told us that evidence has been presented to the National Energy Board indicating that there is likely to be a shortfall. Therefore, it seems to me he is entitled to tell the House what information there is indicating there will be such a shortage. I ask the minister this question. If he is convinced that there is likely to be a shortage of natural gas in the 1970's, is the government giving any consideration to reducing our exports of gas, which at the present time represent about half our total production of natural gas in this country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it is precisely to seek the
Oral Questions
informed judgment of the board in that particular regard that we have had the hearing, and it seems sensible to wait until the report is received.


O (1450) AIR CANADA TREATMENT OF PASSENGERS WHOSE FLIGHTS DIVERTED TO DORVAL-REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Would the minister agree to ask Air Canada for an explanation concerning the callous manner in which it treated about 1,000 Toronto-bound passengers last Friday when it unceremoniously dumped them at Dorval without any plans being made for their welfare.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have already been in touch with Air Canada and Air Canada has promised me it would compensate all those affected in this way.


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question for the Minister of Transport. The minister has had in his possession for at least two years, with an upgrading in the last few months, a report from the CN and CP with regard to rail passenger traffic in Canada. Would the minister inform the House when he intends to implement some of the recommendations in the report, and when will he release the report if not to the House at least to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how long I have had the report, but it is not a matter of years. It is probably a couple of months. I met last week with both the CN and CP in order to discuss the report, which is being processed through the department, to see how we can achieve what they are trying to do because, as you know, we want to have those new trains to see how the tracks will be used by CN and CP. This is still in a state of study. I think it would be preferable to wait a little while before I table the report.


REPORT ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT-REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It has to do with the report of the Science Council of Canada in respect of Canada's energy

Oral Questions
opportunities. In view of the fact that the minister indicated to the House his department had completed its assessment of the research work done at the federal level, and since this particular report advocates increased investment in research with respect to non-renewable resources and alternative fuels, would the minister be prepared, in view of the completion of his work, to have tabled in the House the document prepared by his department in respect of the research program now being carried on in Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it would be my intention that the government report on research and development in the energy sector, not only in respect of my department but throughout the government of Canada, be put in a publishable form, translated and made available to members generally.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could the minister tell us whether the Government of Canada has had any discussions with the Government of France about the feasibility of Canada participating in the meetings on energy in France on April 7, and why the decision was made that Canada would not participate.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is yes. I think the answer to the second question is there was a desire to keep the preparatory meeting to as small as possible a number and to that objective Canada acceded on the assumption that it would be fully represented at the full conference to be held in the summer.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the same minister. What arrangements have been made for Canada to be kept fully informed, inasmuch as this meeting probably will set the agenda for the plenary session later on.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the International Energy Agency will be represented at the preparatory meeting in an observer capacity and because of Canada's membership in that agency it will be possible for us to be kept informed of what is happening.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Rocky Mountain.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State who seems to have disappeared. Perhaps I can wait until later.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Can he give us some indication now concerning what steps are being taken to bring the two sides in the current dispute back to the bargaining table, and is there some hope that this might happen before the end of the week?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the parties involved will he able to meet again before the end of the week. At the present time, I have no precise information on the subject, but I understand that it will be possible to find a way to meet again.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice of which he has notice. The question is not what some people may think it is. I should like to ask the minister about the extradition treaty and the proposal that has been under study in his department. I wonder whether the government has now reached a decision about amending the extradition treaty with the United States to include criminal negligence, a matter of some concern to the people of Hamilton and I think to all citizens. Has the minister had sufficient time to look into that now?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, we are looking at the question of specific events, but I cannot indicate a course of action at this particular time.


FINANCE
Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Albemi):: Mr. Speaker, through you, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the government's stated policy to conserve energy, can the minister advise the House whether the present 15 per cent tariff on imported cars is being reviewed with the idea of reducing the tariff to a level comparable to that of the United States which is 3 per cent.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker.
March 11, 1975


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Since the federal government is now engaged in a joint environmental study with Alberta on the oil sands, does the minister support the decision of the Alberta Department of the Environment to allow Syncrude to double its sulphur dioxide emissions from 140 long tons a day to 287 long tons a day.


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the levels of emissions from industrial stacks are decided on a national basis, and one province is usually not allowed to decide on a higher level of emission. I will have to look into the case the hon. member refers to.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's own environmental impact study of August 1974 which concluded that sulphur dioxide concentrations at Syncrude will exceed provincial standards and federal objectives several fold, will the minister now introduce federal antiair pollution standards and also ensure that Syncrude SO: emissions be reduced to 40 tons a day as the minister's department recommended.


Jeanne Sauvé: The recommendations concerning emissions go to the provinces and the provinces are obligated to implement these recommendations. However, in a case of excess levels of emissions of such gases as are recognized as being toxic, several elements have to be taken into account such as weather conditions and direction of wind. I thank the hon. gentleman for bringing up this matter. I will look into the question. The purpose of the study with Alberta was precisely to enable us to calculate the levels of emissions which would be tolerable in that region.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning the conference launched by France in respect of the consuming and producing petroleum countries and countries of the third world. Which is the correct statement of affairs? Is it that Canada is assuming she will be invited to the whole conference later on in the year, as the minister indicated earlier this afternoon and as Canada's spokesman in Paris indicated, or is it that we have the assurance of all parties that it will be a full conference and that Canada will be a full participant as stated last week in the House by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources? Have we in fact an assurance or are we assuming this?
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, presumably it is an assumption because the preparatory meeting is being held and from that preparatory meeting the full conference will be developed. I consider that probably it is an assumption bordering on an assurance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CRUDE PETROLEUM-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF CANADIAN POSITION ON FLOOR PRICE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: One could say, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is the minister bordering on fraud, but of course I would never say anything like that.
However, I should like to ask him, in view of these preparatory discussions and the Canadian participation in the international energy agency, what is Canada's position with regard to a floor price for crude petroleum. With these important discussions about to take place, with guidelines to be laid down, and with the Americans pushing heavily for agreement among the consumer countries for a high floor price, what is precisely Canada's position? Could this outspoken minister tell us that?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would be glad to do that but the answer would be so lengthy that it could not be given in the question period.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the grave importance of this question to all Canadians as well as to members of this House, will the minister take an early opportunity-I would be satisfied with tomorrow-to inform the House one way or another as to what the position of this government is, and what position this government is taking on behalf of the Canadian people on this question which may vitally affect the future of this country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It seems to me that the intelligent and rational thing to do is to go into this very fully in the standing committee, which I will be very pleased to do. I hope we will have the intelligent participation of the hon. gentleman's followers in that regard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: My question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Was

March 11, 1975
Oral Questions
our Canadian ambassador in Washington referring and objecting to the periodic semi-official meetings between the premier of New Brunswick and the governor of the State of Maine when he suggested recently that discussions between parties from both countries, inasmuch as they may affect our bilateral relations, should be channelled through the Department of External Affairs? Is the department aware of the nature and scope of these periodic talks between the premier and the governor?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have not been made aware of the talks to which my hon. friend refers. We usually like to be kept informed of these talks because our services are often valuable in rendering assistance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Since some Unemployment Insurance Commission officials are stopping payments of benefits even before the beginning of the study of the case involved, would the minister tell the House which section of the regulations gives these officials authority to stop such payments?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, again I would have to take too much time to go into detail, but they pertain to the provisions that permit disentitlement or disqualification where the claimant is not meeting his or her obligation under the act.


DELAYS IN EXPORT SHIPMENTS-POSSIBILITY OF PAYMENTS UNDER PENALTY CLAUSES IN CONTRACTS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. On March 3 I asked the minister whether delays in moving grain on the west coast had resulted in Canada being called upon to pay sums of money under the penalty clauses in contracts entered into for the sale of grain, and the minister said he would look into the matter on an up to date basis. Is he now in a position to give an up to date answer?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, needless to say, there are many contracts and the details are rather voluminous. The matter is also a very complex legal one. Perhaps it might be amenable to a discussion

between the hon. member and myself, which I am prepared to have at this time.


BAYDA COMMISSION-DATE OF REPORT
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: I have a supplementary question for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Is he now in a position to advise the House, in view of the very serious situation with regard to grain handling in this country as a result of the series of strikes which took place during the past year, on the progress being made and the date on which we can expect to have the recommendations of the Bayda Commission appointed by this government some months ago?


Otto Emil Lang: I know that that inquiry is progressing and probably still on the schedule originally intended. As to any further progress reports, I think questions would be more properly directed to the Minister of Labour rather than to myself.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: In view of the answer given by the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, would the Acting Minister of Labour be now in a position to advise the House when we might expect this very important report which will have such a great effect on the whole of Canada and, if he is not in a position to do so, will he be in touch with the commissioner to see whether or not that report will be forthcoming in the near future?


André Ouellet: I will
inquire and report to the House.


CONTRACT TO FLAHERTY MANUFACTURING OF HAMILTON- INQUIRY WHETHER PETER FLAHERTY ON DEPARTMENTAL PAYROLL WHEN CONTRACT AWARDED
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can he indicate to the House whether on or about the time Flaherty Manufacturing of Hamilton received a $40,000 contract from the department without tenders being called, Mr. Peter Flaherty was in fact on the departmental payroll as a riding assistant to the then minister of national health and welfare?


Marc Lalonde: I could inquire, but at this moment I would expect the answer to be in the negative.


CONTRACT TO FLAHERTY MANUFACTURING OF HAMILTON- PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR NEGOTIATING CONTRACT
Paul Yewchuk: Could the minister confirm that this contract was negotiated with Flaherty Manufacturing on behalf of Sports Canada by a former aid to the then minister who was parachuted into that agency without undergoing any civil service competition for that position?


Marc Lalonde: I could not confirm that for the simple reason that quite a few employees in Sports Canada at that time were contract employees. This situation has now been remedied and most of the employees now come under the public service rules and regulations.


Paul Yewchuk: Would the minister also undertake to give the House details of the printing contract let for brochures for the same fitness award program, a contract which I understand was given another Hamilton firm-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely, the hon. member recognizes that that kind of information should be sought in some other way.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: My question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the negative decision of CRTC concerning the sale of the minister's shares in Newfoundland broadcasting, does the minister intend to instruct his agent to seek another buyer for these shares who would meet the residence requirement imposed by CRTC?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, I have already done so, but I am also delighted that the CRTC has now indicated they are prepared to accept a trust arrangement as well. So whichever turns out to be the more suitable, I will be prepared to do.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Charles Joseph Clark: In the absence of the Secretary of State, I should like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In light of the unusual interest in the appointment of the executive vice-president to CBC, I wonder whether the Acting Prime Minister will consider having the government's nominee for that position come before the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts for questioning by members of parliament before confirmation of his appointment?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in this country we follow the parliamentary form of government, not the congressional form.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: I welcome the Acting Prime Minister's belated recognization of that fact, but I should like to ask if, under this system of parliamentary government, his government will consider having the parliamentary committee responsible for the consideration of estimates and, in broad terms, the mandate of the CBC, given an opportunity to question the nominee for executive vice-president before confirmation of that appointment.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman once again is referring to American usages. We do not have confirmations in this country.


Charles Joseph Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; I wish to correct the understanding of the Acting Prime Minister. I was not assuming that the standing committee would confirm that appointment. I was simply making the perfectly proper parliamentary request that a parliamentary committee have the opportunity to question the nominee before that appointment is confirmed by the government, and I am not sure why the government is refusing to consider this very reasonable request.


Mitchell William Sharp: Perhaps the hon. gentleman does not also realize that the committees make their own rules. I do not direct them.


Mr. Goodale:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, an unfortunate conflict has arisen this afternoon between the work in this House on Bill C-50 and the work originally scheduled for the Standing Committee on Agriculture. After discussions with representatives from all parties on that committee, it has been agreed that the Standing Committee on Agriculture will not meet this afternoon.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to confirm that agreement, and I ask the parliamentary secretary to convey our deep regrets to the civil servants inconvenienced by our awkwardness.


Mr. Masniuk:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. The Minister of Agriculture, in remarks to the Assiniboia federal Liberal association and in remarks inside and outside this House, has indicated that the success of Bill C-34 is totally dependent upon the passage of Bill C-50.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member raised a question of privilege concerning the Minister of Agriculture.


Peter Paul Masniuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Bill C-50 neither gives the government of Canada or the Minister of Agriculture any authority which it did not have before under the legislation which it is proposed to amend. It does not enable the government to stabilize the price of any agricultural commodity in any area in Canada in any new or more effective way, and any statement or insinuation to the contrary is not in line with the honourable behavior expected from a minister of the Crown. I think that the government should be called upon to insist that ministers observe the standards imposed by the rules of this House in their statements inside and outside of this House in relation to misleading interpretations of legislation as it exists.

March 11, 1975
3978____________________________________
Agricultural Stabilization Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, March 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. 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. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to take part in the debate on Bill C-50 I question whether agriculture has ever been in a more vulnerable position in the Canadian economy than it is at the present time, and unfortunately we have a minister who seems to be unaware of the real problems facing agriculture. We have a minister telling people, especially urban people, that they will have to pay more for food. I am concerned that eventually urban people will take exception to some of the comments of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) because they will not want continually to be backhanded in the face as they have been in the past. They are a very generous people and they are willing to pay a fair price for produce. Unfortunately agriculture is in an extremely difficult situation because this government will not come to grips with the real problem facing our economy, and that is inflation.
The people who strike for higher wages are in no better situation after they have received those wages than they were before negotiations started, when there was a little more stability in our economy. At the present time there is no stability in the Canadian economy. The situation which now exists on the west coast is deplorable. The people who are on strike there will never catch up on wages they have lost. It is a vicious circle. We on this side of the House go from one minister to another in the cabinet, trying to obtain an answer as to what the government will do about it, and they say nothing. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) says that the government is patient and, hopefully, the parties will meet again this week. The government seems unaware of the complexity of the problems for the Canadian people in resolving the economic problems we are all facing.
Last year the minister responsible for the Wheat Board was very quick in getting into the confrontation when grain companies and farmers were going to have to pay the shot. But now it is a different story: we hear very little from that minister. By the same token we do not hear much from the Minister of Agriculture. I just cannot understand how some of the backbenchers on the government side of the House can be so naive. I should perhaps refer to the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac). He said that the minister and the government are responsible for the stability evidenced in the beef industry. All the hon. member would have to do is talk to some of the beef producers to find out exactly what is happening in the beef industry. He should go out on the farm and see what is happening.
The minister says that we have a subsidy at the present time which is taking care of the beef industry. But it is not. Why in the world do we have to have a subsidy which

pays the same amount to a producer who receives 55 cents for his beef as it does to the man who is getting 35 cents? This is not fair and it is not conducive to establishing a strong, viable beef industry in our economy. It is not good for the economy and it is forcing a great many people out of the industry. Eventually the consumer will suffer because the product will not be available.
The minister takes pride in his knowledge of agriculture. He says there have been previous ministers of agriculture who did not know the difference between a cow and a sow. I do not know whether he refers to the member from Calgary who is now in the other place, or the former member for Medicine Hat who is still in Alberta. However, I am sure there will be ministers of agriculture following this minister who will say that this minister laid an egg, not primarily because that is how the situation could be assessed, but because of the way he has mishandled CEMA from the very beginning.
There is no way our agricultural industry problems will be resolved by implementation of programs such as this stabilization bill. It has been suggested that it will not do much more than the measures already available to the Department of Agriculture and the minister. However, one of the things we must have is a responsible minister who recognizes the problem and takes action to resolve it. It has been brought to our attention that the minister knew a year ago last December that an egg surplus was developing under CEMA, but he was able to keep the lid on it until after the election. Then, of course, 28 million eggs were destroyed. The minister did not smell so good at that time.
The consumer resents this type of inaction and so does the producer because he suffers a lot. It is immoral to destroy food in a hungry world. I think the minister knows this, but he does not seem to be capable of coming up with a policy that will keep up with the production that Canadian agriculture is able to develop. The minister is a great promoter of marketing boards. I think they serve a useful purpose, but they must have the support of the Department of Agriculture if they are to function properly.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think Canada should try to develop a world food bank all by itself, but I do think there should be such a world bank to distribute food to the hungry people of the world. Perhaps the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), in his position as chairman of the International Monetary Fund, could work toward this end. If we increased production by only 1 per cent or 2 per cent and channelled that amount to a world food bank, it would be of some help. If the 1 per cent or 2 per cent fell back on the Canadian economy, however, it could wreck the agriculture industry, and certainly the morale of the producer if the surplus were to be destroyed.
From December 1, 1974, to January 11, 1975, 50 carloads of eggs were imported from the United States, and in the week of March 3, 1975, 12 carloads were imported. That creates a problem for CEMA, and unless it has the support of this government and the Minister of Agriculture it just cannot cope with these things. Already Newfoundland and British Columbia have suggested that they will leave

CEMA, and Alberta is considering holding a plebiscite on the question of whether to remain in the organization. No organization can operate efficiently in an atmosphere of indifference and indecision. It is up to the Minister of Agriculture to do something about it-but he is reneging on his responsibility to the industry and we will continue to have problems until he accepts his responsibility. I am just using CEMA as an example, Mr. Speaker. If the problems in that organization can be resolved, I believe the problems in other sectors of agricultural production can also be resolved.
The poultry population on January 1 of this year was 22,443,244 according to CEMA. According to the Department of Agriculture, however, it was approximately 26 million, and according to the production and marketing branch it was approximately 24 million. With this discrepancy in figures it is impossible to tally the total productive capacity. The hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) pointed out the problem of overproduction. Quebec increased production last year by 42 per cent over the previous year. Production as of February 8, 1975, was up 29 per cent over the same month in the previous year. This proves that we have the ability to produce in this country. But then the question arises, what are we going to do with the surplus? The government should be prepared to direct it into markets that are readily available in other parts of the world, but of course this would take a certain amount of organization.
For some time the hon. member for Edmonton-Strath-cona (Mr. Roche) has been urging the government to set up a program to help feed the hungry people of the world. We cannot do this at present, however, with marketing boards setting goals that are less than our domestic requirements. Much the same thing is happening in the dairy industry, Mr. Speaker. We import 50 million pounds of cheese and 50 million pounds of butter in a year because we are not up to our maximum production. Farmers cannot afford to take the chance of producing more in case there is not a market. We saw what happened in the beef industry and now many people are getting out of it. When the grain industry got into trouble, we had at that time a fairly viable meat industry, so many farmers switched. But they cannot switch back today.
I suggest that within two or three years we will see animals being raised on grass to a greater degree, as they were when most of us were girls and boys. This will probably mean they will go into the feed lots at 800 pounds or 1,000 pounds, so it will take a couple of years for them to get there. In the end, production will be down and we will be short of beef. We have not cut back on production at present, as has happened in the United States. They have 135 million head of cattle, compared to our 15 million head. A short time ago they had 150 million head, but they are getting it under control. Our count remains at 15 million. The selling price of beef, of course, has fallen and the minister should be prepared to do something about it.
Unless the cabinet supports the Minister of Agriculture, our difficulties in agriculture will continue. The minister suggested that he enjoys the support of the cabinet. I doubt it. Let me refer the House to what he said as recorded at page 3813 of Hansard for March 5, 1975:
Agricultural Stabilization Act
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-
And this is a big "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.
The minister, in the main, repeated what we have said. He has not enjoyed the support in cabinet which he, as the representative of the agricultural industry, deserves. Without that support it will be impossible for agriculture to be established on a viable, sound basis. Let me refer the House to the manner in which the government announced its restrictions, a little less than two years ago, concerning the cattle industry and involving exports to the United States. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), not the Minister of Agriculture, made the statement which signaled the downfall of the cattle industry in Canada. It has been losing money ever since. Cattle producers have been forced to refinance time and again. At some point they will not be able to refinance, and that is when the cows will come home, to use a cliche, for Canadian agriculture.
Who announced the appointment of the new deputy minister of agriculture? I will not comment on the ability of the new deputy minister as time alone will show if he has any. The agricultural industry does not like the idea of the Prime Minister appointing a man of his own choice. There are many capable men in Canada who could have helped the Minister of Agriculture in that capacity. The industry regrets the retirement of Mr. Sid Williams. We all hope that his successor, even though appointed by the Prime Minister, will fill his boots. But, Mr. Speaker, they are big boots to fill.
The building of a strong, stabilized agricultural industry will place a heavy load on the Minister of Agriculture. For this reason we hope he will accept advice from my side of the House more readily than in the past. Why do I say this? Let me illustrate. About two years ago, when the government tried to introduce a crop insurance program which would work and be accepted by farmers across Canada, we, in an effort to be helpful, tried to move amendments. They were not accepted. What happened? Farmers availed themselves of the program on an "on again, off again" basis. Some farmers tried to build up their own protection; nevertheless, the program has not accomplished its announced aims. You cannot institute a program like that overnight. We knew this and tried to introduce amendments to the bill when it was before the House. If they had been accepted, it would not have been necessary for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board to bring before the House the present grain stabilization bill.
Some people think that crop insurance is different from stabilization. It is not necessarily so. Actually, insurance and stabilization are one and the same thing. Remember, Mr. Speaker, we are interested in maintaining a viable

Agricultural Stabilization Act
agricultural industry, an industry in which farmers show a profit. If they do not, they go broke. So it does not matter if you call the program crop insurance or stabilization; the objective is the same. We maintain that you do not need both programs, because with two programs you establish two bureaucracies, one under the Minister of Agriculture and one under the minister in charge of the Wheat Board.
Imagine what would happen with two bureaucracies. Inspectors working for the Minister of Agriculture would look in farmers' bins to see how much grain was stored before authorizing a payment. After they had left, inspectors working for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board would come to the farm and look in the same bins. Bureaucracy would be compounded. Actually, that is what is wrong with this government-there is too much bureaucracy. One department does not communicate with the other and too many bureaucrats are maintained in their jobs at the expense of the taxpayer.
Too many bureaucrats in jobs force taxes up. Because taxes are high, people strike for higher pay. If taxes were lower, people would be content with less pay. At present there is a vicious circle. We should reduce costs all through the economic chain so that ordinary people would derive the benefit. As things now stand, with grocery bills climbing, and clothing and shelter costs escalating, people will strike for more pay. If we are to cure this situation we must begin at the top. I hope the Minister of Agriculture pays attention to what we on this side suggest, because we do not want to have to tell him in two years' time that he made a mistake.
The minister said that eggs will not be included in this stabilization bill. I went to some pains pointing out why it is necessary to resolve CEMA's difficulties. Unless we resolve those difficulties, I submit it will be difficult to resolve other agricultural problems. I pointed out that the figures of Statistics Canada, the Department of Agriculture and CEMA are all different: they all tell a different story. CEMA itself now says it cannot rely on the figures of the Department of Agriculture or Statistics Canada, and wants to establish its own intricate system of record keeping. Surely it is up to the Department of Agriculture to provide such figures and to introduce policies which will benefit producers.
Although our agriculture is regionalized, I think the federal Department of Agriculture should take on the job of selling and exporting agricultural commodities-with the support of the provinces, of course. That would not mean taking anything away from the provincial governments. Goodness only knows, nobody is a stronger supporter of provincial rights than I am, but in the selling of agricultural commodities I think the federal department can do a better job than the several and individual provincial departments. The Wheat Board sells most of our wheat; why should not the Department of Agriculture sell most of our agricultural produce? Why not let one department handle all selling, instead of having the departments of agriculture of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and other provinces send delegations to Japan and other countries? These delegations are costly. Costs are duplicated. Why can we not decide on the price of a commodity before it leaves Canada? We could use marketing boards to set the price, if you like. Uniform marketing efforts would

end the present dissatisfaction. These remarks apply equally to CEMA. Egg production is up in Quebec and down in other provinces, and egg marketing is in a mess. Until the Department of Agriculture gives more leadership, we shall not resolve these difficulties.
I was surprised to hear the minister say that wheat produced in Ontario will not come under the jurisdiction of this stabilization bill. The minister had better take another look at that, because he said Bill C-19 would cover wheat produced in Ontario; oats and barley, yes; but he said it would take care of wheat. However, it only takes care of 50 per cent of the wheat grown in Ontario. I am going to read some figures into the record. These were presented when the representatives of the Ontario Wheat Board were before the committee. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) was questioning Mr. Young, chairman of the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board. He asked:


Douglas Charles Neil: You are a producers' marketing board, in other words?


Mr. Young:: That is right.


Douglas Charles Neil: And does it include all the producers of grain in the province of Ontario?


Roger Carl Young: Right.


Douglas Charles Neil: And what grains does it cover; all cereal crops?


Roger Carl Young: Oh no, just wheat; all wheat producers in the province of Ontario.


Douglas Charles Neil: And I would assume your function, then, is to get the best price possible for your members; is this correct?


Roger Carl Young: Yes, this is our aim and objective.


Douglas Charles Neil: How much Ontario grain goes into milling, on the average?


Roger Carl Young: In the area of eight million bushels.


Douglas Charles Neil: About eight million bushels?


Roger Carl Young: Yes; about half the crop.
The Minister of Agriculture will have to examine the situation in order to have that included. I have spent considerable time expressing my opinion and the opinion of those I represent. We want to see the bureaucracy of government reduced. We want the expense of production reduced. That is the only way to have a viable agriculture industry in Canada. We must first attack the cost of production. Until we get rid of government bureaucracy we will not be able to accomplish this.
Talk to some representatives of the industries. In the dairy industry, for example, the creameries and milk retailers with labelling requirements have extra work forced upon them. In certain areas bilingual displays are required on products even though the people do not require it. This is an extra cost of production. Why must all the ingredients be listed, when in a great many cases it does not mean anything to consumers? They know the products they want, and they buy them. Why does the Department of Agriculture not set up a data bank in Ottawa? If anyone wants to know the ingredients of a particular product, he could obtain the information from the data bank. He could then determine whether or not he wanted to continue buying the product. Surely, with our modern-day technology, such a data bank could be established.
These are some of the areas in which the minister is lacking: he lacks imagination and he lacks support in

cabinet. Until this failure is overcome we will continue to have problems in agriculture. We are just jumping from crisis to crisis. That is the way it has been since I came to the House of Commons. The Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) agrees we have been going from crisis to crisis. The time has come for the operation to be run smoothly: if not, we are lost and I do not know what will happen: it will be a catastrophe.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, this bill is intended to be a very important piece of legislation. It cannot be otherwise since, as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) says, it deals with the production of food, of what he calls "the mainstay of life". While it is a series of amendments to the Agricultural Stabilization Act which has existed since 1957, it will give that act a much wider and more far reaching impact than it ever had before. The bill's purpose is to provide farmers with "a guaranteed floor price" for agricultural commodities. This means the bill has an importance far beyond the boundaries of the agricultural community itself, making up as it does only some 6 per cent of our labour force. In fact, the bill has great significance for everyone in the country.
However, in my view, so far in this debate a number of questions of vital concern to every Canadian have not yet been clearly or fully answered. These questions are important to all individual Canadians as taxpayers and as consumers. It would appear that the government intends, through the amendments set out in Bill C-50, to use the Agricultural Stabilization Act much more frequently and more fully than was possible in the past. However, the Minister of Agriculture has given us no indication of what the broader and more frequent use of this legislation will cost the government and, therefore, all individual Canadians as taxpayers. In the 1973-74 fiscal year, the Agricultural Stabilization Board spent $143 million, through the estimates, on payments to farmers. The recently tabled estimates say that the forecast of the board's expenditures for the 1974-75 fiscal year will be more than $301 million. These estimates also propose expenditures for the board during the coming fiscal year in the area of $261 million.
Does this proposed expenditure in the 1975-76 fiscal year take into account the more frequent and extensive use of the Agricultural Stabilization Board program contemplated by Bill C-50? If so, why is less intended to be spent in the current one? Is it possible that in spite of what is promised to the farmer through this legislation, it will in fact not be used as fully as the Minister of Agriculture implies? However, if more than $261 million is to be spent, we should be told, even if it is only in a general way, how much the government expects this greater expenditure to be.
Another key question for all Canadians is how much will the application of Bill C-50 cost them, not only as taxpayers but also as consumers when they do their shopping for groceries. In other words, what effect will Bill C-50 have on food prices? Bill C-50 would authorize the government to set base prices for the wide range of agricultural commodities to which it applies in a way that would make these base prices higher than would be possible under the formula used in the existing law. A significant question for Canadians, as consumers, therefore, is what is the connection between these base prices and
Agricultural Stabilization Act
retail prices for both processed and unprocessed food? Will a base price set under Bill C-50 operate anything like the intervention price set by CEMA under the national egg marketing plan?
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the evidence before the special egg marketing committee established that the intervention price at which CEMA bought eggs from farmers was set at such a high level that it caused the retail price for eggs to be so high that it discouraged consumers from buying them. Is there a risk that Bill C-50 can cause situations with respect to those commodities to be supported under this new agricultural stabilization program similar to what took place recently with regard to eggs? I think this is a valid question, since the Minister of Agriculture said the following about the stabilization programs to be undertaken by the federal government under this new law:
None of these programs can work without proper supply management.
What does he mean by the term "proper supply management"? What commitment is the government making about the way supply management will be used to support the operation of the agricultural stabilization program? What will the government be doing to avoid the creation of situations with respect to other commodities to be covered under Bill C-50 like the one that arose in egg marketing?
At the same time, supply management generally has meant quotas, that is, the limiting of production. So far in this debate the government has not really attempted to answer the kind of question I raised in the House during the debate on the income tax bill. The question is: during this period when there is not just a shortage of food but actual starvation in many parts of the world, do we have an obligation to adopt policies of maximum food production no matter what the effect on market prices might be? Also, how would such maximum production be paid for, recognizing that the cost of such production cannot fall primarily on the farmer? To what extent could we afford this kind of policy at all?
Thus far in the debate no indication has been forthcoming as to the extent to which the bill before us may be part of a total food policy, or the degree to which the government and the Minister of Agriculture are committed to developing one. By a total food policy I mean a policy which deals not only with the role of primary producers but also, and equally, with the role of the others in the food chain-the processor, the wholesaler and the retailer. It is one which must include programs to encourage efficiency and productivity and also to review the pricing policies of those groups which operate beyond the farm gate.
The purpose of this bill is to protect farmers against having to bear alone the burden of receiving prices for their production when those prices from time to time are at their very lowest. But the government has said nothing, or at least very little, about what the rest of the Canadian population will actually be getting through Bill C-50, particularly in the vital area of prices. The government's silence in this area of policy, at least until this point in the present session, is not consistent with the commitment it

Agricultural Stabilization Act
gave the Canadian people in the Speech from the Throne of February 27, 1974, which said:
Guarantees against unduly low prices for producers must be coupled with guarantees against unduly high prices for consumers.
Does the government not have an obligation to follow through with concrete action on both sides of the equation-guarantees against unduly low prices for producers and guarantees against unduly high prices for consumers? So far, only the commitment to agricultural producers has been set out in terms of specific legislation, that is, in Bill C-50. There is nothing in this bill itself which will ensure the carrying out of the commitment to consumers which the government made with equal force in the throne speech of February, 1974.
However, there is already in existence a program with regard to a key agricultural commodity which is based on the kind of approach I am talking about, the approach outlined in the throne speech of February, 1974. I am referring to the government's program for two-price wheat which is being turned into legislative form through Bill C-19. This program assures western farmers that for some seven years there will continue to be a floor below which the price they get for their wheat cannot fall no matter how low world prices may tumble. At the same time, along with this protection government policy provides for a ceiling above which the price in Canada cannot rise. Thus, the wheat farmer forgoes the opportunity to get world prices when they are at their peak in return for being protected against receiving world prices when they are at their lowest. This policy provides mutual benefits for both farmer and consumer.
There is nothing of this approach in Bill C-50. It contains only the provision respecting floor prices for farmers, but nothing specific about an equivalent kind of protection for consumers through some kind of ceiling on the prices they pay for the commodities which will be covered by the new agricultural stabilization program. Has the government abandoned the commitment made to consumers in the February, 1974, throne speech? Canadians generally, I am sure, hope this is not the case. After all, this was the throne speech on which the government went to the people and sought re-election. This was the throne speech which formed an important part of the basis for the judgment people made in re-electing the government with a clear majority last July 8.
The Minister of Agriculture says Bill C-50 will encourage production. However, the bill is a series of amendments to the existing Agricultural Stabilization Act. The preamble of this act sets out that it is-
-for the purpose of stabilizing the prices of agricultural commodities in order to assist the industry of agriculture to realize fair returns for its labour and investment and to maintain a fair relationship between prices received by farmers and the costs of the goods and services that they buy, thus to provide farmers with a fair share of the national income.
This preamble contains no reference to production, although providing farmers with a fair share of the national income is, generally speaking, an objective with which Canadians would be in sympathy. Questions can be asked as to the method the government intends to use to achieve this objective. Does the government intend to keep up retail prices for food by a combination of supply management limiting production and of base prices set

under Bill C-50? Or, will the government encourage greater production but use Bill C-50 to prevent the law of supply and demand from operating so that the greater production cannot create a downward pressure on retail prices to consumers, allowing them to benefit from the effect of this kind of market force? The Minister of Agriculture said, when he spoke at the beginning of this debate:
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-
Well, to paraphrase the old song, most taxpayers will say that the expenditure of $261 million is "plenty of nothing." They are entitled to ask, on whom and in what way will the real cost of Bill C-50 actually fall? Such questions should be explored, since if the new bill is to be fully and actively used-and remember that only $261 million is allotted for it in the estimates-it could mean that the government intends that higher returns for farmers in respect of basic agricultural commodities will come primarily from the marketplace. But if this happens, the burden will not fall with equal fairness on all Canadians. The reason is that the burden of higher food prices in the marketplace falls most heavily on lower income consumers who spend a higher proportion of family income on foodstuffs.
This is a further argument for extending the floor and ceiling approach adopted in the two-price wheat program to other commodities. It is also an argument in favour of deciding that an appropriately larger part of the cost of the new agricultural stabilization program should be met through government expenditure since the funds for it come from taxpayers generally and are raised on the principle of ability to pay.
One can recognize and accept the importance and the justice of the concepts set out in Bill C-50, aimed, as they are, at sheltering the farmer from uncertainties caused by the state of world markets, alternating gluts and shortages of world production and varying weather conditions. However, the small businessman, the small manufacturer, the skilled tradesman, might well ask, "Why is there nothing like Bill C-50 for us?" They could argue that they, too, are self-employed, like the farmer, and that they face similar kinds of uncertainties. Nevertheless, the government is not giving them minimum prices for their production although it is asking them in one way or the other to help pay the cost of this kind of assistance for agriculture.
Of course, the answer may well be found in the importance of our agricultural sector to our country and to the world. If this is the case, it must be observed that agricultural spokesmen can hardly be justified in complaining, as they often do, about the attention being paid to agriculture today by governments, on behalf of the general public, through such measures as the Food Prices Review Board, the special parliamentary inquiry into egg marketing and various government programs. If agriculture has the importance its protagonists claim for it, then the over-all public interest requires that the government, on behalf of all Canadians, pay the same kind of attention to it that the government is expected to pay to other key sectors of the economy. Primary producers can hardly ask for wide-ranging support from the government and object
March 11, 1975

to scrutiny from government as to how their role fits in with the over-all public interest in terms of the government's priority obligation to protect that interest.
I have asked the kinds of questions I have raised today in a constructive and positive sense and in the belief that Bill C-50, generally speaking, deserves the support of the House. However, I believe that these questions need to be answered before this bill receives final approval, to ensure that it will be administered in a way consistent with the general public interest and thereby in the interests of all individual Canadians.
The purpose of a national government is to work for fair treatment of all groups in our society, whether they be identified in terms of region, occupation or patterns of expenditure. This bill is aimed at providing fairer treatment for a very important group in Canadian society. The government must go on to put in place its policy to ensure equally fair treatment with respect to food prices for the rest of the Canadian population in a way that is consistent with the commitment it gave so eloquently in the Speech from the Throne in February of last year.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the speech delivered by the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). I thought it was too bad he was not a minister any more. It would have been very important for the hon. member to make such recommendations when he had certain powers.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on this bill which is highly significant for agriculture. It will be called the Agricultural Stabilization Act. It will bring changes in the definition of agricultural products, in the establishment of basic prices and will reduce from ten to five the years of evaluation prescribed in the former legislation. The bill also contains an interesting provision recommending an allowance for production costs. That is very important. The legislation also provides for regional stabilization, taking into account the sharp differences that may exist in the various areas. It is something the bill should correct. The law already protects certain products. We are told that the bill will allow the governor in council to add any agricultural commodity that will be deemed necessary. As a few members pointed out, that will puzzle the poeple. Of course we would have liked this bill to cover all agricultural products so that, notwithstanding the products concerned, producers will be sure of getting the protection of the law.
Mr. Speaker, I should also like to quote certain remarks of the minister, who recognizes that agriculture is the foremost industry in Canada, that one job out of three surely depends on agriculture and that this bill will give the minister powers that none of his predecessors ever had. The minister also recognizes the importance of creating a climate of confidence for farmers, so that young people may stay on the farm. I believe those are excellent intentions. I noticed that the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Lessard) said in his speech that it was a step in the right direction, and I believe we all agree as to the good intentions of the minister in respect of this bill although the same hon. member also pointed out quite
Agricultural Stabilization Act
rightly some concerns about certain commodities or methods of application.
Mr. Speaker, despite all the respect I have for the minister, the assurance of his good intentions, the efforts he made since he has been responsible for that department, I think it is also important to consider what happened generally-since 1968 as far as I am concerned-and what are the results of the government's agricultural policy. In the meantime, did agriculture gather extraordinary momentum? Is the farming community less concerned, more happy, better off? I think several questions remain unanswered.
I represent a riding quite interested in agriculture and in view of the unsatisfactory solutions that were put forward, it has been said, as the minister pointed out, that in recent years the government introduced several pieces of legislation in this House to improve the position of the agricultural sector, yet we are still faced with difficulties which do nothing to lessen the concerns of the farming community.
So, in view of that, the government having received briefs from several agricultural organizations, and in view of the importance of agriculture in this country, one must wonder whether the government did allocate the necessary funds. Indeed, recognizing the leading role of that industry, I think the Minister of Agriculture has failed to listen closely in cabinet when it came to apportioning the necessary votes to the various departments.
With respect to the milk industry, we know the position of milk producers. We must import rather large quantities of butter. The diminishing population of milk producers is disturbing, production costs have shot up beyond reason and, in this area as in others, there is a discouraging indebtedness, specially among young producers.
For instance I would like to point out to the minister that I read carefully the brief by the Canadian Federation of Dairy Producers which deals with the future policy to be applied by the minister and the government if they really are to make the effort needed by dairy producers especially. In other areas of production, expectations are similar; let me quote a letter by the Federation of Dairy Producers to members of parliament and to the minister in charge. I quote;
This is to underline the extreme importance of decisions to be taken by the government in the few days to come with regard to its policy for the 1975-76 dairy campaign ... We hope that, through those decisions, not only will the base price be set at a higher level within the stabilization program, but that an indexing provision will also be available to provide for accasional readjustments of that price.
Of course that indexing provision is important, but what is even more so is the basic level of revenues to which that index will apply. The present level of revenue is totally insufficient for that purpose; therefore the base price to be applied from April 1 and used for indexing revenues is a crucial decision. In its policy statement, the Canadian Federation of Dairy Producers requests an $11.62 per cwt. revenue for processed milk starting April 1. That level is substantially higher than the present $10.02 and shows the importance of a substantial increase in revenues as an indexing basis from April 1.
I therefore think for instance that it is important for the minister to take that recommendation by a leading Canadian industry into consideration.
3984

Agricultural Stabilization Act
I would also like to stress, Mr. Speaker, that I was personally very much in favour of that famous Bill C-176 which was expected to improve the situation of various categories of producers. When that marketing board would be implemented, we would manage to seriously cope with the shortcomings and difficulties of producers in general. We have had experience with eggs, as other members in the House have pointed out. We have had a very long study made by the board, in which it is recognized that there was a glaring lack of cooperation between the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie). We could talk of poultry breeding and beef breeding. Everybody is well aware of these problems. There are the potato growers who are still meeting serious difficulties. The member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) spoke of the difficulties also met by the producers of maple sugar.
In the face of those unceasing difficulties, one can congratulate oneself and think that this legislation will correct the situation and calm down farmers or this class of producers. Personally, I have some reserves, as do other members in the House. And I wonder how deeply the government has thought and how much it has tried to control imports, which certainly seem to be a cause of trouble for our trade in agriculture.
During the commission's inquiry on the egg surplus, it was recognized there had been lack of control over imports. Today and yesterday, newspapers still reported massive imports. This is causing enormous hardship to our producers. Apparently, the minister does not wish to apply now stringent measures.
Under the bill, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has exceptional powers when a problem arises concerning a Canadian commodity. For that reason, Canadian farming is still undermined. Other producers are concerned. They wonder what the government is going to do. Some members indicated that the government had increased farm loans, that it had introduced longer repayment terms. They did not mention interest rates, almost prohitive for young farmers. In 1968, the interest rate on farm loans was 5 per cent. The ceiling was removed so that the market rate could be changed. A federal commission was established to get the facts about farming. That commission submitted reports informing us on an outdated situation.
In my opinion, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce deserves severe warning in the face of his inaction on imports and his lack of interest in problems now faced by the Minister of Agriculture. This makes things harder for the latter, because I feel he is looking for valid answers to farming problems. Producers hope the minister will be acting soon, because he has the power to control imports, which have enormously unsettling effects on our markets.
I would also like to emphasize the need for measures to preserve our agricultural area. There may have been a lack of coordination between the departments responsible for agriculture in general and already, Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing worldwide famine. It is therefore up to us to hurry up and make this industry efficient and more productive than ever before. We should not necessarily limit thoughts to available credits. I know that the government

has found extraordinary funds to simplify the work of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
To come back to the importance of the agricultural industry in our economy, I believe that this industry also deserves particular attention. This is what has been lacking, as well as the interest of the cabinet in general, as concerns the necessary credits which would have allowed the minister responsible to meet certain demands. We have also often emphasized the lack of control over the cost of feed and farm machinery. We are learning more about this every day. I want to repeat these things in the House because we hear comments from farmers who are very worried and wonder when costs will stop going up so that we may finally have the stabilization suggested today by the minister in his bill.
We should not forget the consumer in all this. I was listening a while ago to the hon. member for Windsor West who was asking that any farming policy be geared to the interest of the consumer. He was wondering how the consumer would pay the cost. Of course, the consumer deserves the respect of those who must represent his policy and he must also know that the price for the survival of the farming class will have to be paid. I believe that the government should inform the consumer about the minimum that the producer must obtain, while investigating seriously the middlemen. Finally, what is important is that the producer gets an absolutely necessary income. I wonder when the government will start holding a little investigation on the middlemen, that is individuals who stand between the producer, who must get a minimum income, and the consumer who must also pay a minimum price for that product. I believe there is a gap between those two and we must conduct a serious study to find out who enjoys the best profits.
Right now it is not the farmer who makes fantastic profits and, taking into account the consumer's purchasing power, we have the responsibility to insure them quality products at reasonable prices.
As members of parliament, we could require the government and its responsible agencies to pay special attention to the middlemen who could have taken some advantage from time to time of any particular situation.
Mr. Speaker, on the whole we recognize that this legislation is a step in the right direction, as one of my hon. colleagues said last week. We do not intend to oppose an improving measure and we also hope that the minister will be able to give the answers to some questions asked during this debate. For example, the hon. member for Windsor West asked several questions. I think they were all very relevant and interesting. Personally, I would have liked this legislation to give more assurance to the producers who make up the so-called farming industry.
As to the escalation formula which seems to be applicable in as much as we provide for increases in input costs, we do favour it because it will solve the problem of the continuous increase in input costs. The only thing we still have to know is to what extent the government will be able to assure us some control over the increase in the input costs which unbalance any legislation which could seem proper today but which would quickly become out-of-date as the increase in those costs has gone unchecked too long.

Mr. Speaker, I will merely make those few comments acknowledging the import of that legislation and hoping that the minister will bring some amendments when it is under consideration in committee so that all producers may profit by stabilization while being assured of a minimum price.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, the amendments in the bill before us to stabilize farm income are not very important. Basically, they do four things: they revise the named commodities in the legislation, they add a few commodities and take out a few, they shorten the stabilization period for the base price from ten years to five years, and they increase the floor for the basic minimums from 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the previous five-year average. Also, there is a clause in the bill allowing producers in certain areas or provinces, one by one, to opt into the program and to supplement the legislation before the House.
The reason I say the amendments before us are not really important is that last year the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) had four stabilization programs in which the minimums were above the minimum in this legislation. The bill before us provides floors-and I am sure that we are all happy with those floors-but it does not provide ceilings, and any program the minister might introduce could contain a floor that is above the ones we are considering today. So I suggest to the House that we should deal with this bill expeditiously. It will not create any fundamental or basic changes in the agricultural economy; it will just increase the benefits of the stabilization plan that we have. In other words, it is not a bill that is drastically important because it does not create any fundamental changes.
I want to mention six different areas about which I have questions and of which I hope the minister will take note. I do this because I think the agricultural community will be facing real problems. We have known for some time that beef farmers have been in trouble. The prices they receive for their commodities are much too low to allow them a decent standard of living. We know also that grain prices are falling, production costs are escalating, and as part of the world economy farmers will be facing difficult times.
I say that because I gather that on both sides of the House there is a feeling among members representing urban communities in particular that farmers have done very well in the last few years and that we should not be so concerned about them but, instead, we should turn our attention to other sectors of the economy. I want to remind hon. members that agriculture is the backbone of our economy and that although grain farmers in the last two or three years have not done badly, there are storm clouds on the horizon and we should turn our attention to them in particular.
The bill before us includes a whole series of commodities except western grain. We will be dealing with legislation on grain stabilization in the future. The first point I wish to mention to the minister is that of course I am happy to see him bring up the base price from 80 per cent
Agricultural Stabilization Act
of the previous ten-year average to 90 per cent of the previous five-year average. If we stabilize the price of commodities at 90 per cent of the previous five-year average, the farmer will fall behind economically because of general inflation in the economy.
There is every indication that inflation will increase rather than decrease, and if we stabilize the price the farmer will obtain at the previous five-year average, he will fall behind in economic terms. In order to counteract this, the minister has included a cost of production index. What worries me is that the definition of this index is left to the governor in council. What does the minister mean by "cost of production index"? Does he mean the whole cost in terms of fuel, fertilizer, machinery, and so on, that goes into producing a bushel of wheat, growing a heifer, growing a hog, or producing poultry?
I would like to hear the minister elaborate on what he means by "cost of production index," because even if we stabilize farm income at 90 per cent of the previous five-year average and put in a cost of production index, it might not be adequate. In fact, we would be stabilizing farm income downward from the economists' point of view. One could easily stabilize farm income at 100 per cent of the previous five-year average and still find the farmers falling behind. For example, are farmers' wages taken into consideration in the cost of production index? If they are, then the index might accurately reflect the true cost of production. That point should be clarified because this matter is left to the regulations. That is the most important part of the bill with which we are dealing.
The other point which I should like to mention to the minister is that there are still some commodities left out of the bill, and I wonder why. I am thinking particularly of oil seeds produced in western Canada. Why are they left out when western soybeans are in the bill? The third point I wanted to mention-and this is very important to my region-is that deficiency payments to be made under this plan are to be based on national averages for the commodities listed, but often there are regional or provincial fluctuations which have a bearing on what the farmer should be getting in terms of deficiency payments.
Let me give one example. In the region from which I come, namely, east central Saskatchewan, last year grain farmers encountered real difficulties in terms of weather. We had a very late spring, so the crop was put in late; then we had an early frost which froze the grain before it ripened. As a result, the farmer had a lower yield and a lower quality of grain in terms of grade and weight. We were below the average in the Wheat Board area. If deficiency payments were based on national averages, probably farmers in my area would not get any or, if they got them, their payments would be the same as those made in southern Saskatchewan where there was a higher yield of grain of a better grade, for which they got a better price.
Therefore, the minister should consider accepting amendments which would allow for greater regional flexibility. There is, for instance, the Peace River country of Alberta and the area of northern Saskatchewan north of my area where farmers experienced severe problems with weather during the growing season. If there is no flexibility in the legislation, farmers in some regions may be seriously affected.
28996-47j/2

March 11, 1975
Agricultural Stabilization Act
The fourth point about which I am concerned is that adjustments made with regard to stabilization or deficiency payments are made on a yearly basis. I think this discriminates against farmers. If we consider beef, for example, at a certain time in the year when the farmer has to sell his livestock he might get 38 cents a pound, but a few months later another farmer may sell at 52 cents a pound since the commodity is on the open market. This applies to other commodities on the open market. When the farmer sells beef at a lower price, he does not get what he should from the stabilization fund. Perhaps the stabilization payment on the national average price for beef in that year, calculated on a yearly basis, would be 4 cents a pound. A person who sold beef at 38 cents a pound would lose, compared to someone who got 52 cents a pound when he shipped his livestock.
This is a question we should consider when dealing with the bill in committee. Why can we not have quarterly calculations, or calculations every six months? Perhaps quarterly calculations would involve too much red tape and too many bureaucractic difficulties. Let us seriously consider the possibility of calculating payments under the stabilization plan every six months instead of yearly, because different considerations come into play-different weather patterns and different production patterns in various regions. Many factors come into play and therefore calculations should be made more often than once a year.
Another point I would like to mention to the minister is that when one calculates the average price of a product in the previous five years, in my reading of the bill a deficiency payment is made in those five years but in the calculation the deficiency payment itself is not included. I think the deficiency payment should be included. The effects of the problem might be reduced sharply in one of the previous five years. There is a deficiency payment made to sheep producers, for example, and when you calculate next year the deficiency payment is not taken into consideration or made part of the previous five years' income. I think it should be, because that is the income the farmer received from the sheep or the vegetables he sold.
I think that if the deficiency payment were included there would be a much better reflection of the farmer's actual income in the previous five years, and 90 per cent of that would be added to the production index which the farmer would receive. If deficiency payments are not included, naturally the income of the farmer will be equalized at a lower level, which will work against his interest.
The sixth point I wish to make to the minister is that I agree with clause 6 of this bill. This is a provision whereby the producer or the province can decide to opt into the program in terms of supplementing it to bring up the threshold rate from averaging the previous five years at 90 per cent up to, say, 95 per cent or 100 per cent. I can visualize the Minister of Agriculture saying to producers and provinces that if they do not like this program they can supplement it. In terms of rhetoric, to most Canadian people that sounds very good: if they do not like it, they can add to it.

That is fine for British Columbia which has a small agricultural industry, but how can Prince Edward Island get into this program? Prince Edward Island would be facing a massive expenditure. How could Saskatchewan, Manitoba or even Ontario or Quebec decide to opt into this program and bring up the threshold rate to, say, 95 or 100 per cent? It seems to me that this discriminates against the have-not areas of the country which have many farmers compared to areas which are industrialized. I would like the minister, instead of having that provision in the bill, to decide to take this federal legislation all the way and stabilize farm income at 100 per cent of the previous five-year average.
Those are just five or six points I am concerned about, points all of us should consider at the committee stage and points which I hope the minister will consider in terms of accepting or rejecting amendments which will come to him from hon. members on all sides of the House. I think these matters are important. I think it is also important to realize that this bill will not solve many of the problems we are facing. We have falling farm prices, to which I have already referred, we have instability in the marketplace and we have rising production costs. If we are to solve many of these problems we will need some fundamental changes in agriculture.
In a nutshell, I think our agricultural policy should be as follows: our objectives should be to maximize food production in this country. I think this should be the foreign policy of Canada. Canada is one of the few nations in the world which can produce massive surpluses of food products. It was a crime when during the last few months 28 million eggs went rotten because we did not have proper storage facilities and we did not have proper disposal units to channel them to needy countries. There is no world food bank and Canada does not have an adequate world food aid program. Those eggs represent only about one-half of 1 per cent margin of error by CEMA. It was about one day's lay for the hens of the nation. That is a very small margin of error.
If a large corporation made a margin of error of 1 per cent or less, we would say that the economists are doing a good job, but if CEMA does it many people are very critical because it is food being wasted. Eggs are going rotten while people are dying of starvation and while some people in this country are not getting proper nutrition. The other day there was a report which stated that over one million children in this country are not getting proper nourishment. Why do we not channel food into programs helping needy people around the world?
I think the prime objective should be to maximize food production. Food production can be maximized by doing two or three things. One is by stabilizing farm income so that the farmer makes a decent income for himself and his family so he can plan his production and so that, like any other wage earner, he will have an idea, when he plants his crop in the spring, of what he will receive in the fall. The farmer does not know that: he depends on the whims of the market, the whims of the weather and suffers from lack of planning by governments in this country. As much as possible we must try to eliminate these uncertainties. They cannot be eliminated entirely because we cannot tamper with weather conditions and many other things

around the world. But we should put millions and millions of dollars into support prices in Canada and into subsidizing the price farmers get for needed foods.
If these foods cost the Canadian consumer too much, instead of the farmer paying the price by reduced farm income-if the foods are basic necessities such as milk- then the Government of Canada should subsidize the price as suggested by the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). Instead of the consumer paying a high price in the market, if food is important and children should have that food then the government should subsidize it so that Canadians can afford to buy it. I do not think one's financial situation should determine what he can eat when it comes to foods which are nutritious and needed.
We should be guaranteeing the farmer a decent, stable income whereby he can plan a good life for himself and his family. Along with that we need strong marketing boards. I know that the Minister of Agriculture agrees with me on this. I think we have to say to people in urban Canada that a marketing board for farmers should be regarded as similar to a trade union for workers, a medical association for doctors, a legal association for lawyers or a business association for businessmen. The farmer should use the marketing board to bargain in the marketplace.
There are many forces which put pressure on the farmer, but I think if he had strong marketing boards for all his commodities there would be a greater tendency toward stabilized production and stabilized prices. The farmer could plan, food production would be maximized and the consumer would not be subjected to constant fluctuation of prices. We buy bacon one day at, for example, 89 cents per pound and a few weeks later it costs $1.95. That type of thing would not occur if we had a strong marketing board, if we had an agency bargaining for farmers whereby they could negotiate with the government, with food retailers and wholesalers regarding the price they are to receive. If we had this type of planning in agriculture we would achieve maximized food production, farmers with decent incomes and enough food for the consumers of this country.
Those are just a few of the things which should be said about this bill. It is a bill which most Canadian farmers will agree to support as far as it goes, but I think it is still far short of what is needed in terms of a fundamental change in agriculture, a change which is necessary if farmers are to stay on the land. In the last few years farmers have been leaving the land. The small farmer is squeezed out: it is happening in the west and in the east. Unless farm incomes are stabilized to the point where a man, his wife and his children can profitably run a farm of ordinary size, we will have long-term difficulties in agriculture in the future.
With those remarks I ask the House to deal expeditiously with the bill on second reading and send it to committee. Hopefully, we will consider there five or six amendments which will strengthen the bill from the farmers' point of view and will certainly do nothing to harm the consumer who has to consider food prices at the retail level.


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate with other hon. members in this debate
Agricultural Stabilization Act
on the stabilization bill. I wish to recognize the presence of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) this afternoon and throughout this debate, as he was in the House last Wednesday and Thursday when the bill was before us. Bill C-50 amends the Agricultural Stabilization Act which was first passed 17 years ago, in 1958, and replaced the 1944 agricultural prices support legislation with the Agricultural Stabilization Board. The objective of the board is to help producers obtain a fair share of the national income and achieve an equitable balance between the prices they receive for key agricultural products and the cost of goods and services which they buy. I am certain all hon. members of this House-certainly those who have participated and will participate in this debate-will agree that the objective of the board is indeed a very noble and worthy one.
Having said that, I ask the government how effective this act has been during the past 17 years in providing producers with a fair return for their labour and investment. How effective has it been in providing a fair relationship between the price received and the cost of the goods and services which they buy? The answer to these questions has frequently been communicated to the government by producers, farm organizations and commodity groups in all parts of this great country and might be summed up as, "Not very effective."
Where does the responsibility rest for this neglect and ineffectiveness? We cannot blame the producers. They have met countless times and made numerous requests for changes. Compared to other segments of society, their management and efficiency is almost unequalled; I am sure the minister would agree with that. We cannot blame the management of the board, either. Without hesitation, and with great pleasure, I acknowledge for the record my appreciation of the excellent contribution made by Mr. Sid Williams, former chairman of the stabilization board and former deputy minister of agriculture. The responsibility for the neglect and ineffectiveness must rest squarely and solely on the doorstep of this administration and those who comprise its membership.
The Canada Year Book for 1973 indicates that the stabilization board has a revolving fund of some $250 million, and that under the act the annual cost of stabilization programs has averaged approximately $85.5 million. Thus, one must conclude that $164.5 million has remained annually in this fund unused, unutilized, kept safely in the treasury and out of the hands of the producers for whom it was appropriated by parliament. On the average, approximately 30 per cent to 35 per cent of these funds has been paid out to producers of key agricultural products, most of which-if not all-are for essential food products for support programs. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that a pay-out of 30 per cent to 35 per cent might accurately describe the effectiveness of the past performance of this legislation. Needless to say, a 30 per cent to 35 per cent average, by any standard, could be described as somewhat less than a success.
The existing act provides that for each year the board must support, at not less than 80 per cent of the previous ten-year average market or base price, nine commodities- cattle, hogs, sheep, butter, cheese, eggs, wheat, oats and

Agricultural Stabilization Act
barley-which are produced outside the defined area of the Canadian Wheat Board. The board may, by order in council-and has at one time or another-support many farm products in addition to the original nine, some 28 in all ranging from such essentials as fluid milk, dairy products and potatoes to sunflower seeds and sweetheart roses. I have some doubt about supporting the last product. Perhaps when the minister sums up he will tell us why the government and the board saw fit to support sweetheart roses.
Support levels on the few commodities covered, amounting to 80 per cent of the ten-year average, during the early stages of the program provided some safeguards and no doubt some stability. Support levels of 90 per cent of the five-year average, as proposed in Bill C-50 during periods of a stable economy, low inflation and stable input cost would, of course, be an improvement over the old plan. But do these conditions exist? Certainly not. They have not over the past few years, and they certainly have not existed particularly during the last two to three years. Consider, for example, that the farm cost index has increased by 202.8 per cent since the best year of 1961, and that the consumer price index has increased by 175.8 per cent. The same report that gives these figures indicates that the 1975 farm net income will likely drop by 12 per cent.
We have, unfortunately, experienced under the government a very unhealthy economy, record high inflation- farmers suffer severely during times of high inflation- and record high farm input costs. It is because of these prevailing conditions and the failure of the government to respond to this situation that both the old program and the new one proposed in this bill will provide little, if any, assistance to producers of agricultural products.
This bill has been paraded by the government as the perfect solution, the be-all and end-all of stabilization programs, a fine example for all others to be patterned on, and the international leader. In an attempt to fool producers and others, this government should recognize-and I am certain that some government members do-that they are only fooling themselves.
Those of us who have maintained a grass roots interest in the primary sector of the agricultural industry and producers and producer organizations in all regions of this country have been quick to recognize the shortcomings of this bill. It falls far short of what is required. It falls far short of what has been requested and fully expected in order to regain confidence and stability in the industry. Long-term stability and adequate profit margins are absolutely essential if we are to have an adequate supply of food products not only for all Canadians but in order to fulfil our role as a producer of food for the underfed and the hungry of the underdeveloped countries of the world. Farmers cannot survive on green grass, clean air and sunshine.
It is simply unbelievable, and indeed something that we as Canadians cannot be proud of in this day and age of advanced science, technology and know-how-with the availability of rich agricultural land; with the will, the urge and the desire of our farmers to produce-that we as Canadians are not self-sufficient in all types of agricultural products that can be grown on Canadian soil. An earlier

speaker indicated that he was unable to buy Canadian butter. We import huge amounts of butter. The importation of specialty cheeses is another prime example. In fact, the present situation regarding the import of specialty cheeses is intolerable, and the increasing volume of these imports is making dangerous inroads into the production of industrial milk.
I am certain that if time permitted, many similar examples could be cited. Many examples could also be cited of the failure of this government to act promptly and adequately, or even to act at all. This has led to hardship and even disaster for producers and others in the industry. No government stabilization plan, certainly not the one before us today, can be highly successful unless fair protection is given readily against large volumes of lower cost imports which often stem from heavily subsidized countries or from countries with natural and climatic or other advantages. Tariffs on agricultural products are only about one-half of those on industrial products-8 per cent in comparison to 16 per cent.
Many people believe that producer subsidies are sufficiently high at present. This thought can be argued and debated, but I submit that it is certainly not true. It is generally acknowledged that our American competitors have a 20 per cent to 25 per cent advantage, mainly because of their government support programs. Agricultural subsidies in Canada, in most cases, are a fraction of those of our competitors. The per person subsidy for agriculture in 1968, for example, in Canada was $350, compared to $1,300 in the United States, $1,000 in the United Kingdom and $1,500 in Switzerland.
I recognize that some changes have occurred since that time, but no marked difference has resulted. Regardless of that, consumers should not be upset because they have benefited both by an adequate supply and, more than likely, by reduced prices in the marketplace. These figures should be mentioned from time to time, Mr. Speaker, in an effort not only to keep consumers accurately and completely informed but also to prevent a division or gulf of misunderstanding between farmers and the rest of the economy about the reason and the need to assist and support the Canadian agricultural industry.
True, the bill before us updates the original legislation. It could be improved by further reducing the five-year period to four years or to three years, or perhaps even less. Similarly, the 90 per cent provision could be increased. But whichever way it might be further improved by alteration, this can be said; neither the old bill nor the amendments contained in Bill C-50 will provide the support and stability that is needed and expected by Canadian producers.
Once again, because of lack of leadership and action by this government on national problems, the provinces are beginning to move into this area with various support programs. They recognize that something has to be done. I only hope that what appear to be short-term advantages do not result in long-term disasters caused by the failure of this government to face what is really a national responsibility.
Consider for a moment the importance of the industry in terms of the national economy. Farm assets in 1951

totalled $9 billion; by 1971 they had increased to $24 billion. Farmers spent, on goods and services, $1.5 billion in 1951; by 1971 the amount so spent had increased to $3.7 billion. About one-third of our labour force is involved with food and agricultural production. Twenty per cent of the gross value of our manufacturing industry is based on agriculture. Farmers, in 1970, spent $131 million on fertilizer; in 1971 they spent $605 million on farm machinery and another $282 million on oil, gasoline and lubricants, making the agricultural industry one of the biggest consumers of gas and oil products in Canada today. Another $644 million was spent on livestock feeds, $325 million on interest payments and $338 million for farm help. Canadian farmers are major contributors in the establishment of export credit. The figures for 1971 show record-breaking exports: we exported more than $2 billion worth of agricultural products. By 1974 that figure had doubled to nearly $4 billion.
In summary, let me say this: if governments ignore or pay little attention to the importance of the farm economy, we must make it clear to them in no uncertain terms that they are failing to deal fairly with a major group in the Canadian economy. I have the feeling, Mr. Speaker, that Bill C-50 and in fact all agricultural bills only interest the 6 per cent or 7 per cent of our population engaged in food production; that is to say, agriculture bills do not interest most people but interest only the dwindling number of our society who provide the food for our entire nation and, indeed, for people beyond our borders. The real truth of the matter is that good agricultural legislation which benefits producers, benefits the entire economy and provides significant advantages to all consumers.
I am aware that many farm associations are anxious to make presentations, to make their views known on this bill and to provide some input at the committee stage. These include the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the National Farmers Union, to name but two. Such opportunity must be provided.
Marketing boards and farm marketing commissions have functioned reasonably well in recent years and have greatly assisted producers to obtain improved markets, greater stability and fairer prices. These marketing boards and commissions have provided secure supplies of high quality products to consumers at very reasonable prices. The situation is that marketing boards, regardless of their usefulness and contribution, cannot supply adequate stability on their own. This bill, even though an improvement over its predecessor, falls far short of providing much in the way of either short or long-term stability. In closing, I am hopeful that at the committee stage recommended changes and amendments will be acceptable to the minister, to his staff and to the government.
Adjournment Motion



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. T. Lefebvre (Pontiac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the unanimous consent of the House to revert to motions so that I can announce the establishment of a special joint committee of the House for the consideration of the Green Paper on Immigration Policy.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I therefore move:
That the members of the House of Commons on the Special Joint Committee on the Green Paper on Immigration Policy be Mr. Alexander, Mr. Beaudoin, Miss Begin, Mr. Brewin, Mr. Daudlin, Mr. Epp, Mr. Friesen, Mr. Guay (St. Boniface), Mr. La Salle, Mr. Lee, Mr. MacDonald (Egmont), Miss Nicholson, Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Prud'homme and Mr. Rompkey; and
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours
thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard)-Health-Alleged failure of products of Connaught Laboratories to meet standards-Government action; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-National Defence-Overhaul of Boeing 707s by Transair-Suggested consideration of employees of Canadian aviation and electronics; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Communications-Abandoned Pine Tree radar base-Government action to prevent damage-Inquiry as to possible future use.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills and notices of motions.

National Housing Act



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West) moved: that Bill C-227, to amend the National Housing Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member knows that the Chair has expressed some reservations about this bill inasmuch as it seeks to remove from the statute a specific subparagraph and substitute for it another involving the expenditure of funds which come under the statute. Accordingly, there is some question whether the bill infringes upon the financial initiative of the Crown. If hon. members want to contribute to that point of order, the Chair will listen to their representations and reserve final decision about the orderliness of the bill. We could then allow debate to continue for the normal time and perhaps make a decision some time later.


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I submit that the bill standing in the name of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter) is highly irregular because it seeks to repeal subparagraph (ii) of section 34.1(l)(a) of the National Housing Act and substitute another paragraph the effect of which, if passed, would extend to the entire country the benefits of the program involved. The bill, if passed, would entail the expenditure of more than $1 billion. I submit that there are dozens of rulings of various Speakers of the House which say that only a minister of the Crown may propose a bill which involves the spending of public money. Citation 249 of Beau-chesne's Fourth Edition reads in part:

And I quote:
249. (1) "No cases can be found of any private member in the Canadian Commons receiving the authority of the Crown, through a minister, to propose a motion involving the expenditure of public money.

It is obvious, prima facie, that the bill does not conform to the fundamental rule which says that only ministers can introduce bills involving the expenditure of public funds. The object of the bill, as it is said, is to-
-to repeal the limitation therein and to apply it to the whole country. Considering that thousands of units must be renovated, we can easily infer that public expenditure will be greatly increased. That is why I ask the Chair to declare this bill out of order and inadmissible.


Mr. McKinley:: With regard to the matter Your Honour has raised, I think your assessment is what would be desirable. The idea incorporated in the bill is what the

hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter) is desiring to put before the House. I suggest we have this debate for an hour and it could then be ruled in order or out of order, whichever Your Honour sees fit. Your Honour's initial suggestion that the decision be made after a one-hour debate on the subject is preferable at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: If there is no other hon. member who wishes to make a contribution to the point of order, perhaps it could best be expressed that it appears on the face of it that there are certain difficulties such as those described by the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane). However, if the Chair were to reserve its decision perhaps the debate would bring forth, from members on all sides, explanations of the operation of the bill which might in fact persuade the Chair otherwise. The preliminary indications are that there would be great difficulty from the technical point of view because of the arguments made by the hon. member for Matane. Perhaps the best course to follow is for the Chair to reserve judgment, allow the debate to take place and see if there is anything during the course of the debate to persuade the Chair that the bill is in order.


Walter C. Carter: Madam Speaker, I apologize if my motion is in doubt. However, I am not too familiar with parliamentary procedure. I am more concerned about the thousands of people suffering the effects of poor housing, people with no assistance to improve their housing. I am more concerned about that than the niceties of whether technically the bill, in the opinion of some hon. members, is not in order.
The intent of the bill is to extend the benefits of the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program to families living in other than Neighbourhood Improvement Program areas or areas covered under the rural and native peoples housing policy as announced by the minister in March, 1974. The objective of the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program is to improve the housing conditions of low and moderate income people by assisting in the repair of their existing dwellings.
As Your Honour is aware, families with low incomes residing in designated NIP areas may borrow from the government under the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program up to $5,000, half of which is forgiven. This money is available to restore their homes, bringing them up to an acceptable standard having regard for their health, comfort and safety. The program could be of considerable benefit to our people except for the fact that its application is limited to families residing in NIP areas or those covered under the rural and native peoples housing policy.
If we accept the principle that all Canadians are entitled to decent housing-and surely this House must adhere to that principle-then the government's policy with respect to funds available for house repair and rehabilitation under the RRAP program discriminates against an estimated one million Canadians who, through no fault of their own, are forced to live in and raise their families in homes and under conditions that are totally unacceptable and far below the nationally accepted average. I make that charge on the basis of problems that exist in my city of St.

John's, Newfoundland, where we have one designated NIP area.
St. John's is unique in many respects, not the least of which is its housing stock. This is due in part to the fact that practically all the houses are of wooden construction. They are of a type and quality that is rare in North America. A large number of these fine old family homes are in urgent need of repair. As the gabled roofs and the bay windows rot, the occupant's income only enables him to go to the hardware store to buy cosmetics to replace the rot. That, of course, is no solution to the problem facing a large number of people who live in and try to raise their families in some of these old houses.
Having regard to the fact that in the majority of cases these homes are occupied by families with limited financial resources, it follows that with the absence of the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program or some other government assistance, these homes will within a very short time deteriorate to a point where they will be beyond hope as far as rehabilitation is concerned. That is why it is essential that the amendments to the National Housing Act which I propose in my Bill C-227 be accepted and implemented by the government as soon as possible.
I firmly believe that the government must recognize that in many of our urban and rural areas the benefits of the rehabilitation program are badly needed. Today there is hardly a major city in Canada that is not threatened with almost total destruction of older neighbourhoods under the guise of urban development. So-called progress has destroyed the old and unique and often aesthetically pleasing but deteriorating communities and has replaced them with parking lots, commercial development and municipal infrastructure designed to service industry and the automobile.
In many parts of Canada a visual sense of the past is rapidly being destroyed. It will continue to fall victim to the bulldozer unless and until the government assumes its responsibility to all Canadians, not just those who live within the NIP areas. In a large number of cities-and I can speak with some authority about what is happening in the historic city of St. John's-a lot of housing stock that should have another 15, 20 or 25 years of life is falling down. These homes are being threatened by the bulldozer and by people who want to buy the property and speculate, and are able to do so only because the occupants are unable to raise sufficient money on their own to bring the houses up to an acceptable standard.
This is why it is important that the government should initiate a program extending the present arrangements, whereby Canadians living on low and middle incomes can qualify for assistance as is now the case under the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program under which a person can borrow up to $5,000, half of which is forgiven and the other half of which is amortized over a number of years at a reasonable rate of interest. The only alternative presently open to these people is to try to obtain money under the home improvements section of the National Housing Act. I am finding that in my own city the banks are not co-operating as they should with people who apply for assistance under this section of the act. The banks are
National Housing Act
endeavouring to persuade them to apply for a conventional loan at the regular rate of interest.
I think this is grossly unfair since people in the income brackets I have mentioned find it extremely difficult to pay off their loans even at the rate of interest prescribed in the Home Improvement Loans Guarantee Act. They are being invited to borrow money at higher rates and this, to my mind, borders on the criminal. Be this as it may, the home improvement section of the National Housing Act is not working: it is not filling the role it was intended to fill. The people I have in mind are not financially capable of meeting the payments or of retiring even a $5,000 loan in a reasonably short amortization period when it bears the rate of interest regularly charged by the chartered banks.
Not all our people wish to live in suburbia. Not all our people wish to live in new bungalows in subdivisions. Many Canadians still want to live in the older parts of our cities. Some of them cannot afford cars; they cannot afford the cost of private transportation to their jobs. I think it essential that they should be given an opportunity to remain in the neighbourhoods with which they are familiar and which are convenient to them. This is why it is important that serious consideration be given to removing the discrimination which presently exists.
There is widespread approval of the principle that all Canadians are entitled to decent housing. Why should people in all parts of our cities not be entitled to the assistance in rehabilitation of housing which is now available to those living in designated NIP areas? In Newfoundland, where approximately 500,000 people live, I can only think of two designated neighbourhood improvement areas. One is in the riding of my hon. friend from Humber-St.George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), at Cornerbrook, and the other is in St. John's West, the constituency which I represent. No one in other parts of the province can avail themselves of this assistance.
I realize there are certain exceptions and that the governor in council has the power to designate other areas, but this arrangement is not working either. This morning I had occasion to talk with a person who worked with CMHC in a rather senior capacity. He told me his office was swamped with people trying to get assistance under the rehabilitation section of the National Housing Act to enable them to undertake necessary repairs to their homes. They had to be turned down because only those living in designated areas could receive assistance.
In conclusion, I would again strongly recommend that the government and its supporters allow this motion to come to a vote. It is important for the future welfare of a large number of Canadians: I believe there are around a million who are living in homes under conditions which are unacceptable. In St. John's, I suggest there are a couple of thousand houses which are not up to acceptable Canadian average standards. These are homes which could, without any great expenditure, be brought up to an acceptable standard and provide another 15 or 20 years of usefulness with a little help from the government along the lines of that provided under the RRAP program. I hope the government will see fit to accept the proposal I am making, and that having done so it will implement the changes in the act as soon as possible to enable people to provide themselves and their families with better accommodation.
3992

March 11, 1975
National Housing Act


Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Madam Speaker, I should like first of all to take part in this debate on the admissibility of the amendment introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter).
In my opinion, Madam Speaker, this amendment should be allowed. In fact, according to my interpretation of our standing orders, Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, and Bourinot's, no private member in this House may introduce an amendment which would result in either depriving the government of additional funds, or causing additional expenditures of funds by the government, which is precisely the purpose of my colleague's amendment. However, since 1957, and in 1958 in particular, a number of precedents were created in the House when a private member was allowed to introduce an amendment which resulted in either limiting the input of additional funds in the public treasury, or causing the government to spend more. And I feel the most recent instance is related to the last budget bill, when a number of amendments which had been introduced by opposition members were deemed in order by the Chair. Thus I believe, Madam Speaker, that the parliamentary procedure, as it is oriented now, generally expands the members' capacity to move amendments to this effect. In my opinion, we should support the one we have before us now.
On the other hand, as regards the very content of the amendment proposed by my hon. colleague, I am particularly anxious, Madam Speaker, to make my views known, because in my opinion the amendment deals with one of this government's most important priorities.
I would be remiss if, before getting to the content of the amendment, I did not reiterate certain statements of policy which have been recently stated anew by the Economic Council of Canada in their report entitled:
"Toward More Stable Growth in Construction"
The Economic Council of Canada pointed out specifically in their recommendation No. 7 that we should change appreciably our approach to the social housing problem. The council said, and I quote:
We recommend that future low-income housing efforts be organized and funded so as to ensure a smooth growth path over a period of years, on a regional basis, independent of any swings in other residential or nonresidential construction.
I agree with that approach and look forward to seeing the government pass a law putting it into force. Indeed, until now we have always insisted on having housing construction or housing starts follow economic fluctuations. In times of economic growth, the government holds back on its budgets; in times of economic stabilization, the government pours additional amounts into construction. This has often resulted in slowing down public housing; in the final analysis, the first to suffer the consequences are those Canadians whom my colleague described a while ago.
I should also point out to my colleague the Dennis-Fish report on the low-income housing market in Canada. This report, published in 1972, contains a passage I should like my colleagues to recall. It is a quotation taken from the

report of the Castonguay-Nepveu Commission of Inquiry into Health and Welfare published in 1971.
I quote an extract which, I think, underlies the philosophy of the amendment proposed by my colleague in the House this afternoon. The Castonguay commission stated:
Therefore, to recognize access to housing as a universal right implies a direct intervention of the state in the whole industry which still today depends nearly entirely on private enterprise. As the universal access to education and care has required the state to take the responsibility of those sectors instead of private enterprise, so the recognition of the access to housing as a universal right implies a similar direct intervention in housing services.
Madam Speaker, I think it is important that our conception of the right to housing recognizes for every citizen of the country equal access to adequate housing conditions. And the amendment proposed by my colleague this afternoon underlies that philosophy which has been reaffirmed in two very recent reports tabled in this House.
Madam Speaker, I would like to draw your attention on a particular aspect of the amendment proposed by my colleague, namely the philosophy that is behind the joint program. As you are aware, Madam Speaker, our philosophy in the area of social housing has changed. In the past, when we realized that people in our country needed the support of the government to have adequate housing, we immediately thought in terms of high-rise housing for these people. In the sixties, this approach contributed to create what I call "the concentration of poverty".
One needs only visit the first projects which were implemented under those programs. I have a few in mind and I shall mention for instance the Dozois plan, in Montreal, which is now a strange thing in the city of Montreal, in the sense that we thought we could meet the needs of those people when we initiated such programs in a given area of particularly high density. So that at the same time were creating ghettos of poor in the city areas where private enterprise and the municipal and provincial governments were not able to provide decent housing for these people. Our philosophy has considerably changed because we realize today that the best way to respect adequate urban life conditions and, mostly, to protect a certain quality of urban life was to have a much more practical outlook on social housing.
Madam Speaker, the RRAP program is an application of this outlook. Indeed, one starts with the principle that, in its normal composition, the urban fabric must be respected. All of us who live in cities realize that on certain streets, we do not see only elderly people, younger people, middle-aged persons or citizens having the same profession. The urban fabric is very diversified in its composition and in its social origin; when a government considers social housing as a priority, it must respect the urban fabric. In renovating their districts, in ensuring that they do not literally rot down, in grappling with signs of ageing of neighbourhoods, small urban areas can protect their own urban fabric structure.
Madam Speaker, if you ever had the opportunity, like some of my colleagues, to visit certain European cities that were devastated during the last world war, you probably noticed as I did that those neighbourhoods are particularly monotonous. Indeed, all those neighbourhoods were rebuilt at the same time. Many of my colleagues pointed out very opportunely the monotony of suburban living.
March 11, 1975

Why? Because all those houses were built according to the same plan, the same alignment and at a time when similarity was the order of the day in both architectural and social concept.
Madam Speaker, questions are being asked nowadays about the value of certain old neighbourhoods. One knows indeed that in such neighbourhoods, there usually exists a community tradition. Our cities have not become metropolises overnight. For instance, less than 50 years ago, there were about twenty municipalities within the territory of the island of Montreal. All those municipalities had a city hall, municipal services and an institutional structure to sustain a community life. And the same can be said of all the large Canadian cities built 50 years or more ago.
Now one realizes today that the development occurring in suburban cities prevents us from re-creating the same quality of community life that still exists in old neighbourhoods. If we let them grow old and worn out, as can be seen in certain areas in this country, a time will come when it will be impossible to recover the ancient housing structures; it will then be impossible to re-create that institutional life.
I would be remiss in not reminding the House the degree to which the era of polyvalent schools during the sixties constituted an extension of that urban bigness. Nowadays we realize that the professor-student relationship should be revalued, as should the employer-employee or the citizen-city relationship, because there is an irreplaceable quality of life within an already built neighbourhood.
Madam Speaker, the NIP program as set up is designed precisely to protect that quality of life in neighbourhoods that my colleague described as presenting particular characteristics.
That program, Madam Speaker, is particularly timely in that it contains one of the most interesting innovative aspects there can be. I will limit myself to drawing the attention of my colleagues to National Housing Act section 15 under which a non profit corporation can buy certain abandoned and decrepit houses, receive loans, grants, and rehabilitate them and make them available to people or groups of citizens who need public assistance to meet their needs in decent housing conditions.
As far as I know, there are now only three projects of that kind in the Montreal area-one in the riding of Saint-Henri, another in the riding of Saint-Jean, and one underway in the riding I represent.
The initiative of that project comes mainly from people in the neighbourhood interested in participating in the effort to rehabilitate the neighbourhood. Those people from a non-profit corporation, as set out in the legislation, and explore themselves the housing market to find structures that are abandoned or could be bought at a relatively moderate price. Once that is done, they assess the orientation of the neighbourhood, that is to say they check to see if the territory is registered, whether it is still residential-oriented, and particularly whether the project is within an overall approach of rehabilitation of the neighbourhood.
Indeed, Madam Speaker, I think it would be utopian to rehabilitate a house or blocks on a street or in a neighbourhood that are eventually intended to be left open to land speculation or if it is intended to leave the district
National Housing Act
with all kinds of aging industrial structures, in other words without devising a global approach of the district rehabilitation. In fact, not only should aging structures be renovated, but those districts should also often be provided with urban services which have become necessary in a context of planned urban life. Mini-parks often have to be created, and districts also have to be provided with adequate public services. For instance, the whole urban transportation network has to be reworked in such districts in order to connect the district being revitalized with working areas, professional business areas where most of their residents will have their working place.
Our approach to district rehabilitation therefore has to be a global one, and should not be aimed at dwelling structures specifically. It should also encompass industrial structures and urban commodities.
All in all, I think the amendment as it stands would only extend the program to the whole land without in my opinion respecting its basic philosophy.
I think my colleague will realize to what extent I and several of my colleagues share his views on the priority to be given urban rehabilitation. But I think that if we are to ask ourselves what the outcome of that program was, we should also strive to recognize the efforts of municipalities to share in its implementation.
Let me point out, Madam Speaker, that within the city of Montreal our whole approach to those problems was reconsidered and the policy objectives of the city are of course not just to rehabilitate the residential structures. For example, the city of Montreal has also established a program of rent subsidies; it means that, when you have restored a house, you have not necessarily contributed to give this housing to poor people. You must also be able to help them meet the additional costs of housing due to these renovations.
For, if an owner invests $60,000 in the renovation of a house, he will of course increase the rent at the end of the year, so that he may recover the parts of the costs which have not been covered by a loan or a subsidy. For that reason, you must also give a subsidy to the tenants who live in this house. Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, we must have provisions allowing us to intervene on a full area. For example, we must have targets in our renovations. We must also undertake the renovation of two or three housing structures which seem to have priority in a street, so that the structures which are going to fall into disrepair will be looked after as soon as possible.
We must also think of passing provisions to release land around residential areas, so that life in the open should be possible and appropriate parks could be organised. We must also be able to drive out of these areas all the undesirable elements which may have settled in the past, when our municipal by-laws were very flexible. In other words, we must have a global program of district renovations.
I believe that if we must bring an original contribution to this debate, we must rather aim at improving our programs on this global basis, and not at limitating them only to housing structures, because finally only a minimum part of the objective would be thus reached.
28996-48V2

National Housing Act
In such a highly populated area as the city of Montreal, more than 50,000 units would need renovation to meet the standards of the housing code. We realize, Madam Speaker, that all these housing units cannot be renovated at the same time and without some planning. I believe that RAPP provisions as they now stand also call upon community groups.
I would suggest that my colleague make a try in his province. I suggest he urges interested citizen groups in his constituency to regroup into a nonprofit corporation and use that section of the act. It is now realized that the amounts voted, especially for the implementation of that aspect of the program, were not entirely used, and certainly could create more healthy housing, if nonprofit groups were established to meet the needs of certain segments of the population.
Of course areas as designated by the Governor in Council create difficulties. This may not promote an overall, across-the-board program as might be desirable, in the light of the right to housing referred to earlier. Nevertheless, land development cannot be allowed to proceed haphazardly, especially in urban areas. Urban development cannot be left entirely to the whims of owners. Some invest in land, and let depreciation accumulate to the extent of the money invested. Others would show more decency if coercive provisions forced them to renovate their buildings when needed.
In my view, provisions promoting urban planning by municipalities, as they stand in the bill, favour land use planning, which is so vital if our cities are to conserve a measure of unity, especially in older districts.
I welcome the attempts made regularly by some of my colleagues to emphasize the need for a new approach to problems. If a number of colleagues proposed bolder reforms in our approaches, I believe we would meet one of the most urgent priorities of this decade, the promotion of housing as a basic right of every Canadian.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter) is to be commended for bringing forward Bill C-227 because he draws to the attention of the House the shortcomings of the rehabilitation assistance program when it is confined to persons entitled to those moneys within the neighbourhood improvement areas.
I was rather surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. De Bane) would attempt to block discussion on this very important bill, because if we have a crisis in Canada today it is surely the housing crisis, particularly when one realizes that there are 800,000 people unemployed and that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) says the target for new starts should be 210,000 just to keep up with present needs, while at the same time the latest news issue from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation indicates that housing starts for the month of February dropped to
156,000	on a seasonally adjusted basis, and that in January the figure was no more than 165,000.
We have a problem in respect of new starts and a problem in respect of rehabilitation and home improvements. May I remind you, Madam Speaker, that the only

two programs we have with regard to rehabilitation are the one contained in section 31(1) concerning the residential rehabilitation assistance program, and the home improvement program under the National Housing Act.
I might remind the House that the home improvement program under the national housing provisions has been a dismal failure, which of course was pointed out by the hon. member for St. John's West. That program was financed through the provinces and many people were not aware that they could go to the banks for money for home improvements or, if they were aware of this, perhaps they thought that the interest rate would be too high. Many people who were completely ignorant of the situation went to finance companies where they paid almost double the rate they would have been charged for home improvement loans at a bank. This has created a very bad situation.
The hon. member for St. John's West, and all of us in this House, uphold the proposition that decent housing is a matter of a basic human right for all Canadians. We also consider that it should be decent housing at an affordable cost. Therefore we have to look not only at new housing but at the rehabilitation of houses. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs has said that there are at least 800,000 homes across Canada that are in need of repairs and rehabilitation. The fact is that this need is felt in every city, town and village right across the country. Therefore it is a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
I almost think that if I were to argue whether or not this bill is in order I would fall back on the peace, order and good government clause in the constitution because if we are to have good government especially in times of unemployment, and a housing crisis, we must be given leadership by the government, leadership which we do not have now. As a result it is absolutely necessary that the government provide funds to take care of new housing starts and to take care of repairs and rehabilitation. I think that this is the time to put that money into the economy and thus help the unemployment situation.
The residential rehabilitation program has got off to a slow start since it was passed in 1973. I think one of the reasons, first of all, is that it is confined to people in the neighbourhood improvement areas, and also it is subject to a great deal of bureaucratic control across the country. Obtaining the necessary agreements has been a delaying factor in the implementation of the program. It is a good program because it has a forgiveness clause in the loan conditions, and moneys are amortized over a fair period at a reasonable rate. Therefore I think we should use the idea of a low interest rate with a long amortization because it is necessary that people be given money to rehabilitate their homes and, at the same time, not have a great financial burden imposed on them. This applies to people right across the country. It applies to Indians and Eskimos, it applies to old age pensioners, to widows and widowers, and to single men and women.
People must be given help in creating the type of home which will provide them with the best quality of living, since it is the home atmosphere that determines the social conduct of people within a community. We are paying at a

very high price for housing because of the social consequences flowing from a shortage of houses and their poor state of repair. It is not only the physical structure that must be repaired but some times there is such a thing known as social obsolescence.
As we improve our living standard the old homes that we have may be inadequate to help us attain some of the social benefits that are necessary for happiness within the community. It may be that more space is needed for a car. The occupants of a house may need space for a hobby room or a music room, or they may need more space for a garden. In fact, maybe we are not talking about obsoles-cence-and repair, but rather about replacement, and that is why it is so important.
Nevertheless, structural repairs are important. Let me give you an example. In my riding a group of houses in the lower end of my riding were built in 1910 at a cost of $1,500 a house. These houses were occupied until two years ago by people on very low incomes, many of whom needed social assistance to pay the rent. What happened is rather striking. Developers who moved into the city of Toronto acquired this group of row houses. They tore the insides of the houses down, and replaced everything except for the individual structure itself. However, these houses are now selling for between $70,000 and $75,000. The down payment on them is no less than $20,000, and I think the first mortgage is at about 10 Vi per cent with the second mortgage at 12 per cent.
This is what is happening in many of our large cities. People on low and moderate incomes are being driven out of homes which should be repaired for them, and the vacated homes are renovated and rehabilitated for people who have money and who are moving back into the city to attain what is known as social status. This is what is happening across the country.
When I heard the hon. member for St. John's West speak, I was reminded of housing in Newfoundland and the maritimes. Today I came back from the maritimes where I saw some of the homes there. A successful building scheme down there is what is called shell housing. We must put more money into shell housing because people must have money as they go on with the construction of their homes. It is onerous to assume a mortgage these days at 10 per cent or 10.5 per cent, with the heavy interest payments that people must meet. Therefore I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs to speak to the minister.
The minister is a man of fine instincts, a man of decent qualities. It seems to me that he intends to do a good job in housing, but he is not getting the necessary support of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). He does not want to see
156,000	starts for February when his target is 210,000 and he does not want to see people living in poor quality homes. He needs the necessary money and the necessary co-operation.
In committee the other day the minister castigated the trade unions for not contributing to the housing fund scheme. They should contribute, and so should the banks and the insurance and trust companies. The minister should put a high priority on housing starts and the rehabilitation of houses so that every year he has a program and commitments from the financial institutions. If
National Housing Act
it means pension funds, then he should conscript all financial institutions into contributing to the program so as to ensure that he has the necessary moneys. That is the way in which it must be done.
Also, a reasonable interest rate should be established. We cannot consider an interest rate of 10 per cent or 11 per cent, especially for pensioners. How can one impose that on a pensioner, or on an Indian or Metis? How can one impose that rate on a father or mother who has other commitments? The Minister of State for Urban Affairs said that he would like to see the housing budget of any person not exceed 22 per cent of income, and I agree with him. But in too many cases it far exceeds 22 per cent. We find people with an income of $3,000 or less spending up to 50 per cent of their income on rent. Therefore it is a good thing that the hon. member put forward his bill today because he has underlined the deficiencies in our present housing program.
I hope that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, the Minister of Finance and all hon. members appreciate the seriousness of the housing crisis in Canada, and what a tremendous help its alleviation would be in solving the unemployment problem, while providing a better quality of housing so that people can live in decent housing at affordable cost.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Madam Speaker, I shall certainly be brief because I have only seven minutes left. I would still like to congratulate the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter) for having introduced Bill C-227. As to whether the bill is out of order or not, I was somewhat surprised to hear the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) ask the Chair to declare this bill out of order. The hon. member for Matane has been a member of this House for several years and I found the way in which he wanted to get rid of this bill very strange. As all other members, he is well aware that bills introduced during private members' hour have a life expectancy of only one hour. This bill will necessarily be killed by the clock like all the others, Madam Speaker, but it will give us the opportunity to express our opinion on certain subjects about which we could not otherwise talk in this House.
In my opinion, this bill is very interesting, as the previous speakers have proved, since it suggests an amendment to the National Housing Act, an amendment wanted by all the population, especially the low income earners who wish to obtain a dwelling. When I speak of a dwelling, I mean a family dwelling, and this afternoon, we have heard mostly about the programs and the needs of the large centres.
I know that there is a pressing need of it. What the members of the House do not know, it is what is needed for rural communities, villages and towns and in rural areas as a whole.
If the government were to accept this amendment, it would be required to introduce legislation allowing low income workers to repair their homes, especially in villages and in the country. If they could take advantage of the plans proposed by the Central Mortgage and Housing

National Housing Act
Corporation to rehabilitate their homes, it could be possible to improve them rather than build new ones. Nowadays they have to pull down old houses and replace them by new ones if they want to get a loan from the CMHC.
I believe that we are wrong. We should give priority to houses with a good structure and then give a chance to people who could renovate them. That would cost about one third the price of a new house. In my opinion, this amendment to the legislation will solve in part the family problem of low income families.
Madam Speaker, the interest issue has been raised. I believe it should be possible for those people who need low price houses to borrow money bearing a low rate of interest. What happens today? The low income families anxious to buy a house are disadvantaged because of interest rates, because those are established according to the paying capacity of the borrower; in other words, the lower the income of the borrower, the higher the interests, and that should be the contrary, if we want to work in a social spirit to help those people.
I will restrain myself to those few comments because another member is asking me for two or three minutes. I would like to call the attention of the government to the need for social interest rates for those people and the deductibility from their income tax of the interest paid when they buy a house.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Madam Speaker, I always get in on the tail end of everything. In the couple of minutes I have left I would like to commend my hon. colleague from St. John's West for bringing in the bill. I participated in a debate on this same topic, as did the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane), just a couple or weeks ago.
I think we should consider the aim of residential rehabilitation. It points out the importance of residential rehabilitation in Canada. The aim is to bring housing up to the minimum standards of health and safety. Everyone can realize the implications this brings to improving housing for low income people in Canada.
I would like to point out that the Dennis and Fish study on low income housing-and I have said many times that it was a good study on neighbourhood improvement- indicated that:
There are provisions under the National Housing Act for federal financing... of rehabilitation projects. To date, however, little widespread use has been made of the program. This is due to a slowness in communication between Ottawa, the Provinces and the cities in defining program needs.
The program came into effect almost two years ago, and still only a small number of designated areas have been defined. I would like to go on, Madam Speaker, but I will sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. 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. C. Douglas (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, in the past week Bill C-50 was described to me by a number of very responsible members of the agricultural community in my area as the bill that will possibly be referred to as the saving piece of legislation for agriculture in the years to come.
For a number of days we have been sitting here listening attentively to speaker after speaker from the opposition side deliver tirade after tirade against the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). But, Mr. Speaker, throughout all that high priced verbiage I have not been able to discern one iota of constructive suggestion of any substance that would give any indication that the hon. members have in their possession any workable solution to the problems that they claim have been caused by, or at least not solved by the Minister of Agriculture.
And while constructive criticism should-


An hon. Member:: Where did you get the farm credit recommendation? It was the 1972 Conservative platform.


Crawford Douglas: -and will always be encouraged by this government when given by well meaning members of the official opposition and all members of the opposition, I think it behooves us now to get on to the committee stage of discussion. Members of the committee concerned about the problems of agriculture can then debate this bill, study it clause by clause, and report to this House in the very near future. In this way improvements and recommendations for action outlined in the bill can be put into practice for the betterment of the farm population of this country who are now in need of the type of assistance proposed to be supplied by the bill.
It is all well and good to use the second reading stage of this legislation as a vehicle "to get the Minister of Agriculture," but it is more important now that the farmers of Canada get the benefits available to them under the provisions of the legislation. As a matter of fact, I too would like to get the Minister of Agriculture. I would like to get him to accept a permanent position as the Minister of Agriculture. He is the best one the country has ever had. If the members opposite disagree, I hope they will look around this House and realize that many of the seats they used to hold are now filled by members on the government

side of the House. The people of this country, and particularly the farm and agricultural communities, put their trust and confidence in the minister, and expressed their feelings on the matter in no uncertain terms on July 8, 1974.
The hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) earlier today said that only 6 per cent of the labour force is involved in agriculture and the provision of food. While that may be true, I would strongly point out, Mr. Speaker, that the other 94 per cent of us will be in a terrible mess if that 6 per cent should decide to stop supplying basic necessities at a reasonable and economical price.
I respect the hon. member for Windsor West in his attempts at upholding the rights of the consumer, and laud him for that stand. But I hope he did not imply that the 6 per cent he talked about were unimportant to the remainder of this country's citizens. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that he was trying to point out the great importance of that 6 per cent of our population to all segments of our economy.
Too many times we get the impression that farm stabilization legislation is a device used by government to help those poor downtrodden, backward bumpkins out on the back forty who simply cannot look after themselves. Mr. Speaker, in many cases support prices and stabilization plans are in reality consumer subsidies that are of benefit not to the farmer but to the consumer. Ask a western wheat farmer about the two price wheat system, or a milk producer about the dairy subsidy.
I hope that hon. members of this House who represent urban areas will pause to reflect for just a moment on exactly where we sit in this country. As consumers we tend to forget that farmers are also consumers, indeed very large consumers-consumers of petroleum, consumers of all of the commodities and services, consumers of farm machinery, of automobiles, and consumers that in some instances have been taken to the cleaners like no other group. Ask the farmer about price rises in fertilizer, farm machinery, machinery parts, binder twine, to name a few. I have not heard members who claim to be concerned about consumers create much of a hue and cry about these people or about protecting their jobs.
We have been asked where the total cost of this bill will fall. Mr. Speaker, I would pose a counter question. Where will the burden fall when farmers say to heck with it and quit producing the essential foodstuffs we all rely on, and tell the small businessman, the factory worker, the corporate executives, labour union leaders and their members of parliament to try to get along without them. We, as consumers, may think we have it tough now, but if that happens hamburger at $4 a pound will look cheap. Despite fantastic prices in the parliamentary restaurant even my hon. friend, the member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski), would not be able to get nourishment from an empty plate.
We might as well face the facts. Farmers throughout this land of ours, whether in British Columbia or the maritimes, Ontario, Quebec, or the rolling prairies, are all concerned about today's conditions and the outlook for tomorrow. More than one has come to me since July 8 and suggested the possibility of withholding farm produce to point out their problems to the rest of Canada. I can tell you, Sir, that if they did so for only a week or two, all
Agricultural Stabilization Act
Canadians would view the farmer and his importance in a brand new light. These same farmers, beef producers, hog producers and yes, egg producers too, have all told me the farmers of Canada need the stabilization bill, and need it now. They ask what the Minister of Agriculture and the government are going to do for agriculture in this country.
In my hand I have a list of all the things the government and the Minister of Agriculture have done for consumers and farmers. In 1972 provincial marketing boards and egg producer boards signed agreements implementing a national egg marketing plan. Let me also refer to the Prince Edward Island agreement on the small farm development program, to changes requested by major livestock industry organizations in the contents of the blue book, to the Nova Scotia agreement on the small farm development program, and to the federal crop loss assistance program designed to help farmers in the Peace River area of British Columbia and Alberta. I could list page after page of other programs which have been implemented and which continue to help the farmer and consumer.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, should not be considered as an entity unto itself; it should be looked at in conjunction with other bills before the House, bills which have been brought forward by the Minister of Agriculture and others who are concerned about farming. I am thinking of the amendments to the Farm Credit Act which we debated recently. If we provide loans to young farmers, we must make sure that they know what prices they can expect for their produce and how much they can earn. It is especially important for young farmers to know what their input costs will be. I think the farm stabilization bill, in conjunction with the amended Farm Credit Act, will provide the young farmers of tomorrow with the needed stability.
The government will soon introduce the health of animals bill, the western grain stabilization bill, and the two-price wheat bill. This legislation must be considered as one package. These bills constitute a total program. They cannot be considered in isolation. As I said, we must look at the total picture, at the total effect of these bills on the farmers of the nation.
Earlier today the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) said that the consumer sometimes feels the farmer has been doing well enough, thank you, and we should not worry about him. Let me tell him that many farmers of my area would love to meet him face to face, would love to tell people who think his way what has happened to farm prices and input costs. In the past year input costs have risen sky high, but prices have dropped. I am sure they could convince the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, and others who think as he does, of the wrongness of his opinions.
For, Mr. Speaker, now as never before this country goes as the farmer goes. It has always been thus. When the farmer is prosperous, this country's economy is prosperous. When he is in economic difficulty, so is the rest of our economy. The farmer is a good spender. If he has money he will buy new farm machinery; he will invest in this country. We depend on the farmer. As his economy goes, so will ours.

March 11, 1975
Agricultural Stabilization Act
I took time the other day to look up the dictionary definition of stabilization. It is defined as, "to maintain or provide for the maintenance of the purchasing power of a country's currency by fixing its value in terms of gold." Another definition is, "something that is stable." I thought I had better look up the meaning of stable. I saw that the definition was, "something that is firmly fixed or established, not easily to be moved or changed, or fickle." The dictionary gave as an example of use, "the only stable politician of his day." That is exactly what we are talking about here. We are considering a bill which will give the profession of agriculture some of the stability which today is lacking. The bill is being brought in by one of the truly stable politicians of this day. Let us get on with it as soon as possible. Let us complete second reading and committee stages, so that those who need its benefits are not kept waiting.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, my remarks on the bill to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act will be, I hope, constructive for the minister's benefit, and educational for those hon. gentlemen who think history started in 1974. The original Agricultural Stabilization Act was debated in this House in 1958. It was introduced as part of a package for dealing with the fundamental weakness of the agricultural industry.
The sorts of speeches made by hon. members opposite tonight, and I include copies of the speech the minister's office has been distributing, raise the ire of farmers across this country. They are calling in to us and saying, "Why don't you tell that-


An hon. Member:: Careful!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -"Why don't you tell that-unprintable-what the facts are." That is why members on my side spoke about the plight of farmers in their areas.
The hon. member from the Okanagan area and the hon. member from New Brunswick, together with farm representatives across the country, are trying to tell the minister something. Put bluntly and simply, they are saying that for two and a half years the farming people of this country have held their breath waiting for the government to act. Farmers like the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). He speaks like one of them. Every time a farm group raises a problem, he says, "I think you are right. I will look into it and do something."
We can see what the minister has done. Every proposal brought forward by the minister seeks to amend Conservative legislation passed in this House in 1958 or 1959. The program we are discussing is part of a package. The original bill was known as the Agricultural Stabilization Act. It was designed to provide insurance against disastrous drops in price. It was disaster insurance-that is all. You must have it. The hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Douglas) was quite right. You must insure against disaster before you can implement other programs. They are all connected. The hon. member also mentioned the Farm Credit Act, originally introduced in 1959 by the Conservative government, and soon to be amended by this House.

I want to list the ingredients of the package which give logic and coherence to any over-all national agricultural program. First, you must consider accelerated sales. The farmer knows that, given his present productivity, he can produce far more than city people can consume. Therefore he must be heloed to dispose of his product in the huge quantity which is made possible by modern technology. This product must be put in the hands of somebody who needs it. So the first step is a marketing program which will help the farmer to sell, and not restrict production. I will return to that point.
Second, the farmer must be guaranteed stability of price. This bill is supposed to do that. It seeks to guarantee the farmer who breeds an animal or grows a crop that, when it is time to market the product, he will not be forced into bankruptcy if the price drops.
This bill is a good bill. The minister has improved the original legislation by raising the 80 per cent provision to 90 per cent. That is all this bill does. It does not add to the minister's powers. They are the same as they were before. The powers have been there for all these years. The farmer has watched minister after minister take the office of Minister of Agriculture and never fully use the powers. That is why you see the fruit and vegetable people upset.
If you come from a potato area like New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Ontario, Manitoba, or British Columbia, you can ask the local farmer what this act has done over the past 17 years. He can only mention about three or four things brought in to help him. The potato grower had low prices for 10 or 12 years, good prices for two years, and disaster in 1974. Here we are three months into 1975 and the government still has not got a clue about what it is going to do. It just met with the farmers last week. The crop conditions and price conditions were known last fall.
There is an awful awareness on the part of farmers. They remember the thirties when, as young men on the farms, they pleaded for stability of prices and markets, stability of income, a modern system of farm credit, re-development, and utilization of all their resources. All they got in the last half of the thirties when their needs were so great was the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. They got that in 1939, and that was all. As a matter of fact, in 1939 there were four acts of parliament passed and never proclaimed, to get rid of the wheat board. This brings me to what I really want to say.
Over the past 40 years of agricultural economic history, all farmers have known under Liberal administration has been chaos. The only party that ever gave them hope and any form of logic or coherence in its programming was the Conservative party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In the
early years of the depression it was the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act of 1934, the Canadian Wheat Board Act of 1935, and the National Products Marketing Act of 1934. Those were the acts brought in in the last three years of the Bennett administration.
March 11, 1975

When the Liberal government was elected in 1935 it took all the legislation it could to the courts and said, "Throw it out". It was thrown out. That was the Liberal contribution to agriculture, with the exception of the PFA which came in 1939. During the war when they planned to get rid of the wheat board, they found it was a way of keeping prices down. They then kept the wheat board as a way of restricting the farmer from producing by keeping down his price.
In 1946 we got the British wheat agreement. For four years we had to sell our wheat according to government mandate from Ottawa at a price below world prices. I am simply saying Liberal years to the farmers were chaotic years.
Then we had another period from 1957 to 1963. We did something in a small way about marketing the farmers' products. We did nothing substantial for the eastern farmer during that period. We never got around to it. We did something about stabilizing prices. In 1962, just a few years after, because the legislation was not changed it was already out of date.
This is why there are complaints from those members who represent farm areas. They know there is more profit in the big mandatory products. They know the legislation has not met the needs of many of the other products over the years. The farmer has held his breath for two and a half years hoping this new minister, who looks and talks like a farmer, will help them, but you only measure a farmer, or anything else, by productivity.
What the minister has produced is an amendment to a good law that makes it a little better. He deserves full credit for that. He moved the time period for averaging the base price from ten years to five. Let me remind the House that when the original bill was introduced in 1958 it had a three year average for the base period. That was taken out because in those days it was the Liberals who sat on this side of the House. They fought like tigers to get it changed into ten years. The farm organizations supported the Liberals at that time, and we agreed. That was a mistake we made.
I know the history of this period. I know this is a good bill, but it is only part of a package. It must be understood it does not provide what the farmer wants, which is not only security against price drops. He needs that. Now he is asking for security of income, and there is a difference a mile wide. The difference between stability of price and stability of income is what I am afraid the minister does not understand.
When the minister states he is going to bring in a stabilization bill that will answer all the farmers' needs, their hearts begin to palpitate with expectation. Then they get this warmed-over Conservative legislation. The minister is going to be in serious trouble unless he can find someone in his department, someone among his friends, who can sit down and visualize what the needs are in 1975 as opposed to 1972. The difference is a country mile apart.
A few years ago several members pointed out that prices moved fairly gradually. A moving average was fairly useful. However, today we have an inflation rate on equi-pemnt costs that is not going up by the 10 per cent figure that consumer costs are going up, but is going up at such
Agricultural Stabilization Act
tremendous escalation that even on average it is over 15 per cent, and in fact closer to 20 per cent.
Every member can quote examples of machinery that costs $4,000 when you go in to price it. You go out and sell your old machine, but by the time you get back the price is $9,000. By the time the order gets through company headquarters, it is up to $13,000. This is the type of thing we are facing.
If you want imaginative thinking today, set the base price as a cost figure today. After that put in the escalator factors. Every bit of common sense will tell you that what is the base price today at 100 per cent of your costs will be 115 per cent next year. However, under this bill's averaging device all you can take of that increase in cost, if you are measuring against cost, is only 20 per cent of 15%, which is 3 per cent. This bill does not measure against costs, however. It measures against marketing price, which has no relationship to cost.
The bill is good. However, let us not build up a great expectation among farmers that a bill that is good will do things that it cannot do. That is my first point, Mr. Speaker. This is good legislation for a small purpose. That small purpose is to guarantee to the farmer who has a debt, trying to go ahead and plan some thing or breed something, that there will at least be that as a floor price for the coming crop year. That brings me to the second point.
To repeat the first point, this is good legislation, sound in logic, and coherent with all the other parts of the package, but it is only a part. The minister was quite right when he said in Assiniboia last week that this is part of a package. I have the press release. I do not yet have a copy of his speech. However, he is wrong when he leaves those poor people of Assiniboia believing he is going to answer all their problems. That is where the trouble lies. They have great expectations that this legislation will solve all their problems. However, as several members have pointed out, when you look at the legislation, it is the same legislation that we passed in 1958. In fact, I do not think it is as good. It is true that provision is made for 90 per cent, and that is fair enough, but that moving average is as useless today as some of the appendages of a boar. That is the first thing.
The original concept was to tell the farmer before he planted his seed or bred his animal what he could expect by way of return. The term used was forward pricing. Forward pricing is not mentioned in this legislation.
I have brought down with me the last report of the Price Stabilization Board containing details about some of the things it supported last year. Take sugar beet. On June 4, 1971, and June 10, 1972, it was announced in press releases that the '71 and '72 sugar beet crops would continue to be supported at so much a cwt. When do they plant beets in Ontario, Alberta and Manitoba? If a farmer has not put in his sugar beets by June he should not be farming.
I go on to the next item, potatoes. Here is an Order in Council dated January 19, 1972, authorizing the board to purchase certain quantities of No. 1 grade potatoes. All this does is try to close the barn door after the potatoes have escaped.

March 11, 1975
Agricultural Stabilization Act
Take apples-on November 9 the Board was authorized to make certain payments after the apples had been grown. Here is another order with respect to carrots dated December 21. Mr. Speaker, who raises carrots in the middle of winter unless it is in a hothouse? And so it goes. The price is always announced after the grower is committed.
If this legislation is to be used to encourage farm production, the department knows months in advance what the average will be, so tell the producer what price is to be paid by making it a forward price-it will not be of much help, but it will help a little.
On this subject of forward pricing let me elucidate in connection with a modern policy of inducement to production. Having heard the speeches made by the minister, farmers were expecting that this legislation would provide an income guarantee. They expected it would be something along the lines of what has been done in British Columbia, or what Ontario and Quebec are thinking of doing, that is to say, giving the farmer the benefit or the promise of a guaranteed income. But all the farmer gets from this bill is a guarantee that if he raises one of a certain group of commodities he will get 90 per cent of a five-year price average and that, if the provinces or producers want to contribute, a little more can be added to the guaranteed price.
What I am pointing out is that if the minister wants farmers to produce, more than this needs to be done. There has to be an incomes policy, and this is not an incomes policy. An effort is going on to provide an incomes policy for the grain farmers on the prairies, but there is nothing for the other poor slobs who happen to live outside the prairies. We need to insist in the committee that prices must be announced before the production season begins. This was the original philosophy behind the bill, but it has been ignored throughout in the course of the administration of the act. In the case of products whose prices are subject to violent fluctuations, I am thinking, for example, of fruit and vegetables, the answer will not lie in this legislation at all but possibly in some sort of marketing organization which will be prepared at a moment's notice to buy these products and put them into people's stomachs.
To get back to this question of forward pricing, let us look at it realistically. If we examine farm income in the various provinces in the last four or five years we find there are only three provinces where, after a farmer has covered the costs of his operation, looked after interest on investment, and set aside $3,000 or $4,000 for wages and management, there is any money left over. I am referring to the three prairie provinces where a large proportion of the production consists of grain.
The Ontario farmer is the most efficient in the world, yet all he is doing is running at high speed and remaining in the same place. To assure him he will get the average of prices over the last five years will do nothing to induce him to produce more. In the maritimes, farmers are running too, but they are not even staying in the same place; they are going backwards. In Quebec, with its tremendous agricultural potential, they are going downhill.
The only thing that has saved the prairie province in the last two years is that, thanks to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), we had no grain to sell, prices went up to the

roof and for once we got ahead of our costs. Today, though, the grain farmer is as naked as a jaybird. He knows there is no international convention governing prices. He knows there is no floor price available to him, and that if there should happen to be one or two million extra tons of bread grain available in the world, prices will fall as quickly as they rose and then the only thing he will be able to do is go to the poor house in high gear, for which he is well equipped.
If we were completely open in our approach to this legislation we would acknowledge that it is only part of a package. No financial institution wants to lend, say, $100,000 to assist a farm operation unless it has a good idea what the annual income is likely to be. Legislation such as this has a part to play, but it will not solve all the problems of farm income; it will not send farmers roaring into the fields to plant next spring, or roaring out to breed their stock when they know that a price based on a five-year average will not meet costs of production. There has to be a new and imaginative starting place, and on the basis of average prices in the last five years the government is not going to get much action.
I hope, I have explained with sufficient clarity the part this legislation plays in the overall scheme of things. I hope, I have made it clear that forward pricing should be put back into the legislation. I hope, the minister will seize the bull by the horns and agree that this should be started on a new basis. Having got that clearly in mind, let us also have clarity of thinking about what we have to do to give the farmer stability of income.
I should like to ask the minister, in a rhetorical way, to examine the speeches made by the hon. member from the Okanagan and the hon. member from New Brunswick who spoke of problems in their areas. These members represent two different extremes of the country, two types of product-fruit and vegetables-in regard to which there has never been justice from the legislation over the years. Let us see whether we can come up with a program on the marketing side that will give them some hope for the future.
I should like to conclude my remarks with this main thrust. My party will support this legislation. It will try to amend it, never pretending that it is going to cure all of the problems of the farmers. But this party wants the minister not to betray the faith that the people of Canada have in him. He will be different from his predecessors if he does something other than talk. If the minister would get rid of some of the people who surround him, and who publish one speech after another that should make us ashamed that we ever became connected with agriculture, he will be able to rest his jaw and let his brains catch up.
What I am trying to say is that we want action. We are willing to be co-operative. But one of the techniques that the advisers use in taking over a minister is to give the minister so many speaking engagements that he has no time to think. I say to this minister, take time off to think. The members on this side of the House may be called Conservatives but they are not evil men, and I say the same of all members of the House. There must be some good in everybody. I have learned from experience to

listen. I do not know everything about agriculture, so all I can do is listen and then try to do something based on what I have learned. Let not the minister be known as a minister who talked and never did anything new and creative.
The minister has a great opportunity to get rid of one phrase that his speechwriters use, "supply management". This is a great subject of contention in the world today. The world needs food, so what we must do is expand. Supply management is the tool of the economist, the adviser to governments, who wants to restrict production. That is the difference.
Supply management started in Europe and was brought to North America in 1960. We, as a government in Canada, in 1960 resisted it and we continued to expand. The United States accepted it in 1960, and look at the disaster it was to their farmers. It got into this country in 1969 through that awful agricultural task force report which recommended that two out of every three farmers should get off their farms. It recommended that we reduce the acreage sown by wheat farmers by half; it recommended that the farmers be sent to the cities. It was called the small farms program.
Worst of all, this government, of which the minister was part-he sat on the back benches in those days-brought in legislation to restrict agriculture. It succumbed to the false doctrine of supply management. It succumbed to the doctrine of restricting the production of the farmer. It succumbed to the doctrine of taking farmers out of production and sending them off to the ghettos in the cities.
I suggest the minister should get away from all this. I know he said he did not belong to the government when all these things happened, and he is right. But he now has the awful task of proving that he does not belong there. Those of us who know nothing about agriculture have discovered one thing; we have been at the wrong end of the stick. I know it is said that in a full barrel of rat manure you will rarely find a good kernel of wheat. To put it in very blunt terms, if the minister stays around with the same bunch of fellows who did these awful things to us, I say he will not be a good kernel of wheat for very long either. That is the gut issue.
What the minister has to do is to turn his driving strength and power, with the faith of the farmers behind him, in the direction of selling organizations. We know the egg situation has been in a mess. Let us put the egg industry in the hands of a group of people who will not try to play God. Let us set up a selling organization for eggs. If people do not need protein, then I do not know what else they need. I do not care what the product is; almost all agricultural products can be sold in some form or another. Ideas have been floating around Ottawa all of the years I have been here.
The only market that the tobacco growers have is controlled by three major companies, and they decide what they are going to pay. Of course, they play games with the clock, but in practice they are the only three customers. With a strong minister and a selling board for tobacco we will be able to sell this product to Europe, pay the 25 per cent tariff, and still give the people of Europe the chance to smoke a mild cigar at half the price. We should slash away at this sort of market. The tobacco growers of south-
Agricultural Stabilization Act
western Ontario themselves cannot do it. The people of Europe who smoke tobacco will be able to smoke twice as much at half the price, and go to the grave much faster. That is not our business, but I say selling is the key.
Let me talk about beef for a few moments. The amount of beef produced in the United States and Canada in 1974, and expected to be produced in 1975, is such that these two great agricultural countries do not produce sufficient beef to feed their own people. That just indicates how the industry can be mucked up. Their two governments have managed to do that. It seems to me that we are putting everything today into the hands of a group of advisers, and the only thing they know is how the restrict and control the farmers. They think all control should be in the hands of a group of technocrats, civil servants, or whatever you call them and that these people know better what to do than anybody else. They think they know when to plant, when to harvest, when to sell; they control the product from first to last.
In 1971 Liberals and NDP members supported the national marketing legislation. Thank God no member of the Conservative party did so, because all it was designed to do was to restrict the production of farmers, to control their activities from beginning to end, even right through the business cycle. We only accepted the legislation in so far as it applied to eggs and poultry. If the government had had its way, it would have applied to every agricultural product, but thanks to some P.C. members of the House the government was stopped at that time. I was not here, so I cannot take credit for that.
The doctrine of supply management and of restriction is obsolete today in a world where demand goes up at the rate of nearly 4 per cent a year and productivity increases at the rate of only 3 per cent. I am using round figures; the actual figures are 3.9 per cent and 2.7 per cent, but let me call it 3 per cent and 4 per cent a year.
Every year we drop behind to the extent of 500 million bushels in cereals which the world needs, and drop behind in resepct of red meat products, and yet we have all these governments throughout the world that are dominated by a group of economists who believe in running the show. Thank heavens there are a few in each country who differ. Surely the famine we have seen in the last five or six years in the middle belt of the world, and the awful scenes we have witnessed on our television sets, should strike home so that we will not be content to say that we will just support a world food bank under the United Nations.
The United States and Canada should stop this silly fighting and go out and meet the needs of these people. These people do not have the money. We should buy these products and sell them all over the world. This is being done by the Japanese, and by one or two Canadian and United States concerns today. We should have this concept of international trading companies. The minister should be listening to this.
I,	for one, am not prepared to write off the minister. I think his heart is in the right place, but I ask him to please omit all this talk and give us the action farmers expect. Otherwise we will all be dead. I again make the plea I made at the beginning. Hopefully all my remarks will be

March 11, 1975
Agricultural Stabilization Act
constructive, but I want them to be clearly understood. The minister has not yet entirely shot himself down, but if he keeps on making statements without finding answers, the farmers will have no choice but to send the Liberals to the same place the Liberals were sent in the United Kingdom many long years ago.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to say a few words on the important Bill C-50, concerning the marketing of agricultural commodities. We know that there have been problems in this area for a long time and that for many years we have tried to solve them in different ways, either by bringing in new solutions or else by proposing amendments to existing ones.
One of the purposes of the proposed bill would be to shorten from ten to five years the period from which the base price for each agricultural commodity is determined, and also to alter in the manner prescribed the method of establishing the prescribed price in relation to a named commodity and to a designated commodity.
Mr. Speaker, since the first purpose of this bill is to protect farm producers, I agree entirely with the Minister of Agriculture that the government should establish a period which would be more equitable for producers.
It is a well known fact that a quart of milk is now worth 51 cents. Now, there are forty quarts in every hundred weight of milk, so the consumer pays $20.40 for 100 pounds of milk. I feel this is extravagant, considering the producer gets approximately $12 or less a hundredweight. Maybe the Minister of Agriculture could tell us where the difference goes.
I also find the price of beef unbelievable. It has been experiencing an astronomical increase. What does the producer get? Nothing at all, considering he sells his beef at approximately the same price as before. Clearly, the profits are going to the big corporations which enjoy the government's protection.
The time has come for new measures to extend fair treatment to both producers and consumers. Obviously, producers are doing the utmost to provide Canadian citizens with adequate quantities of food.
Therefore, I ask the government once more to discharge their responsibilities and meet the people's demands. In order to meet the demands of producers and consumers, the present majority government must take the necessary steps to introduce sensible and efficient measures to solve the present situation. I have doubts, however, whether a logical and sensible approach can be used under the current system.
In December last, a number of economists met in Washington. They spent a few days together discussing inflation, but after those talks everyone went back home empty-handed because no one could find a solution to the inflation everyone is complaining about. Mr. Speaker, that is where we are at with those economists of all sorts and our present system of indebtedness.
For years now, we have been suggesting very sensible and practical solutions to inflation. One of them is the compensated discount which is paid directly to the consumer through Statistics Canada, a discount that would

ensure producers a just return while allowing consumers to pay a reasonable price for their vital needs.
There is one solution the government should reflect upon instead of losing its head as it is now doing. That infernal inflationary spiral must be checked for it is leading us to bankruptcy.
Mr. Speaker, as I said before, compensated discount is an ideal mechanism to check this inflation that is undermining our society. If we persist in remaining inactive in the face of this situation, tomorrow may be too late: we will be on the verge of bankruptcy.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any subject which, in terms either of our country or of the world, is more important than agriculture. I do not know of any matter that is more fundamental to our well being as a nation, and indeed to the well being of the world, than the producing arts undertaken by the farmers of Canada.
I think that there has been a tendency from time to time-and unfortunately the minister himself has been one of the factors that have led to this tendency, and indeed has promoted it-to place the producing elements of the community against the consuming elements. To this extent I think he has done the community itself a great disservice and perhaps he has done agriculture a great disservice as well.
The office of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) does not require him merely to speak in the cabinet for the farmer. He has a duty as well to speak for the consumer. And he has a duty to speak in cabinet not just for the farmer or the consumer of this country, but also for the consumers of the world to whom a duty is owed by all people in a productive society such as ours. He has a duty to speak on behalf of the farmers of the world in the sense of the potential farmers who could be aided by Canadian technology being transplanted to other places less fortunate and less advanced. His duty, if I can put it that way, is not just to deal with agriculture from the point of view of the producer involved in it-although that is perhaps his prime duty-but to deal with agriculture as it affects the whole economy, from the stable to the table. This, in some respects, the minister has not done, and in those respects he has failed.
I think he has failed as well to supply certain answers to the problems that face Canadians. But he has been quite good, I think, at pointing out to those who cannot understand, perhaps because of differences of background and differences of interest, that there are problems with respect to agriculture.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), who made a very excellent speech a few moments ago, spoke about the great number of speeches that the minister has made, and suggested to the minister that perhaps his brain ought to catch up with his jaw. I have one of the minister's speeches in my hand. What he has illustrated in the course of those speeches is that in terms of agriculture he can point the strongest finger in the most direct way at all the problems affecting agricul-
March 11, 1975

ture, but in terms of some new national policy with respect to agriculture little has come from him apart from the reiteration and reinforcement of existing legislation.
Looking at a speech that the minister made at the 53rd annual meeting of the Canadian Horticultural Council, which was delivered on March 3, 1975-I took this from the tall accumulation of speeches which the minister made-in that speech, when he was an after breakfast speaker, he spoke about some of the problems that affect agriculture, and he gave some statistics. On the second or third page of the epistle he delivered that day the minister said:
Now, I want to give you a few figures. They deserve some hard thinking. In 1972 Canadians grew 44 per cent of the fresh fruit you ate. That was down from 58 per cent in 1964. That's a 14 per cent drop in eight years.
He dealt with canned fruit. He said that we did better in canned fruit in 1964 than in 1972. In 1972, he said, there was a 16 per cent drop from 1964. He went on to give a number of figures which illustrated the fact that as a country we were consuming less and less of those things which we grow here, and as a result of that the industry finds itself in difficulty.
But did he offer a solution in that speech? No, he did not. He suggested a whole range of possibilities. He said that perhaps Canadians are buying more offshore vegetables, that perhaps our fruit lands are being bulldozed for highways and towns, and that perhaps there are some limitations in our climate. Mind you, the climate was the same in 1964. He said that perhaps our marketing systems and production scales are lagging behind those in other parts of the world. He asked the horticulturalists to think about it.
I ask the minister to think about it, because in the short period of time between 1964 and 1972 this minister and his predecessor have been in a position to deal with every one of those factors-except perhaps for the weather, and only the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) can deal with the weather-that affect the operation of agriculture. This is the same thing that he has done with respect to hogs, beef and every other agricultural commodity. He has pointed out the problems very clearly, but what he has not said is what he intends to do about them.
As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain said, it is unfair to credit this piece of legislation anything more in terms of improvement than the text of the bill entitles it to have. As the hon. member said, it is really an adjunct or an addition to a policy that was formed under the Conservative government in 1958. So it is not fair to mislead in that sense of the word.
There are agriculturalists in my community who say of the minister that he is a great fellow and that he tells them everything that is wrong, that he gives them hope because at least he recognizes the problems. They say they are getting higher prices for their produce now but they are paying more for fuel, more for binder twine, more for machinery, fertilizer, feed, for all their investments which are large, and higher interest charges at the bank. Their profits are going down. That is the problem facing farmers, and that is the problem to which the minister should address himself.
Agricultural Stabilization Act
The minister cannot address himself to that problem alone. He requires the co-operation of his colleagues in the government, and perhaps he is not getting it. Nothing concrete can be done to deal with problems affecting farmers, and therefore affecting consumers, until something is done by the government at least to begin the attack on the inflation which affects this country.
My heart goes out to farmers in my constituency, farmers in Ontario, and farmers in Canada generally who are suffering under this system whereby the harder they work the less they earn in terms of their investment simply because the government of this day has refused to attack the problem of inflation. The methods the government has used are the methods of trying to attempt a consensus, to do indirectly what it does not have the courage or the guts to do directly, trying to impose a voluntary incomes policy on the people of Canada. This is what the government is trying to do, and we have the results of it today in the silence on the Treasury Benches.
The farmer has a real problem. The minister gave a speech to the annual meeting of the Harrow and Colchester South Chamber of Commerce at Harrow, Ontario, on Tuesday, March 4, 1975, and in that speech he summed up the difficulties facing farmers. Many people should know about these difficulties, people who somehow think that agriculture begins at the refrigerator door. It does not begin there, and all of us know that.
On page 4 of that particular epistle the minister said:
Look at the date from the last census. In 1970, the average income of Canada's plumbers was over $8,000. Doctors earned an average of nearly $28,000. Structural steelworkers earned over $8,000. Sales clerks were paid an average of $4,700. Yet farmers grossed an average of $3,800.
I ask the minister why? If that is the case with respect to farmers, what in the devil has the minister been doing about it since he came into that portfolio except talk about it? What has the government been doing about it since it took office in 1963? Nothing. Nothing, and that is the thing practicing agriculturalists in this country-using the minister's own statistics-look at, when they ask themselves about all of the speeches the minister has made and what they really mean.
There is a challenge to agriculture, and perhaps the minister should move in the direction of meeting the challenge. The challenge is keeping people on the land and encouraging them to stay on the land, to give encouragement in real terms to stay on the land with real returns to them. That is the first challenge. The second challenge is to ensure that young people are encouraged to come on to the land. I look at this litany of programs, and I look at the number of farmers going out of business.
I consider the number of auction sales advertised in the weekly newspapers, and I cast that against the problem of rising prices for food for the consumer, and the duty we have in a civilized and conscientious society of feeding a starving world, and I ask myself whether this minister is prepared to put before the farmers of this country the new tools, the new policies and the new programs which will allow the farmers of Canada to do what they want to do- make a reasonable living from farming, have a reasonable

March 11, 1975
Agricultural Stabilization Act
life in farming, produce food for themselves and for their countrymen, and have a reasonable place in feeding the unfortunate of the world. If we continue to rely completely on new technology as the main tool of increasing agricultural production and do not also rely on programs which will put farmers on the land and keep them there, then we will lose that race, and we will miss that obligation.
This bill before us does not come near to being what it has been touted to be, Mr. Speaker. It is not a new policy of agriculture. It is not a new tomorrow for farmers. It is disaster insurance. It is just the beginnings of finding stability of income for farmers. I think all of us, whether we live on the farm, in the cities, in the towns or the villages, whether we have a direct, indirect or no connection with agriculture, have a duty to recognize the plight of the farmer and to recognize also that there has not been much real progress in terms of widening the gap between earnings farmers receive and their cost of operation, which is driving many of them off the land-and this in a time when we hear pleas from others about high costs and other things.
That is the challenge facing this minister, and as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain said, in his own way, we do not regard the farmer as the subject of partisan politics because he is completely fundamental to the operation of our country and the wellbeing of our country. We do not regard the minister in the same way to the same extent. He regards himself as a person given to partisan politics-and to the extent that he has conducted himself that way, he has probably misused his portfolio- but he does have a part to play in the scheme of things. His duty is not merely to point out the problems which face farmers. My God, the farmers know their problems themselves, without his putting the finger on them. The problem is to come up with some policies which are meaningful and new, and that, Mr. Speaker, the minister has not done. That is the duty of the minister, and it is because this bill is a small step in that direction-although it is only augmenting existing legislation-we are prepared to support it, but that does not relieve the minister of the challenge facing him as he faces the problems facing farmers.


Mr. Ross Milne (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam
Speaker, it is a real privilege to follow such a distinguished agrologist as the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and his outstanding address on agriculture.
I want to speak on this bill because I support it strongly. I think it is good legislation for the agricultural industry, meaning that it is good for the consumer and for the producer. I think it is one of the first thrusts we have made which has particularly spoken to the problem of the eastern Canadian farmer, and particularly of the livestock and poultry farmer.
I think the most critical thing this parliament can do is work to pass legislation which will allow Canada to become as self-sufficient in food and energy as possible. I do not think there is anything more important with which to be involved. As important as other programs may be, some of them will have to take a secondary position in terms of spending so that we can work toward that objective. I think any country which is essentially self-suffi-

cient in food and energy has to have less inflation, less unemployment, a stronger export position, a stronger industrial economy and certainly a leadership role in the world which no other country can attain.
If hon. members doubt that, I suggest they consider some of the countries around the world which are importing the majority of their food and energy. I think Canada is one of the few countries in the enviable position of not having to do that, if this House supports the legislation now before it.
There are two matters of concern to agriculture, one being the retention of good agricultural land and the other the retention of enough good farmers to use what land we have. It is the second part I think we should be speaking about, and to which this bill addresses itself. It might be well to think of the role farmers have played over the past few years. We should commend the job they have done, because historically we have had reasonably priced food, and our farmers across Canada have done a magnificent job in providing that. They have been able to do so for a number of reasons. One is that their input costs have been reasonably stable.
Until recently most labour on farms was done by the family, but of course this is not the case today. No one can be proud of the fact, and I am sure none of us are, that much of the stability in food prices has come from the attrition of farmers. At one time 10 per cent of our population were farmers, but because of the boom and bust cycle many were forced to leave the land. Nobody worried too much about that because we had so many to begin with, and food prices remained reasonable.
Farmers should be congratulated on their efficiency as this is what gives us food at reasonable cost. They operate what is perhaps one of the most efficient sectors of the economy. It is interesting to note that in 1949 the price of turkey meat to the consumer was higher than it is today. This is because farmers now produce turkeys in three-quarters of the time and on half the feed, which is a good example of efficiency. The efficiency of farmers in this country is outstanding when compared to farmers in other countries.
Canada has done a good job in agriculture through the programs of the Department of Agriculture and the provincial extension services in such areas as genetics, nutrition, farm management and so on. The problem is, however, that this will not continue because those alternatives will not be open in the future. We have two basic choices. The first is to pay a fair price for food and allow farmers a fair return on their investment and their management skills. We must share their risk. The other choice is to import food and thus put agriculture in the hands of large integrated operations. If this happens then we are certain to have higher food costs.
The basic problem has been well documented, the problem of rising costs. During question period many questions are raised about the labour segment of the public service and other sectors of the economy. In the end these costs all filter down to the farm. If the cost of energy is a particular concern, we must remember that agriculture is one of the major users and any change in the price is reflected in
March 11, 1975

farm and food costs. The cost of fertilizers, chemicals, feed, machinery and so on is reflected in the price of food.
We should note a couple of other things as well, Mr. Speaker, and one is the increasing investment that farmers have to make. We are far away from the point when most of the input was made by the family. We now have highly efficient farms and improved technology, but along with this has come a tremendous investment. It might be of interest to note that most farmers have about $1,000 invested in every steer they feed. This means that they must get 20 cents per pound just to cover interest charges. Many farmers may have $4,000 invested in a cow and would be faced with nearly $300 in interest charges. That is one reason why we are so pleased to see the introduction of the act to amend the Farm Credit Act, so that farmers may be given some assistance in this area.
Members opposite have had a great deal to say about the bill increasing the level from 80 per cent to 90 per cent and decreasing the time from ten years to five years, but there is another aspect of this bill which has been ignored and I think we should talk about it. The proper indexing of costs and the recognition that the farmer needs a return that reflects his cash flow in a crop year, and in addition have some return on his equity and for management and for investment, makes this bill much more effective than many members give credit for, Mr. Speaker.
It is true that the legislation at present on the books has not been too effective. Over the ten years of its history it has only come to the rescue of that part of the industry that has been in trouble a few times. This bill before us will be effective, not because the time has been reduced from ten years to five years, or the level increased from 80 per cent to 90 per cent, but because of the indexing aspect which recognizes the many things which the farmer must face. One of these is cash flow, and this is in serious jeopardy because of inflation. It will be taken into account in the indexing formula in calculating what is a fair return on management-in other words, his return to equity.
I want to deal with another aspect of this bill. In several debates in this House there has been mention made of the starving people of the world and the aid that Canada has given through its food program. Some members have commended the government's commitment of wheat, and others say we should have done more-perhaps there are even some who would say we should have done less. But, Mr. Speaker, I think we should realize what we are doing to the agricultural industry by making commitments of this size. If we continue to do this, and I think we should because it is a human and just thing, we will gear our agricultural industry to expansion and count on the world's food program to absorb much of the production.
I think we should reflect on what would happen if all of a sudden countries all around the world have good crop years and consequently we did not have an export market or a need for the world food program. One of the solid bases for this bill is to underwrite that very possibility so that we can be a stronger factor in helping the have-not countries of the world.
I said in the beginning that this is a bill that is of benefit not only to the farmer but also to the consumer. A lot of members opposite have made the point that this is a floor
Agricultural Stabilization Act
price. I think that type of analysis would lead consumers to think that the government is again going to subsidize farmers heavily. That is not the purpose of this bill. I think we should say that this bill rewards the efficiency of the farmer. The farmer who does an efficient job of production and marketing will still be miles ahead of the farmer who does not. I think we should be very careful that we do not give consumers the impression that this is a subsidy bill for farmers. It is a stabilization bill which acts in the best interests of the consumer and the farmer, and rewards the efficiency of the individual farmer.
I take issue with comments made earlier this evening by certain members, and particularly by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) on the day the bill was introduced for second reading. One could take from those remarks that the government, and particularly the minister should be doing something more substantial to help agriculture but without regard to a supply management arrangement. I am not too sure where such a line of thought would lead us. Surely members opposite would not say that we should have an all out production program financed by farmers. They are quick to say that we should reduce or control government spending but, Mr. Speaker, how can you marry those points of view?
Hon. members opposite would propose that we should subsidize the industry but have no say in how much is produced or under what conditions. I shall be vigorous in committee in opposing that point of view. It would be unfair to expect producing farmers to suffer; they deserve a far better support level than that.
I shall conclude by commending this legislation. Let us co-operate in committee stage and pass it quickly, so that farmers may enjoy a measure of security which is essential if there is to be long-range agricultural planning. The average farmer and consumer have been plagued in the past by the agricultural boom and bust cycle, in which overproduction leads to low prices and underproduction to high prices. This legislation will be significant in levelling out the price fluctuations in the agricultural industry. Prices will respond to input costs; this in turn will surely mean that consumers will have available constant supplies of reasonably priced food. For that reason I ask the House to deal with this bill quickly in committee and on third reading, so that the farmers of Canada can soon take advantage of this forward-looking legislation.


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate of Bill C-50, to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) said that Bill C-50 is part of a total package of legislation which is designed to bring greater stability to the agricultural industry. Its total effect will be to provide producers with greater income stability while they produce high quality food for markets at home and abroad.
The minister stated that the bill will provide producers with greater income stability. But he has not stated that it will provide producers with greater income. What good is stability, or what good is stabilizing an income, when your income is in a loss position?

Agricultural Stabilization Act
When the bill becomes law farmers will be guaranteed returns on the mandatory commodities equivalent to at least 90 per cent of the average price of the previous five years, and the price will be adjusted by an index to reflect changes in production costs over that period. I agree with the total over-view and with the expectations of this bill, but I feel at the same time, that there is a reluctance on the part of the federal government to develop and adopt positive and long-term goals for agriculture in this country. As a result, ad hoc policies are adopted from time to time to deal with crises when they occur. The effect of this approach is that many policies deal with the symptoms rather than with causes of the problem. We must address ourselves to the solving of the many problems created in a complicated age.
Our capacities for food production are functioning at less than maximum while malnutrition and poverty continue to prevail in large sectors of the Canadian population, and in much of the world. I believe the maintenance of a strong rural community in Canada is an essential part of our national culture, and that farmers must continue to hold a distinct place in it as basic producers of food.
It is in the best interests of our nation to maintain a sound rural community, which must be based on the strength of an efficient and economically viable farm industry in which ownership is vested in and controlled by farm families.
The government holds a heavy responsibility toward determining the structure of food production in this nation by the philosophical approach reflected through legislation and public policy. The vital issue today facing agriculture is government intervention, or, more specifically, the degree of government intervention. The debate becomes critical because, so far, no government has been able to establish a total agricultural policy for this nation. If food producers do not set the criteria for such policy, sooner or later the government will, and that is why I was pleased by the minister's remarks. He said he would be happy to hear interested groups and would welcome their appearance before the committee when this bill is studied there.
But let me refer hon. members and the minister to what happened in committee when we considered Bill C-19. All witnesses appearing before the committee wanted an indexing clause to be included in Bill C-19. The Progressive Conservative party, even before witnesses appeared, had such an indexing clause ready to propose as an amendment to the bill. The Grit administration rejected the indexing clause which had been proposed by the Progressive Conservative party, even though it was wanted by the farm groups appearing before the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Is this what the government calls consultation? It came forward itself with a flimsy excuse of an amendment. I cannot understand why it preaches one thing and practices another. If government members wish to have representations made, let them abide by some of the suggestions made at hearings. This has not been the case to date.
The farmer of today is established, organized, knowledgeable and wants to produce. Not only does he want to produce; he can produce. But, Madam Speaker, farmers see

that the buyers of their produce are few in number. Power is concentrated in a few hands; farmers realize that this is not the best system under which to operate. The new generation of farmers today is not in farming necessarily for the way of life it gives, even though this may be a great factor. They are in it to make a living. I believe they want more stability in their operations, stability with a profit, not excess profit. They want to be assured of some consistency in income, just as we all do.
I could not help noticing that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture said, in a press release, that grain exports are the life blood of prairie agriculture and, for that matter, of a great part of the Canadian economy, and nothing is more important to the economy than developing grain markets and servicing them.
What good is a bill stabilizing income when an individual cannot sell his products? We must come to grips with the strike situation in our country. The strike situation is causing us to lose face internationally, particularly in the area of grain exports. I am thinking particularly of efforts to export grain to Japan, China and Bangladesh. All these export efforts have been disrupted because of strikes. The situation remains stagnant because the government maintains there is no simple answer. I agree there is no simple answer; but we cannot stop there. We must try to develop one. Answers for getting around the strike situation facing us today are available if we are willing to look for them. Among industrialized nations Canada suffered the second highest rate of loss in man hours because of strikes. We have the second highest rating in man hours lost through strikes. This is not an accomplishment to be proud of in Canada.
Again I ask, what good is stabilizing income when we cannot move our commodities? We must come to grips with all the problems we are facing in the agricultural sector today. New procedures must be developed to deal with strikes; we should ask ourselves what form these developments ought to take, and I think we will be able to come up with positive answers.
The Library of Parliament has an excellent book on collective bargaining and the right to strike. It lists a number of options, and we must choose the best alternative to the present system, for the only result of a strike is economic loss, both to the company and to workers. Perhaps it is the public loses more than both of them, because it suffers not only in terms of dollars and cents but in the terrible inconveniences which are inflicted on it in times of strike.
The booklet put out by the research branch of the Library of Parliament lists nine options in connection with strikes. Since the present debate is not on the strike issue but on the issue of stabilizing farmers' incomes, I will not dwell on strikes. I just throw this out as food for thought because I believe the role of collective bargaining, Madam Speaker, is likely to become more, not less, complex in the future. It is not possible to return to a system in which unions and management are left to settle their differences without reference to wider economic and political repercussions. Collective bargaining will inevitably have to take place within an overall framework of law, with an economic and political policy that will impose restraints.
March 11, 1975

The problem for the future will be to devise rules and institutions which will enable the collective bargaining process to operate smoothly and effectively within constraints. This would eliminate the unacceptable industrial disruption, unemployment, and the inflation which hurts everyone and particularly, at the present time, is seriously damaging the grain farmer in western Canada. Yet the government is not willing to come to grips with this problem. Because we are talking about stabilization, Madam Speaker, I would like to dwell just briefly on how it affects the beef industry.
Our beef industry. Madam Speaker, has suffered substantial losses this past while, and at present we have two support price policies recently announced by the Minister of Agriculture that relate only to the cattle industry. Last August 11 the support price of $45.42 for fat steers and hiefers was instituted and if deficiency payments are made when the year is up next August, I presume that they will be paid under the provisions of the original act. It is important to understand that this price of $45.42 for grades A, B and C was determined by taking 90 per cent of the average weighted price for these three fat cattle grades at three principal markets, in Calgary, Winnipeg and Toronto, and adding to it a cost-of-production index figure as determined by the farm input price index.
The beef-cow subsidy or support policy of $23.21, effective last November 16, is 100 per cent of average prices of the Dl, D2, D3 and D4 cows over the last five years at the same three principal cattle markets, but without an indexing figure.
In dealing with the beef stabilization aspect of this program it is interesting to note there is an amendment which assures that regionalism of support prices will be recognized, but the cabinet makes this decision. It is not included in this bill and it can be assumed that the involvement of the cabinet in the regionalization process will render any decision a political one.
If I might refer to the agricultural standing committee minutes of the meeting held in the month of October at which I questioned the Minister of Agriculture as to whether there was going to be a beef program coming forward for the troubled beef industry, this was his reply, and I quote:
As soon as I can work out some kind of program that I think is suitable for the beef industry of the whole nation, because I cannot do it for one part of Canada and not the other, and as I said earlier there are different feeding programs, different costs. For instance, in Alberta you can contract for cattle to be fed for 60 cents a pound on barley. In Ontario and other parts of Canada, you can contract it on silage for 40 cents a pound. So it is a hard thing to work out a program that is going to be suitable for all these people.
What does this lead one to believe? The Minister of Agriculture did state approximately what the cost of production was, forty cents in eastern Canada and 60 cents in western Canada. Yet we have a stabilization program for the beef industry now at $45.42. Who is going to benefit the most? Of course it is benefiting the eastern feeder again.
When is this agriculture minister going to realize that we do have western producers in this nation also, western producers who need to have substantial help now because
Agricultural Stabilization Act
of the crisis in the beef situation? I strongly believe that this is just another attempt to satisfy the main populace of our country and to neglect the western regions of Canada.
Again let me stress that the regionalization of support prices will be recognized by this bill but the cabinet makes this decision, not the bill, and this decision could very easily be a political one. Let me also suggest that since this stabilization program will take in the past five year period, that during that same five year period agricultural production costs have increased at a much faster rate than did our market prices at the farm gate. This is a very significant point and I ask the minister to take consideration of it.
In closing let me state that I appreciated having the opportunity to contribute to this very important debate, and I hope that some amendments will be forthcoming to this actual bill so that the agricultural sector of our country will not be neglected or taken advantage of, as it has in the past. We must recognize that we do have an obligation to produce food because we have millions of starving people in the world. The producer also has an obligation to the consumer, but we cannot and should not expect the producer to produce at a loss. Although I agree with the total over-view of this bill, there are many areas that can be improved upon in Committee.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Madam Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to be able to speak on an agricultural bill or agricultural issue, not because I believe that agriculture is an important industry but because I believe it is the most important industry.
In the 50,000 years that human beings have been on the planet earth, they have either eaten every day or been in search of food for every one of those days. Most of the industries that we talk about in the world we live in and that we give a tremendous importance to are the kinds of things that we have developed only within the last one or two human lifetimes.
The automobile industry is an invention of less than 100 years. Oil and gas have only come into prominence in the last 50 to 60 years, but food has been the substance of mankind for as long as mankind has existed.
I need not tell the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) the kinds of facts related to the tremendous importance of this industry on a world-wide basis. However, if I may, I will take some time to share with the House some of the important things that are happening in the world picture perhaps to show the inadequacies of this bill and how it simply will not fulfill the needs of the present day situation.
The fact is that 12,000 people died of starvation yesterday, 12,000 died of starvation today, and another 12,000 will die tomorrow. Four fifths of the world's population suffers from malnutrition. In the country of India human beings are dying of exposure at 57 degrees fahrenheit. That is a concept that is hard for us in Canada to comprehend when we have people living in the high Arctic at temperatures of 60 degrees below zero.
Another fact I think should bear importance in our argument here this evening is that on the continent of Africa 55 per cent of the human beings there are below or under the teenage bracket. What does that mean? When

Agricultural Stabilization Act
we take a look at the world food shortage today, the truth is that we do not have a world food shortage in the general sense. What we have is a world protein shortage. If we had a mythical distribution system, something like the one we run in Canada, that could give food to all peoples around the world equally, we would have barely enough carbohydrate to go around, and certainly a shortfall of a considerable amount of protein.
Going back to the situation of so many young children in Africa, everyone who has ever watched a teenaged boy or girl eat food does not need to be reminded that the intake of protein increases by almost 50 per cent when you reach your teenage years. Africa is a continent which cannot supply its population now and 55 per cent of its population is pre-teenage. The need for world food doesn't need to be underscored. When we come to the purport of this legislation we are certainly going to find out that it falls far short of giving the kind of incentives to farmers to produce in the way in which this world demands.
I am going to give one last example, because certainly my time will run out tonight before the issues of this legislation are exhausted. I want to bring home dramatically the importance of the need to produce food at a level which is accelarated to the absolute maximum. Just recently when the country of Chad was experiencing the most severe drought ever experienced in the world, a great epidemic of diphtheria broke out. As a result of that epidemic the World Health Organization of the United Nations made an offer to send vaccine for diphtheria and the government of Chad responded by saying "No, do not send that vaccine because diphtheria is an easier death for our children than starvation." I think this underscores the need to develop a policy that is not simply ad hoc but actually accelerates agricultural production in this country to a level unlike any we have ever experienced.
The United States National Academy of Science says that by the year 2025 there will be one million child deaths a month, and that also we will have a shortfall within five years from now of 51.9 million tons of cereal grain per year. Let's take a look at some of the situations which relate to the agricultural bill, and at some of the shortfalls that we are going to find in terms of incentives to farmers.
The first thing that we ought to be demanding when we take a look at any agricultural measure today is a bill that in fact encourages farmers to produce, and the way you do that is you pay them. This bill does only this. It talks only in terms of paying people, of giving more payment, but without having direct relationship-unless the cabinet should happen to decide otherwise, which is certainly as the previous speaker mentioned a very political decision- to link payment with the cost of production. Unless there is some kind of guarantee that the farmer is going to be paid, and paid well, then there can never be the concept of a professional farmer. I think it should interest all members of this House to note the fact that agriculture, wherever it is, has been treated as the bottom man on the totem pole. In every country in the world where we find nations existing on an agricultural economy, they are amongst the poorest of all nations, and when you take a look at the industrial nations the agricultural areas in them are the poorest areas.

I think we might first take a look at this bill by citing the example of the fellow who started to drink to steady his nerves; finally he drank so much that he got so steady he couldn't move. And that's exactly what the limits in this kind of bill can do. We are talking about stabilization, but in fact what we really ought to be looking at is the kind of government incentive that speaks about getting food into the international market, with some thrust to get food to where it is needed. And if there were a tremendous drive to get Canadian food into the international market place then we wouldn't have to spend all of our time talking about stabilizing it here, because the fact of the matter is that we can stabilize these markets into such stability that they won't move. Once we start getting markets so stable that they won't move we have a situation in which the farmer is locked in, just as surely as he is locked in today, because of the failure in getting his product to market. There is certainly a failure in getting his product into the international market place. There can be no doubt about that. There just is not enough incentive to get his product into the international market place.
If the government is really sincere in its attempt to try to put some stabilization into the farming economy, there are some other things it could be doing that would make a tremendous difference. In the last couple of days of debate we heard some accusations made back and forth across the House about racism. Well, I say to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) that I would like to challenge him with a real race issue. I would like to challenge him with a race issue that is of tremendous importance, and makes a tremendous difference to the agricultural stabilization of this country. The fact is that it takes 28 days for a rail train loaded with grain from my constituency to reach the port in Vancouver. That averages out, Madam Speaker, to three and a half miles an hour. Despite all that talk about racism and racing, and getting food to market, I can walk twice that fast. I will challenge him any day to get that grain to Vancouver. He can use his trains and I will walk with the grain.
We are talking about international markets and the very inadequate way in which we try to get grain to them, but the fact remains that we have rail systems that are tied up by strikes, and the trains themselves are moving at an average of three and a half miles an hour.
The other thing I would like to say, as my time is drawing to an end, is that the agricultural industry ought no longer to bear the brunt of strikes. There is no example in the business world where two people go into negotiations, incur a loss, and then charge that loss to a third party. Yet in the Port of Vancouver during the recent grain handlers' strike what happened there was that management and labour caused something like $70 million of demurrage charges to accumulate, and charged them to the farmers. I think the farm organizations of this country ought to sue the federal government, because there is no situation in the business world in which two people who enter into some kind of a business deal and then incur a loss can charge that loss to a third party.
I think that kind of jeopardy which exists in this country ought not to be allowed because it is absolutely illegal. I see it is ten o'clock. May I call it such?


Some hon. Members:: Question.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, on February 27, 1975, I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) whether he was aware of the situation which had developed at Connaught Laboratories which had been found in breach of regulations in respect to packaging and product stability. This came to light in January, 1973, and when the inspectors from the food and drug branch of the department returned one year later, nothing had been done. In fact the situation had become worse.
In February, 1974, the chairman of the drug board drew to the attention of Dr. R. J. Wilson, Chairman of Connaught, that there had been violations in connection with the testing of the finished products and in quality control, and that none of the other breaches had been corrected. I want to know why these breaches had not been corrected in the space of an entire year. This is of vital concern to the people of Canada as this is their investment. Connlab is a subsidiary of the Canada Development Corporation, which the people of Canada own, and they have a right to expect proper management as a business proposition.
It goes a little deeper than that, however. Connaught Laboratories is a memorial to the great work done at the University of Toronto by Drs. Banting and Best in the discovery of insulin. Canada at that time had a population of ten million. They produced insulin and saved the lives of many diabetics previously doomed to death, putting Canada in the forefront of the scientific world and giving hope to thousands of diabetics that they could lead useful lives.
Over the years they set a standard of quality unexcelled in any country of the world. No one ever had to question this institution as to the quality of its work or its prices. Connaught Laboratories operated with a research grant of about $80,000 per year, and had an annual endowment income of around $400,000.
When the people of this country bought Connaught Laboratories, which through legislation became a subsidiary of the Canada Development Corporation, it was able to receive yearly $1,228,000 in grants from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Connaught Laboratories made its reputation and financed itself by keeping the quality of its products as a standard for all the world, and its prices were the envy of the world. Connlab has not been able to maintain this quality or even to keep its prices competitive. Connlab's insulin became higher priced than others.
Adjournment Debate
Let me give the House a comparison of some Canadian and U.S. prices. Regular insulin, 100 units, sold for $2.03 under Connlab; $2.12 under Squibb; Lilly sold for $2.20. NPH, 100 units, Connlab sold for $2.70; Squibb for $2.42; Lilly for $2.52. Both the latter are United States firms. Protamine zinc sold for $2.63 Connlab; Squibb sold for $2.42; Lilly sold for $2.52. Semi Lente, Connlab $2.93; Squibb, $2.42; Lilly $2.52. There is a difference of 51 cents there. Ultra Lente, Connlab $2.93; Squibb $2.42; Lilly $2.52.
These are quoted prices as at the present date, and it is an indication of what is occurring in a field that had been previously held solely by Connaught Laboratories. In 1973 Connlab was making adrenalin which is used for shock and allergies, but since the Food and Drug Directorate described their facilities as not being up to standard, instead of bringing them up to standard Connlab discontinued the line entirely, even though it was not made in Canada. It was also pointed out that Sabin polio vaccine was made in a facility not up to the standards set by Great Britain or the United States. Why was this not corrected so that the market could again be captured? It has been reported that vaccines of doubtful standard were sold to the province of Ontario and that this was under investigation. What were the results of this investigation?
All in all, instead of correcting the problems and improving quality and marketability, Connlab has discontinued several lines, one of them Pam Penicillin. This was a one dose shot used very successfully, in the treatment of venereal disease, and this discontinuance was very disappointing to the many people who had supported Connaught Laboratories over the years.
I am not going to go into the mistakes that have reportedly been made in labelling, particularly of smallpox vaccine, which in many cases gave very serious reactions. The same smallpox vaccine was sold to Bangladesh, and through mishandling or mismanagement did not give the desired results. Unquestionably some people may have lost their lives over the error.
Connlab dropped several of its drugs to correct its financial picture, and it also let 75 employees go. It even considered selling 583 acres of land belonging to Connaught Laboratories. In spite of the galloping increases in their prices, domestic sales, which are almost captive with governments being the big buyers, remained static, and they failed to meet world competition where international markets are much larger.
Connlab has been repeatedly warned by its own people, by the senior medical research and senior executives, that the facilities had to be upgraded and their quality control brought up to standard if they were to be competitive. Why was this not done? One of its vice presidents stated that over $300,000 was needed immediately to improve and renovate the plant to comply with the regulations.


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


Philip Bernard Rynard: None of this was forthcoming. Now I understand that the president of CDC has stated that Connlab can have the necessary funds, up to $10 million if necessary, to bring the place up to standard.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman-

March 11, 1975
Adjournment Debate


Philip Bernard Rynard: They have already built within the last two years a facility costing around $2 million.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman-


Philip Bernard Rynard: Madam Speaker, I am sorry to have to make my point, but this situation was allowed to go on for two years without correction. This is something the people of Canada own. It is run by this parliament, by this government and by the people of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House further details with respect to the question of the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) concerning certain deficiencies in manufacturing conditions of Connaught Laboratories and the continued sale of this firm's products.
Regarding the action of Dr. Showalter, Chairman of the Advisory Board on Drug Manufacturing Facilities and Performance, I must explain that this board, which reports to the Minister of Supply and Services, is responsible for publishing a directory of firms in compliance with the Canadian government standard which is used as a purchasing specification. Officers of the Health Protection Branch of the Department of Health and Welfare work very closely with this board, but take independent action to ensure industry compliance with regulations involving manufacturing facilities and controls.
As the result of inspection in January, 1973, some deficiencies were discovered in requirements involving raw materials, packaging and product stability of potamine sulphate, epinephrine, oxytocin and heparin. These drugs are not controlled by licensing procedures but are, of course, subject to the over-all controls for quality under the Food and Drugs Act. These deficiencies did not constitute hazards to health and were not judged to be a breach of regulations. However, they were discussed with Connaught Laboratories during the inspection and confirmed in writing in line with the health protection branch policy to advise all manufacturers regarding areas of deficiency. The Advisory Board on Drug Manufacturing Facilities and Performance also questioned the firm on the observed discrepancies. Because of the overall acceptable rating of the firm, no further action was considered at that time.
During a subsequent inspection of Connaught in February 1974, two epinephrine products were examined and deficiencies were noted in raw material and finished product tests, quality control and stability. Although these discrepancies were discovered in the conditions under which these drugs were manufactured, no evidence was available to indicate that there was any lack of compliance with the established standards for the products themselves. Consequently, as with the products inspected in 1973, no action was considered necessary to remove these lots of epinephrine from sale as there was no indicated health hazard involved. These deficiencies were discussed
[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).]
with the firm during the inspection and subsequently confirmed in writing on April 2, 1974.
A further meeting was held with the firm in late April to discuss thoroughly all aspects of the inspection findings. At the same time the chairman of the Advisory Board on Drug Manufacturing Facilities and Performance requested a full explanation of this matter from Connaught Laboratories in accordance with responsibilities for listing firms in the directory. On May 28 Connaught Laboratories submitted details of steps taken which would eliminate the deficiencies in question and ensure compliance with requirements for manufacturing facilities and controls. These actions by the firm were considered as adequate remedial action.
In summary, therefore, in inspections conducted in early 1973 and 1974 some deficiencies were found in conditions of manufacture of certain Connaught products. I must emphasize that none of these deficiencies resulted in the production or sale of products which were considered to be a hazard to health, nor did the products themselves contravene legal standards. Adequate remedial action was undertaken by Connaught Laboratories to satisfy concerns of the Health Protection Branch.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-OVERHAUL OF BOEING 707'S BY TRANSAIR-SUGGESTED CONSIDERATION OF EMPLOYEES OF CANADIAN AVIATION AND ELECTRONICS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, on February 19 I directed two questions to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) having to do with the decision of the government to award contracts on the overhaul of the Department of National Defence Boeing 707's in Winnipeg to Transair despite the clear promises by the minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in May and June of 1974, that the work would be given, and indeed that work would be expanded, at the Canadian Aviation Electronics operation in Winnipeg. I am sorry that the minister is not here because I will be quite critical of him in light of the promises which he and the Prime Minister made during the election campaign and which have been so obviously and clearly ignored.
In May 1974 the Winnipeg Free Press reported in a front page story as follows:
Air Canada will build a new maintenance hangar, valued at between $12 million and $15 million at Winnipeg International Airport... the Prime Minister announced Thursday.
The news story went on to say:
In calculating the total employment of 800, he said the government is taking into account the existing 360 men at CAE and about 125 Air Canada employees involved in minor maintenance checks at Winnipeg on aircraft passing through.
Prime Minister Trudeau said he sees no problem in accommodating any Air Canada technicians who want to move their families from Montreal back to Winnipeg. Many of the technicians moved to Montreal in 1969 rather than take work with CAE.
On June 14, 1974, the Winnipeg Free Press carried "A Letter from Jim Richardson about Air Canada and a Stronger Aerospace Industry in Winnipeg". In that letter the minister said:
In addition to the aircraft maintenance work that will be done by Air Canada personnel on Air Canada's planes in these buildings, space will

be leased to CAE in the Air Canada hangars to enable CAE to continue all of the repair, overhaul and manufacturing work now being done on defence aircraft and commercial aircraft. In particular CAE will be able to undertake the major 10,000 hour repair and overhaul of the National Defence Boeing 707 aircraft.
Later in the same letter the minister said:
The federal government has established as an initial objective the achievement of 800 aerospace jobs, including personnel working on the base for CAE as well as for Air Canada.
Later he said:
Because the major 10,000 hour repair and overhaul work on the National Defence Boeing 707's will be done in Winnipeg by CAE in the Air Canada buildings, Winnipeg will have a repair and overhaul capability equal to the aircraft repair and overhaul capability anywhere.
On December 28 an announcement was made that the contracts for servicing the DND planes had been given not to CAE but to Transair, despite the promises made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence to which I alluded. In 1971, CAE had a top employment of about 1,000. In the fall of 1974 this had fallen to 350. It is now down to about 200. The minister said again and again that there will be 800 workers working in the aerospace industry in Winnipeg. That may be true, although there are as yet no signs of that.
But the minister has given no assurances, and made no plans for the present CAE workers despite the promises made by the Prime Minister and the minister during the election campaign that the job rights of 200 CAE employees who were there a month ago-some of them are probably gone by now-will be given first opportunity on the work which supposedly Transair will get and which supposedly Air Canada will turn over to Transair.
These are the promises the minister made. Let me quote just one more which appeared in an article by Frances Russell in the Winnipeg Free Press. The minister is quoted as saying the following:
"I've been CAE's defender for five years and I don't want to see them shunted aside. We must resolve a phase-out with them and protect the jobs of the men until they can be taken by Transair and others.
I see that my time has almost elapsed. I am sorry that the minister is not here to explain the situation. I think he should be, not for me, but for the people to whom he gave such strong assurances. The minister and the Prime Minister promised that not only would the facility be maintained in Winnipeg, and that it would be expanded, but that the workers who had been working in the aircraft industry for CAE would continue to have jobs. Those promises so far have proven worthless, and I hope that the minister and his department can say very quickly what they propose to do to fulfil the promises which were made to protect the jobs of those who are there now, and to allay the real fears they have at the present time.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, the minister regrets that he is unable to be here tonight, but the report I will give to the hon. member has been approved by the minister, and I want to make that quite clear.
As the hon. member knows, the contract for repair of Department of National Defence Boeing 707 aircraft has been awarded to Transair Limited of Winnipeg. The contract was let on the basis of the most effective use of
Adjournment Debate
public funds. That company is now in the process of hiring capable and responsible personnel and making preparations to commence overhaul work on the Boeings. The first aircraft is scheduled for overhaul in early June of 1975, with the remainder following at intervals of three to four weeks.
Transair Limited of Winnipeg has commenced hiring personnel, and preference is being given to CAE employees, especially to those who had previous employment with Air Canada. As the repair program develops more people will be hired, and it is anticipated that over 250 personnel will be in the employ of Transair by this summer.
When the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) responded to the hon. member's question on this subject last month, he said that the government commitments made in June last year are in the process of being fulfilled. One commitment was that the Boeing 707 repair overhaul would be undertaken in Winnipeg, and that is taking place. Another commitment was that there would be a larger Air Canada presence, and there has been an announcement of a new hangar, which is being constructed. Another commitment was the setting of an objective of creating 800 aerospace jobs. That objective is also in the process of being fulfilled.
I wish to assure the hon. member that every attempt is being made to find employment for CAE employees seeking employment at Transair or elsewhere, but particularly at Transair where the Boeing work is being done.


COMMUNICATIONS-ABANDONED PINE TREE RADAR BASE-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PREVENT DAMAGE-INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBLE FUTURE USE
Jack Marshall: Madam Speaker, while I appreciate the appearance of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hopkins) this evening, I think the subject I will be presenting to him goes beyond the Department of National Defence to Public Works, and I was hoping to see the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) or his parliamentary secretary here. However, I hope to get more definitive answers to my question regarding the need for action by the federal government to preserve the property and land known as the Pine Tree radar site located in western Newfoundland, about 10 miles from the fast growing area known as Stephenville in the Port au Port area. This site served the United States air force base during the second world war as part of a line of radar communication in their complete North American defence mission.
The United States Ernest Harmon air force base located in nearby Stephenville was vacated by the American air force in the early 1960's. The Pine Tree site remained in existence and manned until 1971, and the American government left the land and property to the federal government.
Just to give you an idea of the technical equipment remaining, there are two domed radar screens of untold value which were used to monitor all flights operating strategically in the defence mission, as well as saucer type

March 11, 1975
Adjournment Debate
pretty massive microwave beams. Strangely enough, Tele-sat Canada is evidently making use of the dome and the CBC is using a main tower, which still exists, in its system of communication, and evidently Marconi is operating a TACAN monitoring system.
Strangely enough too, in the forecast of improvements to the Stephenville airport it appears likely that some installations will be located on the site by the Department of Transport to support air travel to that airport.
Also left by the United States government was housing accommodation for the some two hundred officers and men who were stationed there, as well as a first class officers' club, NCO's club, a modern snack bar, dining facilities, a first class gymnasium and a bowling alley with almost new ancillary equipment. It has been provided with a water supply with pumping facilities. As an example, Mr. Speaker, one of the community leaders in the area was interested in obtaining a chlorinator which was on the premises, and ended up having to purchase one for $1,800.
Evidently caretakers were left there by the Americans after they vacated the site until I believe, June 1972. Is it not a wonder that federal departments and agencies that apparently had a decided interest in the use of the technical equipment were not interested enough to bring to the attention of responsible officials the continuing need for caretaker services, and so allowed the property to be vandalized to disgraceful proportions.
As I indicated before, the assessed value of the property at that time was $3'/2 million. I doubt those figures are accurate, but certainly at replacement value the buildings and property are worth double.
I think that I have done everything within my power to bring the matter to the attention of all concerned as I did in the House recently, on the basis of my feelings about the unfortunate circumstances that were allowed to prevail. I have been in touch with the property and management officials at the Department of Public Works and some officials at the Department of National Defence who are now pursuing the matter with regional officials.
It appears as if the Department of Public Works will ask the provincial government if it wishes to take the property over, subject to reserving the right to federal interest by the departments and agencies that I have mentioned. I have contacted the provincial minister of public works who indicated his readiness to consider a proposal by the federal government. I think we have things moving now, but it is imperative that the Department of Public Works immediately hire a caretaker staff to protect this very valuable property from further vandalism.
It is my opinion that the site could become a recreational centre for a wide area of the local population, or even on a provincial basis. It is my intention to bring this matter to the attention of provincial government officials responsible for sports and recreation. Further, there is no reason why the site could not become a historic site to hold in perpetuity the memory of the importance of the location in the over-all war efforts of our allies. I feel that the United States government might be interested in co-operating on such a project.
While the parliamentary secretary is here, Mr. Speaker, I would mention the increase in the militia battalion in

Newfoundland and the evidence of the formation of a branch in Stephenville, which is just ten miles from this site. It would be an excellent training ground for militia on a regional or battalion basis.
My purpose in rising tonight is to impress on the parliamentary secretary the need to protect the property. Its protection should be afforded the highest priority. Personnel should inspect it and protect it from the ravages of vandals, who are causing many millions of dollars of damage.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Madam Speaker, may I say to the hon. member how much I and many others appreciate the work he has done for the militia and the interest in it he again expressed this evening. I also appreciate his concern about vandalism. Recently a Pine Tree line radar station in my constituency was closed but, fortunately, we have not encountered the type of problem to which the hon. member alluded. Nevertheless, I appreciate his concern. I also agree with the hon. member that radar stations on the Pine Tree line were kept in excellent shape by the people who occupied them.
Until June 30, 1971, the 722 acres of land and buildings at Table Mountain, Newfoundland, were operated by the United States Air Force as a NORAD radar station. The land was granted to the U.S. government as part of the 1951 Pine Tree agreement by the government of Canada. The buildings and equipment were United States property. In June, 1971, the USAF deactivated the radar site and abandoned the property, taking with them their electronic equipment and other gear. The Tactical Air Navigation installation which had been operated by the USAF was turned over to the Department of National Defence, which has operated and maintained it as an unmanned but secure site ever since. The TACAN equipment is maintained under contract with Canadian Marconi Limited.
In October, 1971, Canadian Forces station Gander was designated as the caretaker unit for the Table Mountain property and requested to raise a declaration of surplus with a view to eventual hand-over of the property to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. Unfortunately, because of lengthy and complex negotiations with the U.S. government, the Department of National Defence was unable to obtain title to the property until July 19, 1973. On August 8, 1973, the RCMP detachment at Stephenville, Newfoundland, was asked to maintain surveillance over the property.
Canadian Forces station Gander was unable to complete the report of surplus because of weather conditions during the winter of 1974, the final report being submitted in May, 1974. In December, 1974, the site was turned over to the real property division of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, now the Department of Public Works, for disposal. This action was delayed due to, among other things, inter-departmental discussions concerning the operation and maintenance of TACAN. Several other federal government and civilian agencies have expressed interest in portions of the property for their use. At the present time, in addition to the Department of National Defence's TACAN site, CBC maintains a transmitter on the property and the RCMP have a relay station there. The RCMP have been carrying out security checks since they were request-
March 11, 1975

ed to do so on August 8, 1973. In the summer months these checks are once in each 24-hour period. In the winter there is one check every two weeks by snowmobile, as the area is otherwise inaccessible.
Adjournment Debate


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but his allotted time has expired. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Wednesday, March 12, 1975