1976-05-20

Mr. Ray Hnatyshyrt (Saskatoon-Biggar):: I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) has admitted today in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs that he has personally communicated with the chairman of the National Parole Board concerning a proposed application by the Minister of the Environment to suspend or revoke a prohibition from driving. In order that there be no question that the Solicitor General's actions would be subject to the interpretation of representations on behalf of a cabinet colleague, to a board under the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Balfour):
That this House direct the Solicitor General to immediately table all documents relating to the Solicitor General's communications with the National Parole Board concerning the conviction of the Minister of the Environment and make a statement on motions concerning details of the circumstances of this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A motion of this sort can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a motion under Standing Order 43. It relates to a matter which is even more urgent than it was the last time I made this proposal to the House. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House urges the government to introduce without delay an amendment to the Old Age Security Act to provide for the spouse's allowance which is paid thereunder to be paid also to widows, spinsters, widowers and bachelors between the ages of 60 and 65, on the basis of need or preferably on the basis of their being out of the labour market.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek leave of the House to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and the Solicitor General be required to give an immediate explanation of the obvious discrepancies between the admission made by the Minister of Manpower yesterday that the defrauding of the Unemployment Insurance Commission was a serious situation because of its size and that it was more than an ordinary problem and the public statement made by a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that the matter is not as serious as stated by the minister, further that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration should explain to the House the reasons why certain details of an investigation being conducted by the Unemployment Insurance Commission parallel to the RCMP investigation have apparently been withheld from the RCMP, that the House receive immediate information as to whether this was done under pressure of political considerations to avoid scandal to the government and, finally, that a judicial inquiry be immediately ordered into the entire operations of the UIC with full powers to bring out all details of corruption and to make recommendations for reforming the commission.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can only be presented with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I rise to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity which relates to

May 20, 1976
Medical Research
the attempt of Steven Badger, the Australian swimmer, to obtain landed immigrant status in order to enable him to represent Canada at this summer's Olympic Games. In view of the fact that this exceptional swimmer would strongly boost our nation's much needed chances at the games, and because his application was made from abroad sometime ago, in accordance with the laws, and keeping in mind as well the fact that the minister has granted within the last two years alone over 18,000 ministerial permits to applicants who did not qualify for landed immigrant status, many of them to shady and corrupt characters like General Quang, because the IOC has not as yet approved the so-called commonwealth switch and time is quickly running out, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That this House instruct the Minister of Immigration to utilize his department's policy in respect to special consideration regarding cases of exceptional merit, under which Steven Badger unquestionably qualifies, and grant him the landed immigrant status which he so desperately needs by May 31 of this year in order to qualify for and strengthen our Olympic team.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST FOR INCREASED FUNDS FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the national significance of the large gathering here in Ottawa today of members of the newly formed group of "Canadians for Health Research", comprising representatives of both professional and voluntary health groups as well as other lay organizations, and in view of the recent announcement by the Minister of National Health and Welfare that he intends to increase the budget of the Medical Research Council by only $2 million, thereby leaving it about $4 million short of funds sufficient to continue operation at the same level as last year; I move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk):
That this House urge the government to recognize both the need for restraint and the need for medical research by giving immediate reconsideration to funding the Medical Research Council to a level which will maintain its activities on a par with those of the past year.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion can be presented for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Then the motion cannot be put.


HARBOURS
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of national concern. Last year, a task force was formed by the Ministry of Transport to bring forth recommendations for the restructuring of the National Harbours Board. Bearing in mind that the report of this task force has not, as yet been finalized, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton):
That the minister advise this House why certain proposals or recommendations contained in the draft report are now being implemented at a time of year when such restructuring could place the important Churchill shipping season in jeopardy.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented pursuant to Standing Order 43 only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. Since the Lockheed Orion fiasco may already have cost the Canadian taxpayer over $34 million, would the hon. gentleman now table the unsigned contract with Lockheed that got us into this mess?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, of course I find it very difficult to table in the House a document which has no meaning whatsoever. I know that some members of the opposition did refer to documents which have never been tabled in the House. The document in question has not been signed by the parties, and as such it simply does not exist, legally speaking.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Well, Mr. Speaker, the document itself may be meaningless as far as a contract is concerned, but we are interested in the procedures which led the government into this mess. As the minister has told us he was willing to table this contract once it had been signed we are now forced to the conclusion that he has something to hide. In any event, may I ask him this question: Since an array of figures is being thrown around as to how much this affair may have cost us, will the minister tell the House how much money has been spent by the government and what the government liability to the Lockheed Corporation might ultimately be?
May 20, 1976


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has doubts about things which the government might be hiding, I would ask him to be quite intellectual and voice them openly before the public.
In reply to the second part of his question, I would say that our legal commitment, as I have always stated in the House, is restricted to $16 million. Up to now, we have made payments to Lockheed amounting to $10,800,000 for the work performed and we shall examine with the company the consequences of voiding all our contractual bonds with it. Of course, all those figures are subject to audit by government officials.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-NAMES OF PERSONS AUTHORIZING START OF WORK AND EXTENDING OPTION
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, may I first reply to the minister as honestly and intellectually as I can. I certainly do doubt him on this matter from start to finish.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: On December 2 the minister authorized Lockheed to start work on the project, and on April fool's day the minister signed an agreement, which apparently accepted liability for $16 million for work in progress, in order to extend time to find the interim financing. Would the minister tell the House who approved those two decisions, the authorization to start and the acceptance of liability, and were they made on the advice of the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of National Defence and the LRPA project team?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST FOR TABLING ASSESSMENTS OF SOLVENCY OF LOCKHEED
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. General Allan advised the defence committee this morning that the Department of Supply and Services made periodic assessments of the solvency of Lockheed for the LRPA project team. Would the minister table those assessments and tell the House whether they did include any precise analysis of whether Lockheed had the capacity to provide over $300 million of interim financing?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker I have always indicated to the House that the government was determined to deal with Lockheed because, it its opinion, this company did not present as enormous a risk as the opposition tried to make believe.
We had access to information which Lockheed considers to be confidential and it is not my business to reveal information which is indeed exclusively Lockheed's. However, if the company wishes to make public these financial
Oral Questions
arrangements while we are negotiating or later on, it is up to them.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. The Minister of Defence told the defence committee on March 23 that Lockheed did not reveal that they had an understanding with the United States government and U.S. banks that they would not borrow any further moneys. I would like the minister to tell the House why the government did not know that in any case, as it was public knowledge and must have been made available to those who supposedly assessed Lockheed's financial status.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot respond because I do not know to what the first part of the question, or the whole of that question, refers. I will have to ask the hon. member to repeat it.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I repeat my question. The Minister of Defence told the defence committee on March 23 that Lockheed did not reveal that they had an understanding with the United States government and U.S. banks that they would not borrow any further moneys. I would like the minister to tell the House why the government did not know that in any case, as it was public knowledge and must have been made available to those who supposedly assessed Lockheed's financial status.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I will have to return to the record of that meeting before I can reply to the question. I will take it as notice.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question also is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. I presume that the minister has no objection, by the way, to tabling the option agreement for the renewal, since it is an agreement and there is a clear commitment under it to $16 million. I hope the minister is going to nod his head and agree to table the document, which was obviously signed by both parties. I see he is nodding his head.


An hon. Member:: It's a nervous tick.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: It was indicated in the House that the Department of Justice had given legal advise in this
13700

May 20, 1976
Oral Questions
matter. Would the minister advise whether he received any legal advice either from justice or from any other source, prior to his commitment to the $16 million, in extending the Lockheed contract for one month? Did he receive any legal advice and, if so, what was that legal advice in terms of Canada's commitment at that point to the Lockheed Corporation?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, throughout the negotiations, and God knows how long and difficult they were, we constantly checked all our actions and decisions with officers from the Department of Justice, that is those who are permanent in my department or those who had been lent by the Department of Justice to my department. Therefore, I can say that, as far as I know, there was no action that was not checked and verified by the Department of Justice, as it must normally be done.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will pardon me if I did not quite understand that answer. The question was, did the minister get legal advice that the government was committed to the Lockheed Corporation as a result of the announcement of the agreement in principle which the Minister of National Defence made on November 27? Was there legal advice given to the minister, and was there a legal commitment before he entered into the renewal or the extension of the option with the Lockheed Corporation? That is the question and it is a clear one. It is not a question of verification, it is a question of what was the advice the minister received, and did he follow it? Would you respond to that question, please?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member refers to an action taken by the Department of National Defence on November 27, I do not know then why this question is directed to me.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I will try to get the second language down a little better, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps then I can get through to the minister.


An hon. Member:: Get the first language down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The first language, agreed. My final supplementary question is this. Prior to the letter that was sent on December 2 authorizing the Lockheed Corporation to proceed with work, which followed the November 27 announcement of the agreement in principle, did the minister receive any legal advice at that point, and did he check with the Treasury Board prior to sending out that letter or that communication as to the availability of funds from the government for that contract?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Finally, the question is more precise, Mr. Speaker.

On December 2, a telex, equivalent to a letter of intent and signed by myself, was sent to Lockheed indicating our intent to sign a contract with them, if ever they met certain conditions, which was done in fact. It is from that moment, according to the lawyers of the Department of Justice, that we had a contractual link with Lockheed. This authorization of course was the result of a decision by the Treasury Board and the Department of National Defence.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Following the announcement of the new dairy policy for 1976, did the minister receive any reactions, positive or negative, either from the industrial milk producers unions or the executive of the Federation of Industrial Milk Producers of Quebec, or the Agricultural Producers' Union? If so, what was the minister's response?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we have received reactions from them to the effect that they are not satisfied with the program. This was not unexpected. The only answer I could give them was to confirm that I had received the representations and they would be considered.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a supplementary question.
The minister confirms that the policy announced by his government is unsatisfactory for producers, according to their reactions. Given this situation, can the minister tell the House if the producers' grievances are founded and legitimate and, therefore, if he is going to act to serve both the producers' and the consumers' interests, or if he intends simply to leave things as they are now?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, much of the problem in Quebec is the same as in other provinces. It is within the responsibility of their own marketing boards to iron out some of their problems. It is they who set the market share quota system and decide what the supply of milk shall be. We tried to tell them last June and last September that they were producing away more than the market could possibly absorb. They did not pay much attention to us. They increased it. So all we can do is make the rules known to them, show them that we mean business, and that we cannot afford to spend government money and they cannot afford to produce a product for which there is no market, as I said yesterday and will say again.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a final supplementary question.
May 20, 1976

Can the Minister of Agriculture tell the House whether he has received from the Agricultural Producers' Union a letter demanding the resignation of three commissioners of the Canadian Dairy Commission, and if he has received such a request, whether he intends to comply with it?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have received this type of request, I believe from the UP A, but I do not remember whether it is for all three commissioners. I do not feel that all three commissioners are totally responsible for the present condition of the industrial milk supply. I think they have to recognize they are as responsible as the dairy commissioners of Canada because the dairy commissioners of Canada recognized the problem, tried to tell them what problem they were getting into and so on, and they paid little attention to it.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the statements coming out of Oslo this morning and the headlines in both Ottawa newspapers this afternoon which I am sure the minister has read stating that the face of the Secretary General of NATO turned white and his jaw dropped when he heard the news about the Orion this morning, can the minister give me, as the person representing us on the military committee of the NATO parliamentary meeting which will be held next week in Brussels, some good news about tanks or anything at all-I will accept anything-that I can pass on to this meeting to try to counteract the simply terrible news that broke on the NATO ministerial meeting at Oslo this morning?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to know that the Secretary-General of NATO feels that Canada's contribution to NATO is so important that our decision would have that effect on him. But also, Mr. Speaker, I should make very clear to the House and to the country that the government's policy has not changed.


An hon. Member:: What policy?


George Harris Hees: That is the trouble.


James Armstrong Richardson: The government is committed to support NATO. We are going to stay in the anti-submarine role. We would in any event have been fulfilling our anti-submarine role with the Argus fleet for the next four years. We will certainly be doing that. There will be no change. The only thing we may change is the type of equipment we may use to replace the Argus in the early eighties.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, if the minister would take the trouble to attend any of these NATO meetings he would know what our NATO partners think about our contribu-
Oral Questions
tion to NATO. It is not a very nice opinion I can assure him and anyone else who attends these meetings will back me up on that. I would ask the minister this: Does he really believe that a vague, general non-answer such as he gave me is anything to change the opinion of our NATO allies as to the kind of contribution that we have made, are making, and intend to make in the future?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say first of all that I have attended all NATO defence ministers' meetings in recent years and I think many more than the hon. member. In fact, I am not certain that he ever attended any.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: But of more importance is the government's over-all policy of re-equiping the Canadian armed forces, which is reflected in the fact that the defence budget is up by $400 million this year over last year, and the new equipment purchases are up 34 per cent over last year,-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Armstrong Richardson: -and all this does not include the major expenditures which are in an advanced planning stage, for the purchase of tanks and of general purpose armoured vehicles. Our over-all policy of re-equiping the forces is proceeding, our commitment to the anti-submarine program is continuing, and the only change that this decision will bring about is that we would do that with possibly different equipment than originally planned.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, if the minister would take the trouble to find out who it is that represents this parliament at the parliamentary meetings of NATO, he would know I have been there on quite a number of occasions.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


George Harris Hees: Does the minister not realize that when you let your equipment run down as low as this government has let our NATO equipment run down, it takes a great deal more than he is doing to bring it up to even a close approach to what it was when it started 25 years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDUSTRY
Mr. Frank Maine (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the guidelines for the conduct of foreign controlled businesses operating in Canada as set out by the then minister of industry, trade and commerce in July of 1975, and in view of the fact that Radio Corporation of America has decided to rationalize its north American manufacturing and control it from New York, resulting in the closing of the RCA research laboratory in Montreal in
95568-33)4

May 20, 1976
Oral Questions
contravention of the new principles of international business conduct to which I referred, does the minister plan to take action to ensure that RCA observes the government's guidelines and so reverse this totally irresponsible decision?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the chief executive officer and other officers of RCA called on me late last week and indicated their intention to undertake what would have to be described as substantial corporate structural changes. I expressed my disappointment over what was being planned.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Woolliams:: You had a long face.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Whatever I may have in this House I do not think any hon. member looking at me can feel I would ever have a long face. I have a round one. In any event, we undertook to have further consultations and I asked them for considerably more detail as to what their intentions are and as to whether or not they will in fact be breaching what has been described as good behaviour guidelines. I will report to the hon. member in the House later on those meetings.


HARBOURS
Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The port of Churchill is considered a remote port because of its mid-Canada location. The port's remoteness demands on the spot decisions by an experienced port manager during its 88 day grain shipping season. Will the minister take immediate action to have the present port manager reinstated so that this port can carry on with one of its most important grain shipping seasons in the history of the port without further delay or restructing?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: No, Mr. Speaker, although I do appreciate the hon. member's complimentary remarks about the record season which will be accomplished in Churchill this year. I can also assure the hon. member that there will be adequate management but a new man.


Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the same minister. I certainly cannot agree with his remarks. I feel that this port is now being placed in jeopardy with the changing of the port manager and the restructuring. Will the minister assure us at this time that there will be a port manager in Churchill within the next ten days to get the season underway?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the port of Churchill has been given a great deal of attention. The chairman of the National Harbours Board in

fact visited the port himself in the last week and is giving personal attention to make sure that the port is indeed effective in its operations.


REQUEST MINISTER ADJUDICATE DISPUTE BETWEEN QUEBEC AND NEWFOUNDLAND OVER CHURCHILL FALLS POWER-REFERENCE TO ENERGY BOARD
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Today in the Newfoundland legislature Premier Moores has announced that unless Quebec were able to provide an agreement with Newfoundland by May 31 on the recall of 800 megawatts of power up to 1982 from the Churchill Falls agreement there would be recourse to whatever legal means the province has at its disposal. Is the minister prepared to adjudicate the dispute between the two provinces to avoid what could be a very serious confrontation, or at best is he prepared to instruct the National Energy Board to refuse to provide the province of Quebec with any more export licences to sell their surplus Churchill Falls power to New York state?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain that it is the role of a federal minister to adjudicate a dispute between two provinces. However, if the two provinces came to me and said, "We want to see whether we can work out an arrangement which would solve our separate problems , and perhaps assist in some way the Maritime provinces as well, I would be delighted to sit down with them.


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the fact that Newfoundland, like its sister Atlantic provinces, will have a very serious energy shortage by 1980 and hence it is absolutely essential that we be able to recall power from Churchill Falls which is now going into the Quebec grid and a lot of it going to ConEd in New York State, may I ask the minister if he is prepared to refer this matter to the National Energy Board to reassess the whole export licence program that has been given to Quebec to sell this power to New York?


Alastair William Gillespie: I think that the matter is now before the National Energy Board. I think there is an application to export by the province of Quebec before the National Energy Board, and undoubtedly the board will take note of the hon. member's representations.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the large and imposing delegation representing the medical research communities across Canada and their associated voluntary associations
May 20, 1976

which made representations to the government today, indicating, first, that the money allocated for medical research in this year's estimate is completely inadequate, and, second, that the $2 million increase announced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare on Tuesday will not meet the needs of medical research, can the minister indicate whether further consideration is being given to the needs of medical research for the coming year?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the Medical Research Council would have been very pleased with our granting another $2 million, which would be a rather significant increase from last year, but of course the government cannot increase its grants to this or any other group in Canada because of the budgetary cutbacks.


David Orlikow: It is interesting that the Minister of National Defence a few minutes ago indicated that there is a $400 million increase for national defence this year and the President of the Treasury Board thinks that medical research should be satisfied and happy with $2 million.
May I ask the President of the Treasury Board whether, in view of the repeated representations by researchers that the government's present stop and go policy for financing medical research destroys not only existing programs and future programs but helps to discourage potential medical researchers from going into the field, the minister can indicate if the government will give some consideration to the proposals made again this year by medical researchers that the government work out a five year funding program for medical researchers so that long range plans can be made?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as the minister indicated at the last meeting of the health committee at which the medical research estimates were considered, he is proposing to look into the question of developing a long-term basis for determining the needs of medical research and the appropriate method of funding. As a matter of fact, the minister is meeting with representatives this afternoon at 3.30. He is looking forward to a discussion and to hearing their views.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, since the Secretary of State for External Affairs is absent, I would like to ask a question of his parliamentary secretary, if her voice has improved. Following the question of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) yesterday about the UNCTAD conference and an alleged participation by the OPEC countries, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary to indicate whether she is aware that
Oral Questions
the OPEC countries made a commitment to the common fund for the buffer stocks. If so, how does this commitment compare with the one Canada has made so far?


Miss Monique Begin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity of using my improved voice to correct what I said yesterday to the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville and point out that during the UNCTAD IV conference in Nairobi the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) said that we were prepared to look favourably into the idea of a common fund. As for what the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville said about the contribution of the OPEC nations, I must say today that, as far as we know, these nations have not made any commitment to the common fund and that Canada did clearly announce its financial participation to a common fund for tin.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Will the minister explain to the House the basis for his communications to the National Parole Board on behalf of his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, which led to the lifting of the minister's driving suspension five and a half month's early?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, as I explained in the Justice Committee this morning, I made no such representations to the National Parole Board. The Minister of the Environment asked me if there was any procedure to have a licence suspension revoked. I said there was. He asked me for the criteria and the procedure, and I merely asked the Parole Board to send that procedure to the minister, which in fact was done.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on.


William Warren Allmand: I never knew that he made any application under that procedure, nor did I know that the board had been seized of it or that a decision was made until I read about it this morning.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN SOLICITOR GENERAL AND PAROLE BOARD RELATING TO RESTORATION OF MR. MARCHAND'S DRIVER'S LICENCE

James Balfour: Will the Solicitor General table all documents and copies of correspondence in his possession relating to this entire matter in order that justice will not only be done, but will be seen to be done?


Mr. Trudeau:: Why don't you put your gumshoes on? Why don't you hire a private investigator?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Paproski:: Why don't you slide down a bannister?

May 20, 1976
Oral Questions


William Warren Allmand: I have no correspondence or documents in this case. I received merely a document with the procedure and the criteria on it, which I thought would have been sent directly to the minister, but it was sent to my office to be given to him. However, the file is in the hands of the National Parole Board. That is an independent quasi-judicial body. The hon. member would have to ask the board for any correspondence or material. I have no right to interfere.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question. Would the Prime Minister advise the House what circumstances led to his unprecedented visit to the Supreme Court of Canada, and what was the purpose of it?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Blais:: How about church?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure that if the Prime Minister is left to answer that question by himself, he will be quite able to do so.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I was invited.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to ask a question of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. However, I see that the case of the disappearing minister is with us again, and I will reserve my question until he is back.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated in the House on Tuesday that Canada, in its negotiations with India, had never varied from the position that all nuclear facilities originating in Canada must be safeguarded but that last night the Indian foreign minister stated that his government understood that the safeguard in question had been settled and that India had a binding agreement with Canada, will the Prime Minister indicate whether Mr. Head, when he was in New Delhi last March, exceeded his authority when negotiating that agreement with India?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, the document which was initialled by our officials in India was an ad referendum agreement and is not binding on any 
government. That is a well known technique following discussions. Canada has done everything possible to upgrade the safeguards in India, and in trying to conclude an agreement Canada was not able to reach the levels she wanted.



NUCLEAR AGREEMENT WITH INDIA-POSSIBILITY CABINET REVERSED EARLIER DECISION

Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Prime Minister or for a responsible minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Ask somebody else, then.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: If in initialling the agreement Mr. Head was within the instructions given to him by the government, is it not a valid conclusion that the cabinet reversed itself on this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for standing in front of a lady.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He said a responsible minister.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I probably expressed myself badly earlier. I said that the officials of the government had initialled, and not signed, an ad referendum agreement. That is not an agreement. It is a document called "ad referendum agreement", and so there was no reversal of any cabinet decision whatsoever. The cabinet decision followed a study of that particular document.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is the minister aware that many people, often senior citizens, find it impossible to cash in on bonus coupons which are enclosed in many food products, and does the minister consider this a form of false advertising?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of the question. Several acts, both provincial and federal, cover the whole area of misleading advertising. I think at best this could be described as immoral if not illegal. Obviously, there is no obligation on the retailer to accept the provisions of a coupon in a package. I think the specific law which is most appropriate is in Quebec where a coupon can be exchanged for equivalent cash, and we are presently looking at our own legislation to see if this would be a helpful amendment.
May 20, 1976



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration as a result of questions asked by the hon. member for Leeds regarding the investigation which was allegedly carried on by the RCMP regarding dummy companies and frauds. The minister is reported to have stated outside the House that the investigation revealed more than an ordinary problem and that he considers this to be a serious situation because of its size. That answer implies that the RCMP was involved. Yet today, according to this afternoon's Ottawa Journal, Sergeant Gordon Butt, temporary head of the RCMP's commercial crime section at "A" division said the force was dealing with only one fraud charge involving a minimal amount of money. Actually, they were surprised about the extent of this investigation. Is the minister now in a position to indicate to the House how this discrepancy has come about, and can he clear the air?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Hamilton West might begin by asking a question of the hon. member for Leeds. My comments of yesterday, and particularly one report which I have seen by Canadian Press suggesting that I said this could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars, were inaccurately portrayed. It could amount to thousands of dollars and that, indeed, is serious. I could not take lightly the possibility of fraud with regard to unemployment insurance or any other matter. I do not think there is anything wrong with my saying it is serious. It is under investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and I am told that the investigation was undertaken at the instigation of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, which did a preliminary investigation and decided the police should be called in to conduct the investigation.
As for the scope of the investigation and further details on it, I believe it is not proper for me to reveal what I know about it in the House until the investigation has been completed, and until I have information from the chairman of the commission or an inspector of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to that effect.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, it has also been alleged that the Unemployment Insurance Commission is not co-operating with the RCMP and not releasing documents in order that the RCMP can go through with its investigation. I ask the Solicitor General, has this matter been brought to his attention and is it true that the Unemployment Insurance Commission is stone-
Oral Questions
walling the activities of the RCMP with respect to this needed investigation?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the commissioner of the RCMP was with me this morning, appearing before the justice committee, and he said that is a lot of nonsense.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the minister indicated that this is a most important matter and has said that it is more than an ordinary problem, can he say what kind of problem he faces at this time, the size of the problem and whether his investigation to date has revealed a significant loophole in the act which requires closing?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I would think the question of fraud involves more than an ordinary problem. We hear from time to time in this House and outside accusations regarding the misuse and abuse of the act. These involve individuals who may fail to meet their obligations under the act, but these are often exaggerated. But fraud is entirely different. If the hon. member implies that I am stretching my imagination or the facts, and indicating that my attitude to fraud is not serious, then he and I are in complete disagreement.



EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. On April 14 I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the government, directly or indirectly, through the Export Development Corporation was assisting or proposing to assist Noranda Mines Limited or any of its subsidiaries in developing a copper mine and smelter at Andocollo, Chile. The minister seemed not to know the answer, or did not give a clear answer. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe directed a similar question to the minister's parliamentary secretary yesterday or the day before, I forget which. Is the minister now able to tell the House if the Export Development Corporation is in any way involved in this Noranda project in Chile.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I was only advised of the question of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe yesterday, as I arrived back just before the question period, and have not had a chance to look into it. I think the hon. member's question repeats the basic query of yesterday. I have asked for a detailed explanation. I simply had an oral statement given to me as I came into the House and

May 20, 1976
Oral Questions
learned that, to the best of our knowledge, there is no such activity. I shall be pleased to get more specific information and reply to the hon. member later.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In view of the fact that Canadian immigration officers accredited with the government of Cyprus are now residing in Tel Aviv, Israel, could the minister tell the House what special steps his department has already taken or intends to take to promote the admission into Canada of the many Lebanese who found refuge in Cyprus and would no doubt appreciate the hospitality of a country with french as one of its official languages? Furthermore, could he say whether his department is in contact with the Quebec Department of Immigration about that potential French-speaking immigration?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I have had a communication with the Hon. Lise Bacon, Quebec Minister of Immigration, about this matter and will be meeting the minister early next week to discuss it further with her.
With regard to measures taken in the tragic situation in Lebanon, we have, to the degree we can and recognizing the difficulty of having facilities operating in Beirut, in those particularly difficult circumstances, expedited the processing of applications from Lebanese, with particular emphasis on those who have relatives in Canada. Relatives of people of Lebanese citizenship who are in Canada now and who are sponsorable or nominatable and meet the criteria, we are proceeding to land in Canada under the order in council authority I have in the circumstances. Lebanese visitors to Canada who do not have relatives here are being permitted to stay beyond their ordinary period of time and not being asked to return to Lebanon until the situation clarifies itself. We are indeed, going further than that, and looking at the possibility of establishing auxiliary facilities in Cyprus, which is about a 20 minute flight away I am told, from Lebanon, in order to meet this emergency situation. Indeed, any Lebanese people wishing to apply to come to Canada, who can get out of the dangerous situation in Lebanon and go to a third country of any kind, can make application and we will expedite the procedure within the general criteria I have mentioned.



WORK PERMITS FOR LEBANESE STUDENTS

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, may I say that I think most of us welcome the special arrangements the minister announced. I wish to ask about another area of concern. It has been brought to my attention that many students from Lebanon who are unable to get help from home will require help. I hope the

minister can arrange for them to obtain work permits this summer, so that they can augment their finances.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to add to what I said previously. I missed the point the hon. member raised. We are permitting the allocation of work permits, except in the most extraordinary circumstances of which I cannot at the moment give any examples, to students or other Lebanese visitors who are not sponsor-able or nominatable but who have stayed in this country. We are not asking them to return to Lebanon. If they can find work, we will give them visas.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I will direct my question to the Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries. I gave him notice of the question which I feel is of great importance to the people of Atlantic Canada. Have Canada and the Soviet Union signed an agreement covering fishing rights over a 200-mile limit; and if so, what are the particular terms of reference? Finally, since many species are now fished below the sustainable yield level, what species will be classed as surplus to Canada's needs, with permission being granted to the Soviets to catch those fish under special licences?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I know the agreement was signed between the USSR and Canada. I also know that it was agreed that Canada would determine the allocation of surplus fish stocks in Canada. Finally, I know there has been a decrease in the population of ground fish but it is obvious that we will then take into account the situation of fisheries within the 200 miles, if ever they should be accepted.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I know hon. members will want to join me in calling attention to the presence in our gallery of a distinguished and extraordinary group of Canadians, all of whom have been honoured by being invited to Ottawa today to a reception with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Their achievement is that they are holders of medals in world class or Olympic competition. Those Canadians who qualified and are in the gallery at present include, if I am not mistaken, Kathy Kreiner, Toller Cran-
May 20, 1976

ston, Susan Nattrass, John Primrose, Ken Bate, Gaetan Boucher, Sylvia Burka, Cathy Priestner, Nancy Garapick, Anne Jardin, Cindy Nicholas, Sylvie Fortier, Carol Stuart, Laura Wilkin and Patricia Messner.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will try to make my point of order without in any way attempting to deprecate the hardworking parliamentary assistants to the ministers, and especially the abilities of the lady member in question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: However, when a member in this House asks a question that can only be within the knowledge of a member of the ministry, directly relating to a cabinet affair only, and the member who is asking the question makes that apparent at the very beginning, surely it makes a sham and a facade of the question period if we cannot receive an answer from a responsible minister of the Crown. In attempting to do so, Mr. Speaker, you, in your discretion, cut us off without giving permission to ask a supplementary question, which would have made that readily apparent.
Certainly, a parliamentary assistant does not, or ought not-if they do, they are in breach of the oath of secrecy- to have information that can be available only in relation to a cabinet decision or what led up to a cabinet decision.
My point of order is this. When a member asking a question makes it quite apparent that it has to be answered by a member of the ministry, and I am not talking about a routine question that perhaps a parliamentary assistant can answer, then surely the privilege of the member of the ministry is to either give an answer or say nothing. However, we should not be sloughed off by a parliamentary assistant.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The position of the Chair is quite clear on this subject. This is not the first time it has been raised. As far as the Chair is concerned, perhaps not as far as other members are concerned, one of the early and more memorable decisions, personally, was to refuse to permit parliamentary secretaries the opportunity to put questions in the question period. I have taken that decision because I hold that parliamentary secretaries who ought to be, or seek to be clothed with the responsibility of answering questions on behalf of their ministers, ought not to be able to have it both ways, both to ask and to answer questions. If I refuse them the right to ask questions because they have the obligation or the right to answer them, surely I am being consistent, and I would not now be able to say that a parliamentary secretary ought not to have the capacity to answer questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Presence in Gallery


Mr. Corbin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, as I gave you notice of it in writing yesterday. It arises from the publication in the Globe and Mail of May 19, 1976 of a report of the meeting of the House Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates held on the morning of May 18. I had to postpone this matter until today, Mr. Speaker, because I had difficulty obtaining the report.
In my opinion, the matter I am raising closely affects the privileges of all members of the House. I would like to quote a first excerpt from the article emanating from the Canadian Press and published in the Globe and Mail to put the question in its proper perspective. The Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates was considering Bill C-81, an Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act with respect to the escalation of certain payments thereunder. The main witness was the President of the Treasury Board, the hon. Jean Chretien. The article in question is entitled:

NDP scores cheap political points Despite grumbles, MPs back pay freeze plan
Je cite:
Mr. Chretien said the public has little idea of the amount of work an MP must do. Many work from early morning until after the Commons closes at 10.30 p.m. he said.
The Commons sits from 2 p.m., three days a week. There are rarely more than a handful of MPs in the House during evening sittings.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this last paragraph is the basis for a prima facie case of privilege and concerns this institution as a whole.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I think that the Canadian Press reporter who wrote this article deliberately and maliciously tried to deceive the Canadian public by clearly giving the impression, first that the House of Commons sits only three days a week and, second, that only a handful of hon. members take part in the numerous activities of this institution. This kind of article from a press agency deemed to be responsible is an attack on our institution. The article is an attack on the intelligence of Canadians who ask for and require objective and complete information.
I could speak several minutes on the many activities of this House, of the committees, on constituency and party work, etc. In fact, all hon. members are familiar with these facts. This makes the kind of journalism mentioned above all the more odious and offensive. The lack of objectivity showed by some members of the press gallery-not by all, I must admit-is so obvious and I think that the few reporters who maliciously cast a slur on the integrity of the House of Commons and on hon. members' participation in the business of this institution should be required to explain themselves before the Committee on Privileges and Elections. One more minute, Mr. Speaker, to raise an aspect of the question which concerns me personally. In the same article of the Globe and Mail, one can read:

Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria) said he would support the bill-
95 568- 34

May 20, 1976
Presence in Gallery
Most of his constituents support an increase in allowance for MPs he said. Although he has received "two letters from ding-dongs" against an increase, the majority support better pay benefits, he said.

Mr. Speaker, that is another example of malicious or irresponsible reporting. Here is what I actually said, and I quote from the text given to me by the committee's clerk:
As far as I am concerned, I sold to my constituents the principle that we had established last year. The vast majority supported what the Parliament of Canada did. They understand the importance of a good renumeration for MPs. Except for two naive types who wrote me anonymous letters, I am pleased to report that the vast majority of my voters supported our decision.
On the one hand, you have my words: I mentioned that two naive types wrote me anonymous letters, on the other hand, you have an article in the Globe and Mail which translates my words by "Two letters from ding-dongs".
Mr. Speaker, there is a difference which should not be overlooked. The newspaperman failed to mention that the letters were unsigned, which changes the whole matter entirely, and does not mean, incidently, that I did not receive any signed correspondence. Furthermore I wish to emphasize that "naive types" cannot be translated by "ding-dongs".
Therefore my statement was seriously if not maliciously distorted. The reporter and the press agency which show such a blatant disregard for professional ethics and display such shamelessness towards the public that they consider gullible, ought to be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections to support their stand.

It is time this House dealt with the accredited fiction writers in the press gallery.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eymard G. Corbin: To use the words of an eminent member of the press gallery, Richard Gwynn, "The press needs critics, it is getting just too smug."

I move, seconded by the hon. member for Northumber-land-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne):
That this matter be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections for consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question raised by the hon. member for Victoria-Madawaska is a very important one, and if I were to hold that a prima facie case existed and that the matter ought to be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections it would obviously be a very popular decision. But the difficulty is that, in my opinion, it would not be consistent with the precedents which have guided us in this House for a very long time and which were strengthened only recently by the extensive work of the committee on privileges of the British House with particular reference to the rights of journalists where a contest is exhibited between those who write about parliament and those who are elected to it. In my opinion, wherever possible the decision ought to come

down in favour of the freedom of those who write about parliament to say almost at will what they wish about it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: There has really never been an occasion on which an hon. member has been deprived of the opportunity, when there is a grievance of this sort, to air that grievance. Whether or not it constitutes strictly a question of privilege, there has never been a time when the hon. member concerned did not have the opportunity to raise the question, to air his grievance and to make it well known, as the hon. member for Victoria-Madawaska has done today. Other members who might have wished to take part in the discussion could have done so.
However, it will remain my view that a fundamental right is involved here equal, at least, if not greater, than the special privileges which surround the rights of members, who really ought to claim privilege only if their opportunity to operate as members of the House of Commons is actually interfered with. Certainly, the right to comment and express to the public what takes place here is an aspect of the freedom of the press which is one of the fundamental rights of our society and one which ought not to be interfered with, in my view, unless it is in fact in contempt of this institution.
The expressions of opinion put forward by the author in this case have been commented upon forcefully and, I would say, most ably by the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria whose statement met with the general approval of the members of the House. He put his case extremely well and I do not think any further action by the House is needed to put it in its proper context. He has been congratulated by other hon. members and, in my opinion, deservedly. But I feel that in the interest of the public who, after all, have a very large stake in what takes place here, and in the interests of the freedom of the press, the matter ought not to go any further.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Today, during the question period, Your Honour recognized me for the purpose of asking a question. I had mentioned to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration that I would be asking a question on the Steve Badger case. I thought this was especially appropriate in view of the fact that there were representatives of Canada's Olympics team in the gallery. Noting that the minister had left the House for a few minutes, I took the usual course of action, having informed him I would be asking the question before, and asked that my question be deferred until later in the question period. I know other members of the House have taken a similar course of action, and while Your Honour might say, I know, that other members were standing at three o'clock, I wonder whether, in view of the circumstances which prevailed, I might be allowed to ask my question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Provencher does, indeed, have a point well taken and a rather special case. There was great pressure during the question period today and, regrettably, only a very small number of questioners were able to be recognized. I did, in fact, recognize the hon.
May 20, 1976

member and he indicated he hoped to reserve his question until later. However, there was a lot of pressure as we got close to three o'clock. I do not know whether the House would want to give its consent to the hon. member putting his question now.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank hon. members for their indulgence. I should like to remind the Minister of Manpower and Immigration that in a recent ruling by the department concerning Mr. Steve Badger, a student at the University of Manitoba, Mr. Badger was denied landed-immigrant status. As the minister knows, Steve Badger is a world class swimmer who wants to swim for Canada in the 1976 Olympics. In order to achieve his dream, he applied to the immigration department two years ago for landed-immigrant status. In view of the fact that in the last two years the minister has averaged over 18,000 ministerial orders in favour of people who did not qualify for landed-immigrant status, would he give an assurance that if Steve Badger made an application at a Canadian immigration office outside Canada, it would be accepted? In view of the fact that he has been offered many jobs by various swimming organizations, could not a speedy decision be made on his behalf in order that he might swim for Canada, as is the desire of many Canadians?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: Unfortunately, there are a few misunderstandings about this situation. Steven Badger is a renowned swimmer. He is a student from Australia taking his studies in Canada. He was admitted as a visitor to Canada on a student visa. He did indeed apply-I am not aware it was two years ago-in September of 1975 from San Francisco, and because he is a student and does not have the necessary certification and other qualifications he was not granted entry.
The real point is this. It is not a question of Mr. Badger being a landed immigrant. It is the ruling of the Olympic committee, who have so advised me, that he must be a citizen of Canada, and to grant him landed-immigrant status, which might be possible, although questionable under the circumstances, does not satisfy that condition. The Citizenship Act, which is administered by my colleague, the Secretary of State, still requires five years of residence in Canada as a condition of becoming a citizen. Even if Bill C-20 receives royal assent within a short time, it will take three years.
Business of the House
That is the first confusion. The second is this. I understand from press reports only that there has been a suggestion that the Olympic committee itself, within its own jurisdiction, has found a possible ruling within its own regulations which women permit what they call a Commonwealth switch. Mr. Badger is, in fact, a citizen of Australia, a member of the Commonwealth, and possibly he could swim for Canada under that banner. But that aspect has nothing whatever to do with immigration or, indeed, citizenship. It is really a matter in the hands of the international Olympic committee. I do not even want to dwell on the propriety of making a visitor an instant landed-immigrant or Canadian citizen for the purpose of winning a gold medal for Canada. That is another matter. I do not even have to address myself to that question because the other situation prevails as I have described.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the acting House leader whether he would take the House into his confidence with respect to the business for the balance of the week? Possibly, in view of the fact that the budget is coming down next Tuesday, he might also indicate what we might be doing in the House next week.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to do so. Today, of course, is an opposition day and we shall be dealing with vote No. 1-agriculture. Tomorrow will also be an opposition day and the nature of the subject to be discussed will be made later on this afternoon in the usual way; we shall then be taken into the confidence of the opposition.
With reference to next week, Monday, of course, is a holiday, and on Tuesday we shall be dealing with Bill C-84 until the budget declaration at eight o'clock. On Wednesday we shall revert to Bill C-84. Thursday is the first day which has been set aside as a day to debate the budget. We shall proceed with the budget debate on Wednesday and Thursday, June 2 and 3, with the first vote on the budget at 5.45 p.m. on June 2. We shall proceed again with the budget debate on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of the following week, June 8, 9 and 10, with votes at 9.45 on June 8 and at 9.45 on June 10.
I might indicate to the House that it is the wish of the government to proceed with Bill C-84 with all due dispatch, that extra time could be made available in the hope that perhaps the opposition would agree in the near future to an extension of the ordinary hours so we can dispose of second reading, refer the bill to committee and then report back, so we might commence our summer recess at a convenient time.
95 5 68-34%

May 20, 1976
Royal Assent


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising from a question asked earlier of the Minister of Supply and Services. I might say that I do appreciate his waiting in the House for my point of order; I know he has a commitment.
I did ask the minister whether he would be willing to table, not the unsigned contract with the Lockheed corporation but the renewal agreement for the option that extended the deal for a month. Obviously, this was a document signed both by the government and the Lockheed corporation. In the course of my question I indicated that the minister had agreed to do so by a nod of the head, but some of my colleagues think that I might have misinterpreted the minister. Therefore, would the minister clarify whether he was nodding his head up and down to that particular question, or was it sideways?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I will use word of mouth, which will make the matter clear. Effectively, there is a document called a letter of agreement, dated March 31, 1976, which constitutes authorization of payment. I will be ready to table this document and the articles of a negotiated draft contract referred to in the letter of agreement when the translation is completed.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill C-89, an act to amend the Anti-Inflation Act, without any amendment.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

["I would conclude by saying this: if it is a matter of giving us the name of who did this, it should not take six months; It could be answered in 24 hours. Having regard to the first question I raised about William Teron, I do not like to think or suggest this, but I am beginning to wonder whether the reason it is not answered is Mr. Teron's well-known connection with the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's office.", 'May 20, 1976\nBusiness of Supply']
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the following communication has been received:
Government House
Ottawa, May 20, 1976
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Louis-Philippe de Grandpre, C.C., Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 20th of May, at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to a bill.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General.


Mr. Lalonde:: Mr. Speaker, I understood that we were to introduce and give first reading to the bills to amend the Aeronautics Act and the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act.



Otto Emil Lang: from leave to introduce Bill S-34 (from the Senate) to amend the Aeronautics Act.


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

Marc Lalonde: for leave to introduce Bill S-35 (from the Senate) to amend an Act to repeal the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act and to amend the Trade Marks Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions.
May 18, 1976-The President of the Privy Council:
That the document entitled "Proposals to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms, errors and other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, and other acts subsequent to 1970", tabled May 18, 1976, be referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section (2) of Standing Order 21, this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House.


VOTE IN CONNECTION WITH BILL ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport) for the President of the Privy Council moved:
That, should a recorded division be requested on the motion for second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of Bill C-84, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, the said division shall be deferred to a time to be announced by a minister of the Crown, after reaching agreement with representatives of each party, but the said division shall not be deferred for more than one week.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
May 20, 1976

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport) for the President of the Privy Council moved:
That the members to act with Mr. Speaker on the Special Committee on Rights and Immunities of members be Messrs. Baldwin, Beaudoin, Fairweather, Gray, Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre), Prud'homme and Reid.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding to questions on the order paper, when introducing bills earlier, two bills of ministers were given first reading but I do not know whether the question was asked, "When shall the said bill be read the second time?" Perhaps in order to regularize the proceedings we might return to introduction of bills and take care of that.


AERONAUTICS ACT
Mr. Speaker:: The House having given its assent to the introduction of this bill by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), the motion for first reading of the bill was adopted, but the question, "When shall the said bill be read a second time?" was not put. Next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PROPRIETARY OR PATENT MEDICINE ACT, AND TRADE MARKS ACT
[Stage Direction]
MEASURE TO EXTEND LICENCE DATE [Translation]
Marc Lalonde: that Bill S-35 (from the Senate), to amend an Act to repeal the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act and to amend the Trade Marks Act, be read the second time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time?


Some hon. Members:: Later.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order Paper Questions


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding two unanswered questions on the order paper. The first is No. 3,359 which asks for details of any government business dealings with William Teron Associates, William Teron Limited, Mr. Teron personally or any other company with which he has had any connection, and what public funds are involved. I point out that this question first of all disappeared from the order paper entirely. This disappearance was, so-called, justified by an inaccurate reference to Beauchesne. I discussed the matter with the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council and subsequently also with the President of the Privy Council, and the question was reinstated on the order paper. Six months have gone by and it has not been answered, and I think I have a very valid reason for rising and asking why not.
The second question I should like to refer to, No. 3,520, asks a very simple question. It asks for the name of the person from the Prime Minister's office who gave instructions that the Canadian television network would not be allowed to film furniture in cabinet ministers' offices even though certain cabinet ministers had agreed to allow this to be done. I think it is a valid question because the Canadian people have the right to know what they are paying for.


An hon. Member:: It's a stupid question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: You may think it is stupid, but I can tel/you that the Canadian people do not think it is.


An hon. Member:: You just go back to sleep.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I would conclude by saying this: if it is a matter of giving us the name of who did this, it should not take six months; It could be answered in 24 hours. Having regard to the first question I raised about William Teron, I do not like to think or suggest this, but I am beginning to wonder whether the reason it is not answered is Mr. Teron's well-known connection with the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's office.

May 20, 1976
Business of Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
House in committee of the whole for consideration and disposal of an item of the estimates for the year ending March 31, 1977-Mr. Laniel in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $35,451,000 be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977 (less the amount voted in interim supply) as follows:
Vote 1-Administration-Program expenditures and contributions, $35,451,000.
The Chairman:: Order, please. Before calling upon hon. members perhaps I should at this time bring to the attention of the committee the problem we have had on previous occasions. Members will be aware that we have experienced some difficulty on similar occasions when the committee of the whole has been examining the estimates during consideration of supply, specifically as to the length of speeches and the time allocation for the asking of questions.
After analysing past practices and taking into account the changes in the rules, I have concluded that in the past, when considering supply, time was not limited and members could not really complain about the allotment of time on an individual basis, but that this practice should not apply to a one-day consideration of supply, as is the case today. In view of this, I feel that perhaps this is a good time to consider the matter in the hope of preventing any difficulty arising during the consideration of the estimates today. I feel that the committee should either come to some kind of unanimous agreement on the agreed procedure in respect of time allocation, or accept the proposal the Chair is prepared to put forward. The suggestion is that speeches be limited to 20 minutes and that we alternate from the opposition side to the government side. When a member directs questions to the minister, the time required for the answer should be included in the allotted time unless it appears to the Chair that the answer is unduly lengthy.
In addition, I would suggest that a second intervention should not be accepted before the first round of speeches or questions, and that hon. members be recognized when they seek the floor by standing in the House or by giving some other indication of a desire to participate in the debate, perhaps in the form of some notice to the Chair. I am ready to receive an indication of the feelings or the points of view of hon. members in respect of this matter.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Chairman, I think the procedure you outlined is perhaps as good as any, using the 20-minute limit which would include questions and answers, if I interpreted you correctly, as I hope I have, with members being recognized on a rotation basis around the chamber. I think we should try that procedure. I hope it will work and that it will not lead to a breakdown such as has occurred in recent memory and experience. Speaking for the official opposition, I think, in any event, your suggestion is worth a try.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Chairman, perhaps you have indicated what your intentions are in relation to the question I wish to ask, but I did not hear as I was not listening. What I am concerned about is whether there is to be a regular apportionment of time as between members of the government side and the opposition side. I should like to know what sort of division Your Honour would be ready to make in that regard, so there is some understanding at this time.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Chairman, the point raised by the hon. member is a valid one. I would not suggest that because this is an opposition day, the opposition should be allowed to ask all the questions. I would not suggest that, sir, but I would think it not unfair if you apply your mind in your usual judicial manner to ensure that the fact that what is an opposition day under our rules is not defeated in the allocation of time. It is not possible for you to allocate time in a mathematical way, but I am sure you will bear in mind that this is an opposition motion. If some difficulty develops, I am sure there will be a protest; but I hope that will not be the case.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I think this is a matter that at some time in the future should be referred back to the committee on procedure and organization. In the past we have run into considerable difficulty that I do not think was anticipated. It has been suggested many times in the past that when an opposition day is used to discuss the estimates, the proceedings should be considered more in terms of an opposition day than in terms of the normal consideration of the estimates.
It is my understanding, from the way the motion is set out, that there is to be a vote on the item at the end of our consideration. The item of the estimates was not originally spelled out, but I presume the vote will be on Item No. 1. This raises an additional problem. These estimates are still before the committee on Agriculture. They have not been withdrawn from that committee and I think it is, therefore, inappropriate to call for a vote on an item which really is not back in the House.
The procedure we should follow is the procedure we follow on an opposition day, with the 20-minute rule being applied. This is not the practice during the usual consideration of estimates in the House. In that case when we are considering an item hon. members' remarks must be directed to that one item, whether it is administration or something else, and all the questioning must be in respect of that item until consideration has been completed, and then we move on to another item. If we were to bring this item back to the House, then we would not be following that procedure. These estimates, as such, may be the basis for discussion on an opposition day, but the estimates themselves are not back in the House. I disagree that we are in a position to handle them in the way indicated in our Standing Orders by the motion before us today. I think Your Honour would have to come to the conclusion that we must handle them as a subject for an opposition day, and that in effect the estimates are before us only in that sense and are not here in the sense that a vote can be taken under this section, because they are still in the committee. I think that is the way it should be.
May 20, 1976

The way this has been set down on the order paper, as an opposition day, I think will lead to some confusion. Some of that confusion, Mr. Chairman, you have already indicated. I believe the matter should be referred for consideration at a future date and that you, Mr. Chairman, could refer it to the committee for further study and consideration of a more appropriate way to bring the estimates before the House through the procedure of an opposition day without, in fact, having the actual estimates recommitted to the House from the committee, and a vote taken.
Other members may disagree and would like to see them handled in this way, but if we do so we really would not be following the procedure of taking the estimates out of the committee and putting them back in the House. Therefore, I think the suggestion that we vote on them tonight is totally improper.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. Before I recognize the parliamentary secretary, perhaps I should clarify a couple of points raised by the hon. member for Timiskaming. In his remarks, the hon. member referred to the fact that the way the notice appears on the order paper, the vote itself is not indicated. Perhaps the hon. member was not paying attention when I put the question to the committee. I went further than the notice which appears on the order paper and indicated that vote 1 was an administration vote for program expenditures and contributions in the amount of $35,451,000. So we have the complete vote. This falls, properly, under Standing Order 58. It states that opposition days can be used for the consideration of any items in the main or supplementary estimates in committee of the whole. This means that the opposition, by giving notice of its desire to bring that item before the committee, is momentarily withdrawing that item from the committee to which it had been referred and is bringing it to the House for this day. The committee will have to make a decision at 9.45 tonight on that item and the committee will report back to the House afterwards.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make the points you have made. The hon. member for Timiskaming is concerned about the range of the debate. He need not be concerned about that, because it is the practice to have the questioning very wide-ranging. My concern, basically, is about what I raised initially. While I feel the opposition may have an argument relating to having some slight preference in respect of the number of speakers, I think if they were given the whole debate it might be a very dull day. I think there ought to be some allowance in view of the fact that Your Honour seems to be going to the usual procedure in the standing committee of allowing all parties to make contributions and to question the minister.
In respect of allocation of time, while I do not think there should be military precision, I am sure everyone is interested in fairness, justice and equity. I understand that the minister may wish to make an opening statement which, again, would be in accord with the usual practice followed in our standing committees with regard to estimates or other matters. Then questions could more effectively be put to the minister after the questioners have heard his statement.
Business of Supply


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I think all members want to get started on the consideration of this vote, but may I say to those who are afraid that by dealing with this matter today they will not have the right to continue in the committee, that they are protected in that regard by Standing Order 58(15A), which states that even though an item has been dealt with here in this House, consideration of that subject matter is still before the standing committee.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. Perhaps I should reassure hon. members that as a general rule I interpret that I have the acceptance of the committee that the Chair should have sufficient leeway to use its best judgment. Maybe before I satisfy myself on that point I should clarify one particular point which has presented some difficulty in the past. The parliamentary secretary raised the point concerning the possibility of the minister making an opening statement. I think that has already been done in the committee. If we were to follow the past practice on opposition days, the minister might feel that it would be better if he heard at least one speaker from each party before making his intervention, so that he would be in a position to present further argument rather than repeating the statement he may have made before the committee.
The second point I wish to make is that if an hon. member speaks for 20 minutes and the minister, in replying to the questions raised in that speech, should exceed 20 minutes, that 20-minute time allocation would be taken away from the government members. While the minister may speak more than once and may have the facility to intervene more often than other members, if he answers questions for more than the 20-minute time limit, whether he is answering a direct question from a member of the government or a member of the opposition, that time will be taken from that private member. If the minister, after his speech, wishes to get up and answer each speech, then there would not be any time left for government members to intervene. So I feel the committee should, after a first round from the opposition, go to government members. I think that would be fair to all hon. members on both sides. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Daudlin:: Mr. Chairman, I have one concern I should like to express. As the chairman of the standing committee, I must advise you, Mr. Chairman, that we had reached a certain agreement with regard to that committee and the conduct in the committee concerning questioning. In fact, because of the general administrative vote that was put down, there was to be an opportunity in that committee for substantial leeway with regard to the examination of the minister before, in fact, the item was returned to the House by way of report next week. I am seriously concerned that in the event there were a vote this evening in respect of vote No. 1, this general nature type of questioning to which all members of the committee had agreed might not be able to occur next week.
I should like to have some general understanding that in fact that would not be precluded in committee when the matters are returned.

May 20, 1976
Business of Supply


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. My interpretation is that the estimates are temporarily withdrawn from the committee and do not in any way reflect on the rights of any member of the committee. When one of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture is brought in front of the House, it does not preclude or restrict any right of hon. members in the committee.


Mr. Wise:: Mr. Chairman, as usual, it is not unusual to see government members opposite more interested in arguing procedural matters than in focusing their attention on the Department of Agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, the decision of my party to call back the estimates of the Department of Agriculture for further examination and debate was taken for a number of important and very legitimate reasons. It will demonstrate and reinforce our request for a greater opportunity to question departmental estimates than is now possible under our present parliamentary rules and procedures. It will demonstrate, if not to hon. members opposite, then to the nation, at large and to the agricultural community in particular, that we in this party are prepared to advance the importance of agriculture. We are anxious to remove agriculture from the wings and shadows where it now receives only the attention of lip service, perhaps the occasional bill, and just maybe a Friday afternoon in this chamber. Today's action will demonstrate the real concern, from this side of the House at least, that my colleagues and I possess for assurance that moneys appropriated by this department, and indeed others, are fully utilized for purposes producing maximum benefits.
I might suggest at this point that in this respect, generally speaking, this has not been a major problem in the Department of Agriculture. What we do question, however, is whether agriculture has been appropriated its just entitlement in relation to other expenditures of this government, and in this regard we are inclined to think seriously that it has not. One recent and prime example is the government's new dairy policy. Reductions and cutbacks resulted in every province, some to the extent of 20 per cent. Lower incomes and the creation of severe financial troubles for all dairy producers, and the probable collapse of some new and young producers, appear to be the ultimate result of this new policy.
In view of the recent frustratidh and dissatisfaction among Quebec producers, I think my friend from that province will agree that if funds had not been reduced, or could have been reduced on a more gradual basis, or if an effort could have been made to match supply with domestic requirements over a longer period of time, fewer hardships would have occurred. Personally speaking, I would not be at all surprised if a shortfall in product occurs toward the latter part of this calendar or dairy year-all of this while consumer prices continue to be high.
I want at this point in the debate to draw the attention of my colleagues to an article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of Saturday, May 8, 1976. The headline reads: "Government Pins Survival Hope on Food Policy", and the first sentence reads as follows:
The Trudeau government is busily trying to save itself from drowning in increasingly stormy political waters.
The article goes on to mention that heavy emphasis will be placed on reducing food prices. Mr. Chairman, whenever food prices are reduced for various reasons, experience has shown that primary producers have absorbed the greatest percentage of those reductions. It is indicated that the key department in the quiet development of a cohesive food policy is not the Department of Agriculture but, rather, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The reasons, believe it or not, are said to be jurisdiction and, of all things, personality. If these reports are correct, and if this government needs a food policy, then I submit its proper place of origin and development is within the Department of Agriculture, with an input, naturally, from other concerned departments. The present and future livelihood of producers is totally dependent on a fair and equitable policy and their advice and counsel on any such venture is imperative. When I hear that policy papers are now in preparation for cabinet consideration, and in light of the government's past record of confrontation rather than open discussion and co-operation, I fear for the future of the agricultural industry.
It is unfortunate that because of the lack of action in certain areas, the cow-calf and dairy people for example, the lack of proper border protection for vegetable growers in the Fraser Valley, to name another and seemingly deliberate action to create division between producers and consumers, feelings are hardened and the confidence and understanding between these two groups is eroded.
The ongoing and highly publicized blow-by-blow battle between the Minister of Agriculture and the former chairperson of the Food Prices Review Board has instilled anger and, in many cases, distrust between producers and consumers. This feud personality conflict and running feud has served no useful purpose whatsoever. On the contrary, it has dismantled to a large extent the efforts of many service clubs in the country who, by a continuing series of special events, strive to bring rural and urban people together.
I continue to be completely amazed and utterly baffled by some people's reluctance to place problems in their proper perspective. When the dairy policy was announced, displeasure and objections flowed from both producers and consumers. Let me take a minute to compare briefly just how both groups are affected by this policy. The average producer could lose 15 per cent of his income to begin with. In addition, he will receive nearly 25 cents less for every 100 pounds of milk he produces. With a daily production of
1,000	pounds, a dairy loss of $2.50 results, or a total loss of approximately $900 for the year, not even taking into account the percentage of reduction in milk subsidy quota.
At the same time, butter has increased by approximately 5 cents a pound. With the annual per capita consumption running at 12 pounds, this means an increase of 60 cents for the entire 12-month period to purchase the same amount of the product. What we are left with is $900 less for the producer, compared to 60 cents more for the consumer-and bear in mind that dairy producers themselves purchase higher volumes of butter than do average consumers.

May 20, 1976

It is of vital interest, in the long-term interest of all Canadians, that every possible effort be made to bring together a greater understanding and fuller appreciation of our urban and rural elements of society. On the surface, these two groups appear to work separately and apart from one another, yet in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Each is completely dependent upon the other, tied together by the common bond of necessity. This vital relationship is a prime example of the old adage that "no man is an island unto himself."
If you will allow me, Mr. Chairman, I would like to shift the emphasis of debate to the income and capital gains tax structure which, because of its many inequities, places an undue hardship on many of our agricultural producers. It is my intention to expand on a couple of the more outstanding examples of inequity at this time. I would like to join the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Joint Dairy Breeders Association, and the Ontario Milk Marketing Board, to name but a few interested and concerned organizations in supporting the adoption of the principle of replacement at full value of animals ordered to be slaughtered due to contagious diseases. Furthermore, I believe it is now necessary to seek changes in the taxation treatment of the compensation. Entire herds of cattle may be lost on such occasions. Already, in the past year, cattlemen have had to suffer through outbreaks of both brucellosis, in eastern Ontario particularly, and blue tongue disease in B.C., perhaps spreading eastward. The present system, whereby compensation received in a given year is fully taxable in that year, is clearly inadequate and unacceptable to those involved. I suggest that where compensation is paid there should be no taxation on the proceeds, at least until such time as the quarantine has been lifted and the producer has had a reasonable chance to reconstitute his operation with a clean bill of health or has had the opportunity to restock his herd.
What I am saying is that there should be provision for the livestock operator to maintain intact the receipts from the forced disposal until such time as he has had an adequate opportunity to re-establish his livestock or cattle operation. In such situations, the immediate cash flow problem caused by this catastrophe is of vital importance and I think it is time that this fact received the support of the Minister of Agriculture and the recognition of the Minister of Finance and, hopefully, that recognition will become evident next Tuesday, May 25.
In the past, the government has taken the position that by using a year of low or negative income to balance more favourable years by income averaging, the producer is not subject to undue hardship or financial loss. I suggest, however, that the present averaging provision is only of secondary importance. It must be recognized that the problem of forced slaughter has taken on new dimensions in the past year as the numbers of these distasteful occurences have increased. Cattlemen are worried at the prospect of losing all or part of their valuable herds, and they are concerned and disappointed that the income tax provisions regarding compensation discriminates against them.
The government has always pointed to the relatively low incidence of total herd depopulation in Canada as justifi-
Business of Supply
cation for rejecting previous representations for a better taxation deal on compensation. During the fiscal year 197475, 105 herds were depopulated. During the following fiscal year, 1975-76, an additional 120 herds were ordered depopulated. The rate of forced depopulation is expected to continue its rise during the next few years, and over and above that the extent of blue tongue infection creates another real danger.
What is also on the increase is the total number of cattle which are subject to forced slaughter. The loss of any significant number of cattle can be just as demoralizing and equally as enduring, financially, as the loss of a complete herd. As of February 5, 1976, figures indicate that some 864 herds of cattle were under quarantine in Canada, and this confirms that at least one, and possibly several animals in each herd, was ordered slaughtered. In the ten-month period ending January 31, 1976, a total of 16,332 cattle were led to forced slaughter. Some would have us believe that this is an insignificant problem. Indeed, the magnitude of the difficulty need not be the guiding factor in assessing the need for a change in the provision for taxation of compensation. On a strictly individual basis, the small operator can be as badly hurt by the loss of a few high quality cattle as the larger breeder can by a more substantial loss in terms of numbers. There are those in the agricultural industry who believe that compensation payments should be totally exempt from taxation. We in the official opposition will be content to settle for the deferral of payments, for we feel that this request is fair and right and that any excuse offered by the government to sidetrack this request can only be looked upon with scorn and indignation.
Farm organizations are unanimous in supporting the request for a tax change on compensation payments, and it is fair to say that health of animals officials are also sympathetic to representations on this matter and support the seeking of more reasonable tax treatment in this area. I would like to lend my support to proposals made recently by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture on the subject of capital gains tax. The present federal regulations clearly discriminate against the transfer of family-owned farms when they are incorporated, organized in partnership or in other types of family organization. As this discrimination seriously threatens the transfer of such farms to succeeding generations, the federation proposes that the rules for transferring farms to succeeding generations be the same regardless of the type of organization, as long as they are family-owned.
The government could well consider, too, exemption from capital gains tax of income received from land sold by a farmer or a family-owned corporation where the money is reinvested in another farm within a period not exceeding two years. An opportunity may arise for a farmer to sell one farm and buy another in the case of a more efficient operation. In many cases the farmer does not take advantage of this opportunity because of the present capital gains tax regulations. Since money received from expropriated farmland is not subject to capital gains if reinvested within two years, it would seem appropriate that a voluntary sale should be excluded from this tax as well.

May 20, 1976
Business of Supply
Having supported these resolutions adopted by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, I would like to take this opportunity to expand my arguments on the former resolution. The intergenerational transfer of farmland from an individual farmer to his children, and the inequitable tax laws which apply to that, has been a source of ire to farmers for many years. No doubt the Minister of Finance is aware of this difficulty as representations have been made in the past on this vital issue. The minister's predecessor was called upon to deal with this problem on several occasions, and on each of those occasions he was successful in frustrating the legitimate aspirations of farmers and the farm community.
While admitting that this is, indeed, a complex problem, particularly because what is required is an extension of the roll-over provision to family farm partnerships and corporations, I do not think it is quite as complex as the department would have us believe. The position has always been, simply, that nothing can be done as the issue is too complex to be solved by government, and that the loss of treasury money would be too great because the same provisions would then have to be granted to the small business community. I cannot accept such a negative explanation. While I am not of the opinion that it would be harmful to extend the roll-over provision to family businesses other than farming, I do not believe it is necessary to deal with the two as if they were identical cases when in fact they are not.
However, let us examine the problem from the farmer's point of view. That view is substantially the same as it was on February 18, 1975, when the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain spoke so eloquently and so accurately about the plight of the farm wife and her outrage at income tax time. It is well known that because of the shortage of available labour farmers often cannot secure people to work on their farms. With equipment as expensive as it is, the only way they can keep things going is to find a responsible person to look after that equipment, and that responsible person is inevitably the farm wife. The wife may spend long hours driving a truck, running a tractor, operating a grain loader, running combines, loading bins, planting crops, milking cows, and quite often keeping books-and for this the wife is unable to collect wages and the farmer can make no claim for this on his income tax.
The only way that women or children who work on family farms can be entitled to payment is if they incorporate. If this is done, they pay lower taxes on the first $100,000 and pay their legitimate labour fees on the farm, but there is a catch in that because if they pass the farm on to the next generation, they then lose the tax-free provision in that section. It is grossly unfair and particularly insensitive of this government not to allow these people to have the advantages of incorporation without penalizing them by taking away the advantage of being able to pass the farm on to the next generation.
I am pretty certain that my time has expired, and I appreciate that. I have a number of other items to cover, but I am certain I can utilize the budget debate to do so. I would not want to jeopardize my hon. colleagues and, in fairness, hon. members opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity which has been afforded to us today by the hon. member for Elgin in bringing forward the subjects covered under the agricultural estimates. I have kept in touch with events in my area and programs affecting the milk industry and I know that dairy farmers, like all Canadian farmers, favour a marketing system which will be conducive to stability of production.
Farmers like to think of themselves as free enterprisers, whether they are engaged in the field of beef, pork or egg production, the production of broilers or the production of milk and products related to it. When things are going well, they like to think of themselves as free enterprisers. When things do not go so well, they behave like other businessmen and turn to the government for help. Then they do not behave as free enterprisers but as producers afflicted with difficulties over which they have no control. This was true in the case of butter producers. Acting paternalistically, the government tried to solve the difficulty by establishing a floor price and bringing in surplus production at the floor price. But that did not satisfy producers because the price seldom went above the floor price. What was envisaged as the minimum price too often became the maximum price. For many years the government bought surplus dairy products and accumulated large stocks. This has happened in other areas of farm production. It has happened with regard to cereal grains and other commodities not covered by the stabilization legislation.
Over the years we have tried to give the agricultural producer the sort of security which is given to the industrial worker by a guaranteed or minimum wage. We set up the Canadian Dairy Commission which was to oversee matters of marketing and production and match production to national requirements. A number of provincial agencies entered the field as well. I have followed with interest the discussions in the last few weeks taking place in the agricultural committee between the representatives of various provincial marketing agencies and the minister and his officials. The provincial people put forward the provincial point of view and the minister and his officials tried to justify the marketing system which has been established. Mr. Chairman, the system has not worked, for reasons outlined by the hon. member for Elgin. Under our system we tried to meet national requirements. Unfortunately, we more than met them. The farming community over-reacted to demand and, using capital available from both federal and provincial sources, overproduced. Unfortunately, estimates of total milk demand in Canada proved to be excessive and producers were forced to reduce production. The result was disaster, as many young farmers can testify.
The hon. member for Elgin raised another point. Was the minister's decision that there was global demand in this country for 100 million cwt of milk based on the opinion of experts? Did he really have the benefit of expert opinion, or of an opinion which would allow him legitimately to arrive at that figure? Further, was that the proper figure to consider? Not long ago I talked to a prominent milk producer who, as representative of his local milk committee, discussed the minister's program with several hundred
May 20, 1976

farmers. He described the minister's program and talked about provincial input. I attended that executive meeting and told him to explain the program, but not to try to sell it. I explained that there was some difference between the Ontario Milk Marketing Board and the federal agency and that he should not try to sell the minister's program but merely explain it. He was asked this question, "What is your personal opinion about this program?" He said, "My personal opinion is, disregard it. Don't be too worried about the problem because it is my personal opinion, having been in the business 40 years, that we have cut back on production so fast that there will be a shortage by September." He may be wrong, but I am inclined to believe he will be right. In one month we cut back production in Canada by 15 per cent. After being ahead in February by 30 per cent over last year's production, we cut back production in one month by 15 per cent.
I do not know if hon. members pay attention to the number of milk cows coming on the market. In my community you will normally find, around this time of year, between 15 and 20 dried-up milk cows on the market. In the last two or three weeks we have seen between 100 and 125 milk cows being offered on the market for slaughter. One result has been that the local co-ops have sold less feed supplement for milk cows. I say that we have cut back too rapidly, and this more than anything else may bring the Canadian Dairy Commission into disrepute as a national marketing agency. Frankly, I do not think the Canadian Dairy Commission is capable of gauging the entire market. In that area of activity it is probably weakest. I am justified in saying this because in the last few months the consumption of fluid milk has risen by about 5 per cent. Why it went up, I do not know. Perhaps people quit drinking tea; perhaps the increased price of beer may be a factor.


An hon. Member:: Perhaps people quit drinking water.


William Arnold Peters: I do not know why consumption went up, but the consumption of fluid milk rose by 5 per cent. This growth in the consumption of fluid milk, as hon. members from Quebec know, creates difficulties for industrial milk producers since surplus fluid milk is used for industrial production. Clearly, the increased consumption of fluid milk will have ramifications in other parts of the milk industry. It is quite possible that milk consumption across this country will increase by 10 per cent.
This brings me back to my previous point. Why are milk cows now being offered on the market for slaughter? Many of them could have been sold two years ago, but were not because the market was depressed. Prices were rock-bottom for slaughter cattle. Consequently, they were held back. Hay and grain supplies were plentiful, and conditions for holding back were ideal. Farmers kept their cows so long as they had room for them. Probably they milked them. There has been no significant culling out of cattle for about two years; but now this is happening and there will be a considerable drop in production.
I am concerned because the minister does not give a damn whether his radical and short-range programs upset the market almost month by month. Last year the Ontario
Business of Supply
Milk Marketing Board was very upset. They held a number of conferences-one at Geneva-where they dealt with the minister's intervention into their market with his subsidy payments. He intervened in that market on the basis of once every three months. No notice was given that there would be a change in the subsidy program. When the minister intervened he changed the whole structure of the dairy industry. It is a very complex industry and a change in any part of it can make a very considerable difference.
To be fair to the minister, there was another large intervention in the whole structure. The Prime Minister went to Europe. I think it was for a trip which he could well have afforded, rather than going for the purpose of interfering with the industrial development of this nation. He could have gone on his own, like the rest of us. The Prime Minister visited a number of Common Market countries where he was wined and dined and talked about a contractual link. It sounded as though it were monkey-pod trees or something similar which would have no effect on them. However, they found out that in return for that contractual link the Prime Minister promised that Canada would buy 10 per cent of our dairy requirements from the European Common Market. To again be fair to the Minister of Agriculture, he must have put up a real battle because this was changed to 5 per cent. However, 5 per cent will have quite an effect on the dairy industry. If we go to 10 per cent, it will be an additional strain on the industry.
The area to which the 5 per cent applies is mostly cheese. There is a small amount of other dairy products. I suggest that the bleeding hearts working on behalf of Mrs. Plump-tre look at what these imported cheeses are costing the Canadian consumer rather than making their idiotic suggestions. I am sure they would be surprised. You can walk into a Bank Street store here in Ottawa and purchase imported cheese from 30 or 40 countries, some of which costs $4 a pound. It probably has no more food value than Canadian cheddar which should sell for a considerably lower price than it now does.
Over the years, cheese factories in Plum Hollow and other places have not been able to get enough milk. There is a cheese factory in Belleville with 40 or 50 vats. It could run on two shifts and probably handle half the surplus milk in the industrial field in eastern Ontario. However, it is not in operation. I presume someone bought and closed it. I understand that someone wanted to buy this factory. He was told by the Ontario Milk Marketing Board that they could not guarantee him a regular supply of milk. If he could not get the milk, he could not get the loan. If he could not get the loan, he could not buy the plant. Obviously, it is still not in production.
When the government agreed to buy dairy products in the Common Market, this had quite an effect on the dairy industry in Canada. It is safe to say that dairy farmers, who are very large consumers in the industrial field, got very little benefit from any arrangement that would guarantee a 10 per cent commitment by this government. I ask the minister to make every effort to hire research people to make a full study of all facets of the dairy industry. The result of such a study should allow us to predict trends. Kraft carries out this kind of marketing research. They know exactly how much of a particular product they can sell and how high they can push the price before there is a

May 20, 1976
Business of Supply
diminishing return. We do not. We just tell the farmers to cut their production 15 per cent.
It is not generally known, but when we had a surplus of milk powder last year which the minister said he could not give away, the government did not pay anything to help get rid of it. The farmer paid for it. Indeed, he paid a heavy price. In fact, I know some producers who only received a return of about $4 a hundred. The minister cut this to where they only get 17 cents a hundred for their surplus milk. Therefore, they have to turn to an alternative operation.
A year ago in my area, day-old calves were selling from $3 to $5. They are now selling from $40 to $72-$72 if they have a white face. Why? The farmer knows it is better to feed the calf for nothing than to dump milk down the drain. There are people in my area, and I know of some in Quebec, who open the tap at the botton of their bulk tanks. They are smart enough to turn off the agitator at night and drain out 300, 400 or 500 gallons. This just goes down the drain. The milk remaining in the tank will be worth more because the butter-fat content increases. Therefore, the price the dairies now pay for butter-fat content is steadily increasing. We must work out the best deal we can to provide as much money as possible out of the consumer dollar for the farmer and still have a good product at a reasonable price.
There is much talk about giving food to other countries. However, the idea of giving food to people in Canada has not been explored. Rather than the farmer pouring milk down the drain, he would be quite happy to give it to those willing to come and get it. That would be better than dumping it, which causes a bad odour in the barnyard. The drain systems were built to handle washwater, not milk. However, the farmer is not allowed to give it away. There are all kinds of regulations to prohibit that. For example, the milk is not pasteurized. In addition, he would run into trouble with the milk marketing board because that would cut into the market.
The minister can do something about this over the long term. If we cannot give away powdered milk to the people of India or Bangladesh because they do not know how to mix it and, if they did, the water would kill them, we could give it to our own people. Most low-income people in this country do not drink enough milk. They do not get the nutrition which our national health agency says is necessary.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, in my turn I wish to take advantage of this unique occasion to address the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), who is now with us, especially with regard to the dairy policy which predominates among the concerns of the eastern producers at this time. Before that policy was announced, the Minister of Agriculture, who was present when one of my motions was being debated, drank milk in the House and, it seems, thought he was being funny doing so. At that time, he promised a fair policy, taking into account all circumstances.
The policy was announced after much negotiation and discussion. Now, the producers must submit to it. I would like to know whether the minister realizes that there is the only category of workers in Canada who have to accept a

decrease in income, compared with production or income in 1975, and that this lower income is being imposed by the very federal government which, in the past, through its policy, induced the producers to increase their production and which now inflicts upon them the burden of its short term policy. Can the minister tell the House, at this point in the debate, what his long term policy is with regard to dairy production? That is but one sector, and practically the only one in Canada, where producers depends exclusively from government initiatives, that policy is state controlled in the sense that under it the government can control every pound, from the first to the last. When producers produce too much, the government can use the act to penalize them.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Daudlin) rises on a question of privilege or a point of order.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I am informed that the officials in front of us have no translation facilities, and this may make it difficult to provide an adequate response to the hon. member when he has completed his remarks. I believe we ought to correct this situation before we proceed.


Gérald Laniel: I do not think this should prevent the hon. member from making his speech. It is a temporary difficulty which we shall correct, but in the meantime I believe the hon. member should continue.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere has the floor.


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To summarize, I will say that dairy production in Canada is now state controlled in that governments have 100 per cent control over it. Producers are completely dependent on governments. We call this subsidized production in the sense that the income of producers depends on the government policy.
There are years when through its agricultural, and particularly its dairy policy, the government invites producers to produce more. The next year, the government says to producers: You produce too much. So we are going to impose quotas. The year after, the government says: Since we have been able to liquidate the surplus, we encourage producers to produce more. We will increase subsidies. We will tighten our controls. The next year, this year, the government says: You, the producers, are responsible, because you have produced too much. The government will accept no blame whatsoever. The minister himself and his parliamentary secretary have said in the House that the government could not do anything about it because we must import. The same minister told producers that they had to make their share of sacrifices because there was surplus production. This is a rather paradoxical situation.
Since the dairy policy was announced, there are over
3,000	industrial milk producers in my riding of Lotbiniere. These are not small investments since they amount to
May 20, 1976

$200,000, $300,000, $500,000 and $800,000. The minister keeps saying and recognized today during the question period that this policy had given rise to many reactions, generally from people who are opposed to it. He confirmed that he received a request for the resignation of the three commissioners who sit on the board. This is an indication of a deep and very serious dissatisfaction. Is the minister aware of this situation? While his department's estimates are being considered, can he tell us if himself, his parliamentary secretary or his experts have a recipe to give us this afternoon, so that we might send it to our producers to show them how to pay their debts for which this government is responsible, because of its dairy policy?
Can the minister answer 30 or 40 complaints I have received for a week from farmers of my region who are about to put their farm up for auction, simply because they would give up farming. Mr. Chairman, this is a dramatic situation. The livelihood of these producers, the food of our people are at stake, a whole health system and marketing of our domestic production. Can the minister tell us where his interests lie? Do they lie in the import of cheddar and other milk by-products? Is he really the minister of Canadian producers so that he will assist them?
Is the minister in a position today to tell us whether when he is in the west he says the same things as in the east of the country? Mr. Chairman, we are Canadians or we are not. The minister says this to the western producers at some occasions: We have too much wheat, slow down your production and to this effect, here are subsidies to stop seeding; and in the east, the same minister not only imposes a ceiling but in addition to this he imposes a very hard penalty on those who produced too much. They produced too much because the government, with its short term policy, led them to organize themselves better.
I remember that since I have been sitting in this house, I heard this minister and his predecessor say that it is important to have a modern, well equipped agriculture and that milk producers should modernize their equipment, that they should put their herds under ROP control, that they should go into debt. That is what they did, Mr. Speaker. And now those people are penalized because they work. Can the minister advise the House this afternoon on the following matters; First, what suggestion has he to offer so that producers may live with this new policy? Can he tell them how to defer their payments to the farm credit union and on their instalments on farm machinery? Has he any answer? If so, Mr. Chairman, the debate is closed. If not, we must infer that the minister is wilfully accepting to let producers disappear because he has chosen to let the big get bigger and the small ones vanish:
Mr. Chairman, agriculture will never be viable in Canada if there is a policy for big producers which overlooks small ones. When I say "small ones" this may mean in some hon. members' minds a very small farmer with a couple of cows, but to me it means milk producers with $200,000, $300,000, $400,000 or $500,000 investments and who are now being penalized. To be honest, I must concede that the government is not the only one to blame. There are labour leaders at that level who have not been really honest with the producers and who did not always serve the cause of farm producers. Mr. Chairman, the minister is aware of that.
Business of Supply
There is also that famous problem of two kinds of production-whole milk and industrial milk. There is also that problem, namely passing the buck at the provincial and federal levels depending on circumstances, depending on whether it suits Ottawa and Quebec to get out of a discussion, some dialogue or some question period. I am quite aware of that, Mr. Chairman. I think the time has come to stop passing the buck between Ottawa and Quebec, to stop passing the buck to unions also by saying, well, integrate your production of natural and industrial milk. Let us have a policy of extensive consultation and a long term policy. That is what producers want to know.
At present, Mr. Chairman, they are not overly worried about prices but they would like to know indeed what they will be faced with tomorrow morning. I could read to this minister this afternoon 30 to 40 letters of protest by people who are utterly confused, no longer have any hope for tomorrow working independently on their own farms since they are entirely disadvantaged by that policy.
The Chairman, I hope quite sincerely without any political partisanship that the minister will consider those issues which I may be expressing in violent terms but which reflect exactly the requests of my fellow citizens in Lotbiniere who are very concerned-there are thousands of them in my riding-but also those of incalculable producers across Quebec in that situation.
Mr. Chairman, we do not have the right in our conscience as a Parliament and a government to let things go, to impose the dairy policy that was announced belatedly for that matter and, Mr. Chairman, we do not have the right to let that policy be implemented without ensuring an honest living and an equitable income for the number of hours, the work and the investment put in. If not, Mr. Chairman, it will demonstrate once for all that agriculture is not considered important by this government but I am not convinced yet. I wish the minister would tell his views on that matter and again I repeat the question: As long as the minister will be there, will he continue to deceive us by using short term policies from year to year or will he agree some day to give us a long term policy?
Mr. Chairman, I remind the House that last year, that same minister announced with a great fanfare a supposedly extraordinary long term policy to deal with that problem once for all. It did not even last a year. It lasted exactly nine months. And then the threat of a false overproduction was revealed by the statistics on foreign products importation and producers began to worry.
We have no right to abandon our fellow citizens in such a situation when they made so many efforts, sacrifices and investments. Not many Canadians work so hard, so intensively with so many hours of work than dairy producers. I do not compare them with other producers but those people have guts and certainly deserve more than a kick in the pants for all their work and their efforts.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, quite a bit has been said about the dairy industry. As I have said before in this House, the hon. member for Elgin is usually very constructive in his suggestions, but I hope he has chastised the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, who I believe is the con-

May 20, 1976
Business of Supply
sumer critic of the official opposition. For he told me in this House that I paid the dairy farmers of Canada too much money. I trust he told the hon. member what he thought about that statement.
I am also wondering, Mr. Chairman, where the hon. member gets his information. One source of his information was the Ottawa Journal. I know they often quote him, but they do not quote me very often. We all know the certain leaning that this Free Press periodical known as the Ottawa Journal has. If the hon. member is getting his information from this worthy-well, I am getting too complimentary of that paper, so I had better behave.
The hon. member also made reference to the somewhat controversial discussions that have been taking place between the former chairman of the Food Prices Review Board and myself. These may have concerned some people, but I think a lot of good has come from them. The people of Canada have never been better informed about food costs, food production, and so on. All during my long career in the public service before I came to this place no one paid very much attention to talk about food, but everyone is concerned about it now.
We conducted an official survey in Canada of what people think about food production, and the majority of the Canadian people think there should be a strong agricultural economy. They believe that what the Minister of Agriculture is saying is enough to prove this. I do not remember hearing the hon. member say this, but I did see a copy of what he was going to say about who is going to be where when we hold the thirty-first parliament. If he really believes that, then I can show him a survey that would kind of scare him, which is an indication of what the people think about what this government is doing about food production, what the government is doing about agriculture generally, and what the people want it to do.
The hon. member has talked about dairy policy. Many people have been saying that I am responsible for getting the government to pay the dairy farmers of Canada too much money, and as a result there is overproduction. Neither of the speakers of the opposition parties was so complimentary to me today; they just gave me a little bit of hell about what I have done or about what I am not doing.
When we talk of the dairy industry, we have to face facts. The agreement we have was heralded by the dairy producers of this country. The dairy farmers of Canada are some of the most efficient in the world. We worked out a policy with them whereby they would agree to participate as partners. They would be responsible for putting surplus products on world markets. We did not force this policy upon them; it was worked out in many meetings and consultations with them, and they agreed to it. In reply to the hon. member for Elgin, there has never been a time in our history, and records will show this, when there has been so much consultation with any group as there has been with the dairy farmers of Canada in trying to work out a stable and satisfactory dairy policy for them.
The hon. member for Timiskaming talked about the Prime Minister going to Europe, trying to establish a contractual link, and the fact that we might possibly import 10

per cent of our cheese from other countries of the world. We do not import cheese just from the European community. We import cheese from 26 countries, I believe it is. How could we possibly manufacture more than 75 per cent? Twenty-five per cent comes in in such small, minute amounts that no producer in Canada would even set up the facilities to process and manufacture that amount because it would not pay. None of our producers would do that, and they have told me this themselves because they could not possibly make it pay.
When we put an import quota on cheese of 50 million pounds, this was heralded by the dairy farmers and processing industry in Canada as a step in the right direction. They said that at least under these circumstances they knew what to plan for. If we banned all cheese imports to Canada we would not get rid of 20 per cent of our surplus. Yet the hon. member suggests this would be a step in the right direction. I do not hesitate to admit that I have not recommended that we ban every bit of imported cheese, because I know we could not manufacture some of this here in Canada. We have negotiations going on at the present time regarding cheese coming into Canada that is subsidized and supported by the country of origin. The United States has been successful in its negotiations. Cheeses that are supported or subsidized to a great extent are not imported into that country any more.
We are condemned for our dairy policy. Many people say we are too restrictive. The United States is more restrictive when it comes to dairy production than we are, yet people point to that country as a great trading nation. We have nothing to feel guilty about when we suggest we should be negotiating with those countries that support or subsidize cheese. I can take you to cheese factories in Ontario and in other parts of Canada that have real salesmen. They conduct tremendous advertising campaigns to sell their products. They have increased their productivity by 22 per cent, and they increased their sales by 22 per cent in 1975. You can check those processing factories that are doing this and you will not find that their sales have gone down. On the contrary, they have increased their sales in Canada to the same extent as the sale of imported cheese has increased.
One man told me last year that he did not know what he would have done had it not been for the mail strike. I asked him what he meant, and he said he could not have filled all his mail orders for cheese packages. He told me the most he had ever shipped in the past was 100,000 packages, and in that year he had shipped 122,000 packages. He has a mail order business and ships cheeses mostly during the Christmas season. This is the sort of thing we are missing the boat on in Canada. We are not selling our cheeses the way we should as compared to other countries. Just look at their ads and their salesmanship, or whatever you want to call it. They conduct sales programs for their products in Canada. They are selling all the cheese that we import here, and they are selling it at a very high price, as the hon. member for Timiskaming suggests. We know the mark-up on cheese in most stores. If someone tells you he is not making any money on butter and he has a cheese counter, just ask him how much he is making on that counter. There is an average of at least a 50 per cent mark-up on cheeses processed in Canada. The same is true
May 20, 1976

in respect of some imported cheese, and the mark-up is less on others.
Hon. members have made out that we do not pay any attention to the problems of dairy farmers. We knew, and they knew, last June that they were in trouble. We brought them in here in the early part of July and told them they had to do something about it. Some hon. members seem to forget what I told them last April when I announced the program for 1975-76. I said at that time I had enough money for a subsidy in respect of 100 million cwt. of milk, and no more. I told them they would have to stick strictly to that program.


An hon. Member:: You were 20 per cent too high.


Eugene Whelan: I said I had enough money to support 100 million cwt. of milk.


An hon. Member:: That was too high.


Eugene Whelan: When the final payment goes out, we will have paid the subsidy that we said we would pay on 100 million cwt. The producers increased production by over 114 million cwt., and maybe even more when the final figures are tabulated.


Mr. Murta:: Your information was wrong.


Eugene Whelan: My information was not wrong. They should not have produced more than the 100 million cwt.


An hon. Member:: You shouldn't have said it.


Eugene Whelan: We said that was all we wanted. You know, this is a dream to some of my colleagues in cabinet who always want more production. We asked for 5 per cent more production and we got 15 per cent more.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: If it is white, you say it is black; and if it is black, you say it should be white. You always say it is the reverse.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. The Minister of Agriculture has the floor.


An hon. Member:: You are never wrong.


Eugene Whelan: The Canadian dairy farmers said that was okay. They said we would not have to worry, they would not even increase production by 5 per cent. That is what they told me. I can remember one fellow in Ontario who said, when I got into my biggest problem in respect of the surplus production of, I believe it was eggs, a couple of years ago, that this could never happen in the dairy industry because they had a supply-management system that worked. He was a long-time employee of the Ontario government and I thought, "By God, if he says that, that must be true; it must be factual."
It has been stated here that we have control over this. Every province in this country has a different kind of marketing system for milk. There are no two of them identical. The provinces have incentive programs with no consultation with us at all. They tell the farmers to increase their production. What are we supposed to do
Business of Supply
about that? I agree with the hon. member when he talks about passing the buck. There should be more control, whether through the Canadian Dairy Commission or a federal government program of some kind. There should be more central control if we are to have any plan or program that will work across this nation in an equitable and fair manner for the industrial milk producer.
You can consider the province of Ontario which has one over-all board marketing 54 per cent fluid milk and 46 per cent industrial, divided between industrial and some cream producers. Then you can go to Quebec where you have two separate organizations, one for fluid producers and one for industrial producers. You can then move to Manitoba where you have complete pooling, with one organization. If 60 per cent of your milk sold is industrial, you get paid for 60 per cent at the industrial rate and 40 per cent at the fluid rate. Actually, it is the other way around, with 60 per cent in Manitoba being fluid milk and 40 per cent industrial milk, and that is the rate they are paid for No. 1 milk shipped in that province. I think there is less controversy and less dissension in Manitoba. I am not saying there is not some, because I know better than that, but there is less problem there than in any other province that has an industrial milk problem. Some provinces do not have much of an industrial milk problem.
Let us check some of the figures in respect of supply. On the basis of a report dated May 5, with 85 per cent total industrial milk in Quebec the supply for April, 1976, was 15 per cent to 20 per cent higher than in April, 1975. In Ontario the supply of industrial milk in April, 1976, was up 15 per cent to 20 per cent over that in April, 1975.


William Arnold Peters: But it dropped 15 per cent the month before.


Eugene Whelan: Yes, they had dropped some, that is right. We know that in Canada there were 200,000 dairy cows kept in production one year longer than they should have been. We know these have gone to market. I have met a lot of dairy farmers in Canada, many of whom have told me they made some mistakes. They are ready to share the responsibility for those mistakes, as we are ready to share some of the responsibility. I do not have that bad a time when I meet dairy farmers. Some of them blame me entirely, but the vast majority recognize that they were also at fault and do not blame me.
We told them last year that they should curtail production. They admitted that they were wrong and that their marketing boards should not advise young farmers to get into dairy production unless they had quotas. I think the province of Ontario is doing a very fair thing about quotas. They will distribute them to the young farmers who they think need them the most. It is about time they did that.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere asked whether we are trying to make it easy for all the rich people. That is what they were doing. Those who could afford to pay a high price for milk quotas were buying them. It was brought to my attention, through a letter the other day, that a quota was sold for $16 a pound. An old disc on the farm that had not been used for five or six years sold for $2,000 in the same deal. It would be worth about $12 for scrap. This is how they get around the quota price. So I think the prov-

May 20, 1976
Business of Supply
ince of Ontario is doing the right thing in trying to rectify the situation that exists.
We talked about brucellosis and some of the other diseases. I could go back to what the hon. member for Timis-kaming mentioned about making sure that we get rid of the skim milk powder in our own nation because many people need more protein and more of the minerals that milk contains. There is not denial of that. However, the provinces can do that. Society as a whole can do it. Do not ask the farmers of Canada to do it, because they own that product. We might go to Nova Scotia, that little province on the eastern seaboard.
Every child in school in Nova Scotia gets milk at five cents for eight ounces. That is under a good government down there. I will tell you that their dairy farmers are the highest paid in the world. Plus the subsidy that we pay them, the province pays them $1.50 a hundred on top of that. They have not increased their production too high. They are not self-sufficient in respect of milk supplies. They bring in milk from Quebec. I could show you a very successful farm co-operative in Nova Scotia which has some of the most modern dairy equipment in Canada which, plus that, paid them $1 a hundred dividend on the milk that they put in their area and they supplied the people in the area with some of the lowest priced dairy products in Canada.
If they can do that, and they are doing it, then surely we can solve some of the problems that confront our dairy people. Do not forget, also, that we are subsidizing skim milk powder to the tune of 34 cents a pound for consumption by people from any part of our society. That means that one can buy a pound of skim milk powder for approximately 72 cents. There have been some sales at which it has been sold as a loss-leader for much less. One can make four quarts of skim milk powder, according to our nutritionists, from a pound of skim milk. That works out to 181/2 cents a quart. Mr. Chairman, I do not think one can even buy distilled water for that amount of money. That is the cheapest and most nutritious drink we have in this country. Our social services in this country are second to none in the world. So there is no reason that anyone in our society who has to spend nearly $1 for a package of cigarettes cannot spend 70 cents a day for four quarts of milk.


Charles Robert Turner: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister, but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eugene Whelan: I will not take up very much more time. I think there is a great misconception when we hear talk about our getting rid of skim milk powder on the markets of the world. I was happy to hear the member from the New Democratic Party say what he did. He could go right to the city of Windsor, that little old labour town of mine, and say the same thing that he said here about those farmers and what they should get for their milk, and so on. Those are good things to say.
I can tell you that many members of the media are not saying that. They think that because a farmer has a nice dairy farm, and so on, he is among the richest people in

society. They must learn that this is a seven-day a week job, that the children work and, as the hon. member for Elgin pointed out, there is also the matter of the treatment of the wives. I should like to touch on that later, if I may. The denatured skim milk powder that we are selling on the world market for animal feed, which cannot be used for human consumption, is a product that deteriorates. Some people think when we talk about skim milk powder that we are talking about grain that can be stored in a farmer's bin on the prairies even without a roof over it. That is not true.
We should be honest about that when we are talking about skim milk powder. We should make sure we know what we are talking about and that we know how it is distributed on the world markets. The skim milk that is distributed on the world markets is not instantized. It is not ready for human consumption. Canadians would not drink it in that form. There is no doubt it is true that it can be used in the baking process, but it cannot be used in the home. There is a cost of about 30 cents a pound just to instantize it. So if you see it sold on the world market at 13 cents or 14 cents, add 30 cents on top of that right away before you talk about using it for human consumption.
The hon. member for Elgin talked about farmers' wives, the taxing problem, and so on. I think we should be realistic. When we changed the tax laws about three or four years ago we allowed a farmer to turn over his farm to his son or daughter without any capital gains tax. They had worked all their lives at building the thing. This was approved by the House. By the way, no other country in the world does this. The Secretary of Agriculture in the United States, when I told him about it, asked me what we are doing. I said that we want to make sure that our farmers remain in agriculture. He said that he would not have a snowball's chance in hell of getting that through the United States Congress. He said he would never know how we ever got that through the parliament in Ottawa. There is not another country doing what we are doing.
The hon. member for Elgin mentioned the forming of a corporation. He said that they could issue shares, and so on, and do this in a very fair manner in the same way it is done by business. The farmers' wife, in that way, could share in the income in a fair fashion. I do not see anything wrong with that, but so far as I am concerned we can only go so far. Agriculture is so different from small business, and so on, that I would find it difficult to promote that kind of a thing, much as I do promote agriculture, because I would have every small businessman in Canada being kind of mad, and I think they would have a legitimate reason.
Other things were said here about the amount of the supply of milk, the eradication of brucellosis in Canada, and the number of cattle we have. In 1950, approximately 9 per cent of our cattle in Canada were infected with brucellosis. In 1956, 4.5 per cent were infected. In 1966, the figure was 2 per cent. That is one of the lowest rates. It is practically the same, but we are not too happy about it.
We maintain that much of the brucellosis problem in Canada today is due to poor housekeeping. Farmers have a certain responsibility in this respect, and they know it.
May 20, 1976

Very rarely do you find brucellosis in a good farmer's dairy herd because he does not allow neighbours' dogs on his farm, and so on. But some farmers do not want to recognize the fact that they have that responsibility. We believe that the eradication of brucellosis and blue tongue are absolutely necessary to maintain the good health of our herds. We have the most disease-free herds in the world, and we want that to be maintained.
We want to be able to issue health certificates for disease-free animals which were accepted, I believe, in 131 countries of the world. That is a much better state of affairs than can be found in any other country. I think that as members of parliament we should not suggest, for instance, that blue tongue should not be eradicated. We will have to isolate the area in British Columbia where it exists, to make sure that cattle are not shipped out of there, and we are having some difficulty in that respect. Some infected herds have been found there. They have been moved to meadows and pastures up in the highlands of British Columbia, where they will stay until next fall. So we will have to do something more drastic than we have been doing up to now to bring farmers to the realization that this disease must be eradicated.
Mr. Chairman, I have been speaking too long already. I will try to answer questions as they are put to me.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. 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 Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Veterans Affairs-Suggested provision of prorated pension for widows of pensioners whose disability was less than 48 per cent; the hon. member for Toronto-Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz)-Immigration-Implementation of recommendations of Dube inquiry-Government position; the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp)-Immigration-Request for early decision on application of Steven Badger for landed immigrant status.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
House again in committee of supply to consider a certain item for the year ending March 31, 1977, pursuant to the
Business of Supply
provisions of Standing Order 58(9)-Mr. Turner in the chair.
Agriculture
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $35,451,000 be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977, (less the amount voted in interim supply) as follows:
Vote 1-Administration-program expenditures and contributions, $35,451,000.
Mr. Hargrave:: Mr. Chairman, it should come as no surprise to members of the House that I intend to discuss various aspects of Canada's beef cattle industry. Most of my remarks will relate to the current situation, but it will be necessary to give a brief background and I hope to end with a short-term outlook for our cattle industry as I see it.
Canada's beef cattle industry has just emerged from its most rapid growth cycle in modern times. From the 19681969 period our beef cow numbers increased 43 per cent to a total of over 5 Va million head in 1975. Even with a corresponding drop in dairy cows, in that same period the net composite increase over this seven to eight year cycle was still well over 30 per cent. Presently, Canada's total cattle population is about 15 million head. Over this period we were consistently net importers of cattle and beef, with practically all cattle imports coming from the United States and beef imports from the United States, Australia and New Zealand. Starting last fall with the heavy sale of cows, we are now definitely on the downside of the cycle and our current 1976 calf crop will likely be down by 2 per cent to 4 per cent. However, Canada still has ample supplies of cows, and currently even an oversupply of steers in various stages of growth either on grass or being finished in feed lots. We should not overlook the fact that while in 1975, 900,000 cows were slaughtered, about 300,000 more than in 1974, if we go back to the figures for 1973 and 1974 we find that the numbers were down by approximately
250,000	for each year. So we are only catching up with the average with the heavy slaughter last year.
The last two years have been difficult ones for our Canadian beef cattle industry, and no one can deny that. They have been especially difficult for the cow-calf producers and the feeding side of the total industry. The reasons for these difficulties relate to two basic factors, first, excessively high cattle populations which developed much too quickly and, second, rapidly increasing, and now sustained, high feed grain costs. The problems of our cattle industry were further complicated by some world factors such as drought, feed grain and protein shortages, inflation and realignment of several major currencies. We all made a serious error in assuming that rising beef prices at the consumer and producer levels meant a shortage of cattle on a global basis. I am sure that this was a serious error on the part of many people. But the most serious complication was a series of ill-advised political decisions in both the United States and Canada. I am referring to policies such as Canada's LIFT program, the U.S. control policy which was left on cattle and beef for six weeks after all other controls were lifted, Canada's 7 cent beef subsidy policy, and the several serious and successive retaliatory border control devices employed by both countries.
This government has developed its so-called stabilization approach for various agriculture commodities including the cattle industry, but it is now obvious that stabilization

May 20, 1976
Business of Supply
for cattle as provided by Bill C-50 is certainly not the panacea that the minister and some of his cabinet colleagues would like us to believe it is. The current debate on our total cattle industry centres on various provincial income insurance plans, supply-management and the North American market concept, with the government's stabilization proposals being the dominant connecting issue. Over the last 12 months the stop-loss concept of the Minister of Agriculture has been pushed toward a guaranteed income or incentive level approach for our cattle industry by the minister and at least by some provinces. We should not forget what stop-loss is. It is a support price level at 90 per cent of the previous five-year average market price, plus a cost of production index. The minister now seems to be supporting a level above 90 per cent, such as the 100 per cent used in his fed cattle support price of $43.94 for the last 4 Vi months of 1975. Incidentally, that level turned out to be 26 cents a hundredweight below the actual pay-out average price of $44.20-so there was no pay-out, of course.
The minister has announced that there will be another fed cattle support price for 1976, but he refuses to announce the price and he has hinted that it may not be announced until the end of the year. However, we do know, as a result of my question on the order paper, that the previous five-year average for fed cattle ending December 31, 1975, is $40.60 a hundredweight. Of course, this is not adjusted for a percentage factor or the cost of production factor.
Let us turn to calves and the possibility of a cow-calf stabilization program. In my opinion there are clear indications that there will be no such program. The previous five-year average market price-this is for the last quarter of each year-up to December 31, 1975, is $40.39, again not adjusted for the percentage factor or for the cost of production. The level of $40.39 is the real reason, in my opinion, why the minister will not bring in a calf stabilization plan since the actual average calf price, even with a modest percentage and cost of production increment, would not be politically acceptable to cow-calf producers in Canada today.
There are two additional and important reasons why there will be no cow-calf plan. First of all, there are various calf programs now operating across Canada in six provinces and covering most of Canada's cattle. Second, there is a lack of federal financing and cabinet support for a cow-calf program, especially during this period of restraint. Of course, all these realities are small comfort to cow-calf producers who have operated at less than cost of production over the last year and a half, and I am very much aware of that. If we are honest, we must surely recognize the real reason for the cow-calf mess is the too rapid cow population increase in Canada and the United States over the past seven to eight years and the high cost of feed grains, as I have already pointed out.
However, after a period of political distortion in both Canada and the United States, the free market for cattle is working, and working very well now. The market signals have said loudly and clearly that there are too many cows, and a substantial reduction has already taken place. I pointed out that the 1976 calf crop may be down as much as

4 per cent. The cow population adjustment has been abrupt and rough on some operators, but again, if we are honest, we must admit there were some new producers-and I am not thinking of young producers-who transferred into the cattle industry who should never have become involved.
Should federal moneys be used to bail out or otherwise induce these fringe operators to continue? I think not.
I said the free cattle market system is working and, I might add, so is the North American market. Several weeks ago the minister at a Strathroy, Ontario, meeting made it very clear that he feels that heavy or excessive imports from the United States can only be controlled by supply management for cattle. There were some heavy imports at that time, as high as 8,000 head per week, whereas last week, the last week of record, there were approximately 1,900 slaughter cattle and 1,200 slaughter calves. I suggest the minister at that time only gave one side of the story.
For the week ending May 10, and that is the last week of record, here are the cumulative trade totals with the United States for 1976, that is, from January 1 to May 10. In that period, Canada exported 116,840 head to the United States, and we imported some 60,320 slaughter cattle and another 19,238 slaughter calves for a total of 79,558 imports. For dressed beef in that same period Canada exported 30 million pounds to the United States, and we imported 8.6 million pounds from the United States. This 8.6 million pounds of imports from the U.S.A. is up 1.2 million pounds from the same time-frame a year ago, but the total imports of dressed beef are up some 23 per cent. Most of this, of course, is coming from Australia and New Zealand. The point is that Canada has a very positive trade advantage in both dollars and numbers over the United States. We should not overlook or forget that during the last 4'A months of 1975 the U.S.A. accepted some 100,000 live cows from Canada, a fact which did not go down very well with United States cattlemen but did considerably strengthen our Canadian cow market for the other 800,000 cows which were sold in Canada. The North American cattle and beef market continues to be the only practical, long-term market available to our Canadian industry, regardless of whether we are net importers or net exporters of cattle and beef.
When we are on the net import basis, as we have been for the last seven or eight years, the United States is the only source of live cattle and fresh beef available to us; and when we are on a net export basis, no other country in the world can afford to buy our cattle and beef on an offshore basis, that is, with transportation costs considered. To those of us in the Canadian cattle industry who feel we should move in a supply-management direction or even in a series of provincially-oriented income assurance or price stabilized plans which involve top-loading, I say very emphatically but sincerely that that decision must surely be based on the more basic and fundamental issue of the choice between access to a continued North American market for our cattle and beef, or an inward-oriented- with federal import controls-type of industry which will surely move us toward virtually a giant public utility. That must be our choice, since the United States will certainly move to deny us their market if we choose the price-subsidized route.
May 20, 1976

We have recently seen how quickly the Americans can move in matters of border retaliation, and we simply cannot win that kind of trade war. As recently as mid-January of this year United States Secretary of Agriculture Butz told a small visiting group of Canadian members of parliament and provincial MLAs that the United States would move quickly and decisively with border restrictions if Canada chose the subsidy route on major agricultural commodities involved in international trade, such as cattle and beef.
The companion policy decision to be made by our Canadian cattle industry must also be whether or not we intend to go all out and produce cattle and beef and seriously compete with the United States, at least in proportion to our cattle numbers, and this means moving to a net export position, or very close to it. The alternative to this is the same alternative to the North American market, which is an internal ultimate supply-management for our cattle industry in Canada. Surely consumers will have a say here, if only through the marketplace, since minimum cost beef can only come from efficient high production which is geared to what I consider to be the best market in the world, the North American market.
In any event, the decision as to which route our Canadian cattle industry takes must surely be made by our own beef cattle industry and not by governments. No one will question the need for governments-especially the federal government-to provide certain guidelines as to animal health, trade matters, etc., but that ultimate decision must be made by cattlemen. I wish to conclude with some specific questions and comments to the Minister of Agriculture and his department, all relating to our cattle industry. These are in series to which I hope the minister might respond a little later.
Why has his department ceased reporting the monitored weighted average price which used to come out monthly in the blue book? Producers are entitled to this, especially if we are to have support prices. I should not have to put questions on the order paper to get this information. Why was Canada's export quota allotment to the United States recently reduced by 4.5 million pounds and an identical increase awarded to Australia and New Zealand by the U.S.A.? Was this protested by our Department of Agriculture and by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce? Is our Canadian cattle and beef still being used as a pawn in trade matters for the ultimate benefit of other industries, such as the auto pact?
The Canadian Cattlemen's Association made a very useful presentation to the Canadian Tariff and Trade Committee as a reference to GATT negotiations. Has this presentation been used in the Tokyo round of discussions, or will it be used? On another trade matter, current offshore imports of beef, that is, from Australia and New Zealand, are being dumped into Canada at price discounts of as much as 15 cents per pound under prices in the United States for the same kind of offshore imports into that country. This has a direct tendency to lower our Canadian cow prices. What about the United States' 10 per cent ad valorem duty on Canadian beef and processed meats, which I consider to be a one-way inequity which has no equivalent on our part in Canada?
Business of Supply
I will continue to remind the minister of the need for a Canadian meat import law. In his December 31 press release he as much as promised this item, without using the phrase "meat import law". I urge the minister to read that press release once again, and if the minister again reminds me of his sarcastic comment involving the free traders in the Canadian Cattlemen's Association wanting protection, I will remind him that as long as the U.S.A. employs this device by presidential decree-that is their meat import law-that is reason enough for its use in trade emergencies here in Canada.
Let me return to the stabilization question. Will the minister announce the 1976 support level for fed cattle, now? I know the minister has stated that such an announcement made too early might distort the market, but announcing it late denies the producer of a basic right and information which could establish a more realistic market level for feeder cattle as they relate to finished beef. I say to the minister, let us be frank. A late announcement also permits political manipulation.


Eugene Whelan: We would not do that!


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Will there be a federal cow-calf stabilization plan? If not, say so. Let us have an end to this play on words such as "cattle", "beef" and "cows", etc., words the minister insists on using every time he is questioned. His parliamentary secretary is now doing it, as evident from his response to my colleague from Vegreville in the adjournment debate on May 17. As reported at page 13604 of Hansard the parliamentary secretary said in part:
Ever since the original 1958 legislation "cattle" has been interpreted to mean slaughter cattle. We continue to consider that the named commodity, cattle, is represented by slaughter cattle.
This is nonsense. By implication the minister and the parliamentary secretary suggest that Bill C-50, which the minister sponsored, does not permit a cow-calf plan. Of course it does, and the minister knows it. I ask him just to answer my question on the subject. If there is not to be such a plan he should say so, and very quickly.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I shall refer to a newspaper article. Last Saturday, May 15, in a Toronto Star feature story on the Minister of Agriculture, the minister was quoted as saying:
All the farmers want is to be guaranteed-if I'm a productive person, make sure I get a proper return.
I suggest that this is a socialistic philosophy which the majority in the Canadian cattle industry does not accept.


Eugene Whelan: Come, now.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: It represents a direct departure from any semblance of a market dominated by supply and demand. My own personal experience suggests that most productive farmers want the opportunity and freedom to exploit the opportunities of the market.


Eugene Whelan: That's a red herring argument.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: I can personally support the stop-loss concept of Bill C-50 for the cattle industry, but not the toploading provisions with regard to cattle, for the very

May 20, 1976
Business of Supply
reasons given in the minister's two amendments on toploading. They relate to regional unfairness and incentives to overproduce.
Suppose a federal cow-calf stabilization program had been in effect for 1975, a program which might have paid out, say, $50 per calf.


Charles Robert Turner: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, whose allotted time has expired. He may continue if he has the unanimous consent of the committee. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee for its courtesy. I shall speak only one or two minutes. I was saying, let us suppose that a federal cow-calf stabilization program had been in effect in 1975 under which $50 per calf might have been paid out. The total cost would have been about $275 million to the public treasury. What would have been the result? I suggest that the downward adjustment in our cow numbers which was so essential would not have occurred at least to the same necessary degree. I also suggest that a payment of $50 per calf would not have been sufficient to help those in trouble, but would have created an atmosphere which would naturally lead producers to expect a continuance of the program year after year. In my opinion the actual market price of calves would have been somewhat lower than the true market level, owing to the effect of the $50 subsidy.
While it is true that the large numbers of steers now in the pipeline will have some pricing problems, by and large the Canadian cattle industry has either resolved or is in the process of resolving, its own problems in a market place which includes the United States market. You can say it was rough justice, that it was swift and sure. At least the cattle industry can now. see much better days ahead. And, Mr. Chairman, that is more than can be said for the egg and dairy industries of our country.


Mr. Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the committee will be interrupted at 5.45 for Royal Assent. As I am to chair at eight o'clock this evening a committee on Indian affairs, I have little time to make my remarks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't worry, his nibs will be late.


Len Marchand: I will not cover the entire ground covered by the hon. member for Medicine Hat; I shall leave that to the Minister of Agriculture who is a wise man. I admit that the hon. member who spoke on behalf of the cattle industry mentioned many good points.
I wish to bring to the attention of the committee a situation which developed in British Columbia, where cattlemen met and voted to adopt the B.C. income assurance program. I think the committee is aware of conditions which had existed in the province, of the difficult times ranchers went through. Many of them were on their knees. We had a poor crop in the area a couple of years ago, cattle prices were low, and some operators were forced to their knees.
I am not speaking of cattlemen who had just established themselves in business. They were not fly-by-night operators, here today and gone tomorrow. Many of them were cattlemen who had been in business 30 or 40 years. Actually some of them were descendants of the people who had displaced my ancestors in that part of the country, so you can see they were solid, good types. Many of those guys survived and were able to carry on as producers in British Columbia only because they became involved in the income assurance program which was introduced in that province. I know some are concerned about abuses connected with the program, and about people becoming overly dependent on such programs. I only say that such programs, if handled and administered properly, can be good. It was a good program and helped many cattlemen in the province to survive.
I want to speak for a few minutes about the disease, blue tongue. I say to the minister that we have discussed this disease in committee, and I emphasize again how concerned British Columbia ranchers are about it. I understand that 49 herds in the southern part of the Okanagan Valley are afflicted with the disease, although I do not know how many animals are actually involved. The situation is serious and concerns many ranchers. I have no qualms about the eradication program and have the highest regard for the health of animals people, the veterinarians involved with that special branch of the Department of Agriculture. They did a good job. The eradication program was necessary. Nothing else could be done, I submit.
Let me enter a note of caution. I am concerned about the possibility of herds in that part of the province being reinfected unless there is a similar eradication program in the state of Washington. The herds on the Canadian side are very close to herds in the state of Washington. In some cases ranch lands are side by side, and herds on both sides of the border are often close to each other. I am told that the infecting insects, known as "no see'em" culicidae, have a very short flying range. However, I really do not buy all of this. I would like to see the minister make great efforts to get the state of Washington and U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Butz to take a long hard look at the program in the state of Washington as it relates to the re-infection of our cattle population in the south of British Columbia.
I wish to get a little more parochial now and a little closer to home and talk about the future of the research station in Kamloops. This station has been doing range management research since about 1936. It is a good station with a good history. It has served the ranching industry of that province very well.
Lately the research staff has diminished to five. Over the years, there have been approximately seven research scientists involved in animal research, soil, range management research, and so on. One problem recently identified as being of high priority for the ranchers is related to deer-cattle competition for range.
On behalf of the ranching industry in British Columbia I ask the minister to take a hard long look at this. Perhaps that has already been done. I know the minister has been looking at it on behalf of the ranchers' advisory committee there. I ask that the two positions at the Kamloops

May 20, 1976

research station be filled so that it can continue as a very valuable station on behalf of the ranching industry of British Columbia.
Another question that is very urgent for the feed grain users of British Columbia is that of feed freight assistance.
I know this question is now under reconsideration by the government. However, in the remaining few minutes that I have I want to emphasize that it is a very serious question for the feed grain users of British Columbia.
There are some great inequities. These have been pointed out by the agricultural community of British Columbia as far as the transportation agricultural products are concerned in the province of British Columbia. One question that always comes up is the bringing of feed grains into British Columbia.
I will give an example of why there is concern. Grain for the export market moving between Calgary and Vancouver moves at a rate of about $4 a ton. Feed grains for domestic use move between Calgary and Vancouver at $18 a ton. When you apply the feed freight assistance between those two points, it amounts about to $9.50 a ton. This shows that the concerns of the feed grain users of British Columbia are serious indeed. I hope that in the minister's part of the review in this policy question he will ensure that this program remains, either in its present form or improved. Something must be done to benefit the feed grain users in British Columbia.
One consideration when the policy was announced a few years ago to remove the provincial boundaries for purchasing of feed grains was that some other program would be introduced in order that the situation would be improved in some parts of the country. One suggestion was that more grain be grown in the maritimes. There may be some free land there. I am not sure of the situation. However, that situation does not exist in British Columbia. There may be a few areas in the Okanagan where a bit more feed grain could be grown, but there is just not land available in British Columbia that could be used for growing feed grain. Therefore we are very anxious that the feed freight assistance program be carried on so that feed grain users in British Columbia can survive in a much healthier manner.
Those are all the remarks I will make at this time. I think the man will be coming to the door pretty soon.


Charles Robert Turner: The hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe.


Mr. Wagner:: Mr. Chairman, I hear a knock at the door. I just wonder whether it is the intention that we proceed.


Charles Robert Turner: Shall I rise, report progress, and request leave to consider the resolution later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It would be in the interest of the membership to recognize that we have gone through this exercise in order to be prepared for the knock at the door which is due to come at any moment, and that later this day we will go through a similar exercise in order to retrieve this important committee and get it back into session.
Business of Supply


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This would be a delightful occasion for us to have a grievance, but I do not know whether in the aftermath of the glow of today we should do that. It occurs to me this would be a great opportunity for a grievance of some kind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can we not just sit for a minute or two?
[DOT]	(1750)



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable The Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
[DOT]	(1800)
[Stage Direction]
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bill:
Bill C-89, an Act to amend the Anti-Inflation Act-Chapter 98.
Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the House would agree that we should return to committee of the whole so that the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) can take the chair and call it six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
House again in committee of supply to consider a certain item for the year ending March 31, 1977 pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 58(9)-Mr. Crouse in the chair.
Agriculture-Vote 1.
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $35,451,000 be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977 (less the amount voted in interim supply) as follows:
Vote 1-Administration-Program expenditures and contributions, $35,451,000.
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt vote 1?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.

May 20, 1976
Business of Supply


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: It being six o'clock p.m. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think that it is proper to point out that we have in the Speaker's Gallery this evening the Minister of Transport of Israel who is accompanied by officials of his department as well as the ambassador of Israel to Canada. We also have officials of the Department of Labour.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of certain items of the estimates for the year ending March 31, 1977, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 58-Mr. Turner in the Chair.
Agriculture
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $35,451,000 be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977, (less the amount voted in interim supply) as follows:
Vote 1-Administration-program expenditures and contributions, $35,451,000.
Claude Wagner: Mr. Chairman, allow me, as representative of the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe, which is both urban and rural, to take part briefly in this debate of the House and to express some views on the difficulties that exist in certain sectors of the agricultural economy, particularly in the dairy industry of my province. These difficulties are a result at the same time of the disturbance caused by inflation, of the chaotic policies of this government and of the particular structures of Quebec's agriculture.

There is no use to hide this. As much as the industry worker, the agricultural worker is the victim of the startling consumer price increase, which has risen by some 35 per cent during the 1971-76 period. The effects of inflation have been particularly felt by the farmer because he is not only a producer of goods but also a consumer like everybody else. Like you and I, he has to provide for his individual needs as well as his family's but as a producer, he also has to pay for the equipment and the input needed for the business he is running.
More than everyone else perhaps, the farmer is affected by the continuous price increases in feed grains, fertilizers, energy and transport rates. The milk producer in particular is further affected by the domestic and international market contraction, and he has to fight against growing dairy products imports. In those circumstances, he deserves more than the divided attention the government is paying him. He asks that we consider seriously his fate and that we take at last some harsh steps if necessary to restore in his industrial sector the prosperity and the security which he needs like other citizens.
Now, what has the government just done for the milk producer? On the pretext that the subsidy to production tends to reduce efficiency and productivity and that it is necessary to curtail budgets, the government has just ordered a lamentable reduction in its program designed to support the dairy industry. But is this policy as realistic as stated by the government? On the one hand, the consumer will experience a considerable increase in his food budget; on the other hand, we run the risk of reducing our consumption of dairy products which are so important to our health. Finally, the government puts hundreds of small milk producers on the verge of ruin, and they will eventually be on other welfare programs. The savings it expects to be able to make could well be only an illusion.
And that is not all. The government is directly responsible for the enormous difficulties which, as recognized by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) himself, the dairy industry will face this year. One and even two years ago, the minister was strongly urging dairy producers to increase their production to such an extent that the domestic market has now reached saturation point.
The height of folly for the government was to raise by 11 million pounds the ceiling on cheese imports which now reaches 50 million pounds. Last year, they authorized the import of 10 million pounds of butter and regardless of a glut in the international market, they urged our producers to produce more powdered milk. Mr. Chairman, is this planning in any reasonable sense? A ceiling of 9.5 billion pounds for authorized shipments is a hard blow to producers. Actually, this ceiling is still being lowered by the minister's decision to impose a levy, more exactly, a fine of $8.60 per hundred pounds on shipments exceeding 94.5 per cent of the individual quota.
To make the position of the milk producer even more difficult, the minister is now imposing another levy of $1.35 a hundredweight on all shipments made within the limits of the marketing quota.
What is the minister trying to achieve? The bankruptcy of milk producers? With such drastic measures, one would

May 20, 1976

be tempted to think so. The direct result of his policy is that a vital Quebec industry is now confronted with nearly insurmountable problems.
It is therefore not surprising that when the new dairy policy was announced, the Quebec Agricultural Producers' Union and the Canadian Association of Dairy Producers expressed their anger and their frustration.


Mr. Pelletier:: You were in Florida!


Claude Wagner: I think this is a personal attack from the parliamentary secretary (Mr. Pelletier). I would like to advise the hon. member that I was absent from the House at that time on my doctor's instructions. I would have preferred to be here to face the government's unfair decisions.
The APU's publication, "Terre de chez-nous" judiciously pointed out, and I quote:
In its national dairy policy, the government seems much more concerned with applying restrictions than promoting the establishment of a strong policy to protect both the dairy industry and the producer.
The milk producers from Quebec alone will loose this year, with this new policy, around $30 million. Not unlike the APU, one may fear that many dairy farms will be deserted and that many producers, particularly the younger ones, will go bankrupt, with all the economic and social consequences that such a disaster may cause. The Minister of Agriculture does not seem to be aware that his solution, namely the gradual integration of farm production in Quebec, does not meet the specific requirements of my province whose soil is generally poor and unsuitable for diversified agriculture.
In fact, in Quebec, 70 per cent of some 23,000 farm producers operate dairy farms. One sees therefore how hard a blow the new dairy policy will deal the economy of my province. The problems of the Quebec farmers and their colleagues in other provinces are compounded by the decision of the government to allow imports of 50 million pounds of cheese, without that same government having attempted to obtain, especially from the European Common Market, reciprocal treatment for Canadian dairy products.
Of all the requests made to the minister by the dairy producers, he has accepted only one in its entirety: he kept the subsidy at $2.66 a hundredweight. He did, theoretically, set a $1.45 price guarantee for industrial milk but, through the play of deductions, the minister in fact reduced the subsidy by half, not to mention the fact that he doubled, by increasing them from $0.65 to $1.35 a hundredweight, export fees on powdered milk. One therefore understands the ire of the dairy producers to whom the government refused true indexing of their production costs, a privilege granted other industrial sectors. One can therefore state in all fairness that the government's new dairy policy is a complete disaster for Quebec agriculture.
Those difficulties are heightened even more by the protracted conflict between Treasury Board and the veterinarians working for the government. I am told there are now 140 openings for veterinarians in the federal administration, and resignations are many among those experts who are indispensable to the health of both the public and our cattle. I therefore trust, Mr. Chairman, that
Business of Supply
the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Agriculture will join in their efforts to solve the problem, and thus ensure Canadian agriculture services that are necessary in every regard.
Before I resume my seat, I should like to call the attention of this House to two problems: one of a local nature and the other of a moral and economic nature. The Saint-Hyacinthe area is located in what is called the Montreal plain, the heart of the Quebec farming industry. The time has come for the federal government to reach an agreement with the Quebec government in order to lay the foundations of an integrated agricultural food industry. I urge particularly the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) who, I know, sympathizes with Quebec agriculture, and particularly in the area comprising the Saint-Hyacinthe riding.
The Montreal plain is already an important centre of vegetable and fruit farming; it compares with others as concerns large scale farming and feed grain production. It has a dairy industry of high potential and cattle production is possible on a large scale. In order to create this integrated agricultural food industry out of the basic elements we already have, it is essential first to zone farm lands in order to protect them against increasing urbanization. But some thought should also be given-and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion could play a role in this-to concentrate in that area those industries which depend on agriculture. I am thinking of processing plants, fertilizer or feed mills, farm equipment industries or even, if possible, of tanneries. As it already have a sugar beet refinery and a famous veterinary school, the Montreal plain and the Saint-Hyacinthe area might also become a centre of specialized farm teaching that could give employment to its graduates on farms or in plants processing farm products or by-products.
The other problem is of a moral, economic and administrative nature. It is the supply management problem as regards hunger in the world. While millions of men suffer from malnutrition, countries like ours periodically cut their food production because of a shortage of markets or of adequate mechanisms to help the famished.
Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the generous efforts made by Canada to help the hungry, but I am convinced-and the dairy policy is a good example-that the Canadian contribution to food assistance is still totally inadequate. In spite of our efforts and those of other industrialized countries, the fact is that the wealth of some people compared to the poverty of a great majority of human beings is a social scandal that should trouble our conscience.
Mr. Speaker, the disproportion between the wealth of some people and the distress of others should prompt us to find an answer without delay to the problem of assisting the famished. It is still the best way to ensure peace and stability in the world. Until we have learned to give without receiving, we shall not have put into practice that universal solidarity which is one of our national goals.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, there have been three or four speakers so far. Some of them have asked questions and others have made statements, as did the hon. member

May 20, 1976
Business of Supply
for Saint-Hyacinthe. I am surprised that he did not speak about all the good things we are doing in his constituency. We have just signed an agreement for a large agricultural complex in his area. Knowing him and how charitable he is politically, I am surprised that he has not mentioned that. I am also surprised that he has not mentioned the fact that we have entered into an agreement in his section of la belle province to assist them with their problems with surplus production because of weather conditions last year and not very high grade maple syrup. We did not have to enter into such an agreement but we did, and it resulted in half a million dollars to the people in his area. I am also surprised that he did not say how much money we are putting into the veterinary school at Saint-Hyacinthe. We are doing so much in his area, and he is saying so little about it!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: I only had 20 minutes.


Eugene Whelan: I would also say, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member has made some pretty fatuous statements on the dairy policy. He is building up the hopes of the dairy producers, whether or not he realizes it, which he would not be doing if he realized the world-wide problem faced by all dairy producers and therefore by our producers also. Members of the European community show no sign of curtailing their production. Their surpluses are growing bigger and their treasuries are funding these surpluses. Some members of the European community are not too happy about that. For instance, West Germany does not have a dairy surplus, but they are contributing to the problem with the 1,600,000 tons of skim milk powder on the world markets at present. To suggest to producers that they should find a way of producing more of this commodity-a commodity which deteriorates-is deplorable, but in essense that is what the hon. member is suggesting.
The hon. member is suggesting also that I am encouraging production. We did not say that at all. We said to the producers that we would give them a decent income for their production, for their investment, for their labour, and for their managerial abilities. That is what we intend to do and that is what the producers will have under this program, that is, the producers who produce reasonable amounts of dairy products to take care of our necessities and of the export markets which we have developed over a period of years.
We must be realistic and recognize that the world price of skim milk powder dropped from over $1,400 a ton to less than $400 a ton in a little over a year. What is one supposed to do? We made an agreement with the producers. If the hon. member thinks it makes me feel good to say to the producers there will be a levy on their production, then he is mistaken. Let him not say that the federal government was not acting responsibly because we entered into that agreement. The producers knew what our production demands were.
The Canadian Dairy Commission has operated the industrial milk program successfully when compared with dairy operations in other parts of the world since 1966. They were in trouble one year, and now everybody says that there is utter chaos. This really makes me mad, Mr. Chairman. We are dealing here with a biological entity, a

cow. You cannot compare it to a factory where you can pull a switch and turn production on and off, turn people on and off, and put them on unemployment insurance. You cannot pull a switch on a cow, and you have to gear your production as best you know how.
I hear people criticizing the system we have now. Because of the perfect weather conditions, perfect pasture and perfect forage, things could not have been better last year and the productivity of this nation was high, plus the fact that farmers-and I know farmers as well, I think, or even a little better than the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-used one third more dairy ration last year. Because of good haying and forage conditions we had the highest percentage of protein that has ever been measured. Protein makes good milk.
Dairy producers used one third more protein last year to get the most out of their cows. Some of them were told by the provincial milk marketing boards, "We know the agreement says that on April 1, 1976, your quota will be set and from then on you will be on a strict quota, so produce all you can." It was wrong for them to do that, and I told them so. I told them that in April when I announced the program last year, I told them that in June, and I told them that in September, but some of them did not pay much attention.
The hon. member has many producers in his area. The consumer and corporate affairs critic in his party from the Eastern Townships knows that producers there did not increase their production any more than 5 per cent. They are the ones who are being hurt most because they did not contribute to this problem, but they have to suffer the same as the ones who increased production by 40 per cent, 60 per cent, and even 80 per cent in some instances, knowing full well they will be in difficulty this year but hoping that there would be a quota by April 1, 1976. We just do not have the market for these products.
Hon. members should remember that only two years ago we were importing butter into this country. The Canadian Dairy Commission recommended that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce import 50 million pounds of butter so that butter producers would not be producing a surplus but there would be enough for the country's needs. We imported it from our Commonwealth neighbours and from some of the European countries to make sure we had butter, but now we have a supply of butter which is adequate for our own people. We do not have the great big surplus of butter some people are talking about. We can look after our needs in our own country. However, I want to repeat that neither I nor this government told them to increase their production. We said 5 per cent was all we wanted and all we could stand for the dairy year of 1975-76, and I can give some figures.
I gave some figures earlier, but we can go to the two main dairy producing provinces of Canada which produce industrial milk and compare April of last year against April of this year. Quebec is 20 per cent above last year, and Ontario is 15 per cent above last year. For the total nation as of the end of April of this year the figure is 15.9 per cent, nearly 16 per cent above last year. They are
May 20, 1976

getting their house in order; there is no doubt about that, as far as I am concerned.
The hon. member from the Creditiste party is not here now, but he said, when he brought in a motion before, that I smiled about his motion. If anything this politician gets criticized for, it is for not smiling enough because I look so sour, too gloomy and too worried all the time about what is going on. This is what I said when I got up to speak about the motion of the hon. member:
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Social Credit party for raising the present topic for discussion this day. They have shown leadership in raising it. The other parties have not seen fit to talk about agriculture on their opposition days.
The hon. member for Elgin recognized how wise was the member from the Social Credit party, so he decided to take a day and talk about agriculture, but he has not been dishonest about what he is because he is an old dairy farmer. He now has a full time job; he has had to give up dairy farming because he is trying to be a studious member of parliament. I congratulate him. Many people do not know the sacrifices you make to be a member of parliament.
I do not think the problem the dairy farmers of Canada have at the present time is anything to laugh about, and if I was smiling that day it was not about the motion the hon. member brought into the House, that is for sure. It was not about the plight I find the dairy farmers in, but I could smile a little about it. However, I can become very angry about it when I hear some of the things some people in Canada are saying about dairy farmers and about what we did. Those people never once recognized that the dairy farmers are very productive, but they suggest that the producers should give away their products because they are so productive. Who else in society do we find who tries to do that?
Have hon. members ever heard of a daily newspaper with 5,000 extra copies at night giving them to a senior citizens home, a hospital, or to the disabled? Like hell they do. They do not give them away, or even sell them at half price. They shred them up because if they did not do that it might hurt their market. But we are supposed to be different. Why-because we are peasants, because we are farmers, or because we are producing food?
Have hon. members ever heard of Chrylser, Ford or anyone else doing the same thing, or have they ever heard of it being done with any other article? Even hon. members of my own party suggest that, which is damned, utter nonsense as far as I am concerned. I was at the Auto Parts Manufacturers Association meeting a little while ago, and they were talking about supply management. I asked whether they build parts for Ford, Chrysler, General Motors, American Motors or International Harvester and hope they are going to buy them. They said, "Do you think we are nuts? We do not turn a wheel until we have an order, and when that order is filled, we pull a switch and put the workers out on unemployment insurance if we do not have other jobs". However, when it comes to agriculture, we are different, we are super, and we can live on nothing.
It costs just as much to produce a surplus pound of milk as it does to produce a pound of milk which has a home. It does not cost a bit less, but the producers in the dairy
Business of Supply
industry have become more proficient than they ever were in the history of this nation.
In 1968 there were 150,000 dairy producers. In 1976 there are 87,000 dairy producers. Twelve years ago there were three million cows giving the same amount of milk as two million cows do in Canada today. Efficiency? Yes, but where else in society can that be found? I want to make sure that hon. members on all sides of this House tell the story fairly and squarely about what the dairy producers are doing. This product belongs to the dairy producers of Canada, not to the Government of Canada, and the dairy producers from all over Canada are the ones who sat down in the Sir John Carling Building and decided that this problem must be solved. The producers got into this problem, not solely but mainly, by themselves, and they decided to solve this problem. They knew it would cost them to solve it, but they are solving it because production is coming back in line.
The hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo raised a question about the research station in Kamloops. The research branch intends to fill that position just as soon as we can identify a suitable candidate, hopefully by next week or the week after. There has been no reduction in the efforts at Kamloops since the entomology group was moved to Lethbridge several years ago. No other reduction is planned. Kamploops works very closely with the Lethbridge scientists on the range management program.
I know hon. members may know that the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo chairs a committee of this House, but if they want to read one of the best books ever written by a researcher they should read the one by the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo about range management. I do not know K he worked at Kamloops, but I never knew he wrote that until I went to an international meeting between Canada, Mexico, and the United States at Tucson, Arizona, and there was the book by the hon. member and another researcher from western Canada. However, one of them was our very own member for Kamloops-Cariboo.
Moving to what the hon. member for Medicine Hat said, he talked about stabilization. He said the Agriculture Stabilization Act is no panacea for the beef cattle industry. He said the cattle support should be no higher than the 90 per cent index. I am just a little confused. That does not sound very consistent to me. The hon. member talked about the government being off and on with regard to the beef program.
I want to say something about the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. An official in the Canadian Cattlemen's Association corrected me when I said that some of our programs have meant at least $100 million more to Canadian cattlemen in stabilizing their industry. He wrote me a letter and said that I was wrong. He said, of all things-and I am sure some hon. members opposite will know better-that I was being too conservative. He said that the programs I implemented, at the request of the association in most instances, to make sure that the beef industry stayed healthy and alive meant more like $200 million. That is what a top official of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association said.
The hon. member talked about the six provinces which have cow-calf programs. I hope the hon. member was not saying that those provincial ministers of agriculture do not know what they are doing, because they have gone ahead
13732

May 20, 1976
Business of Supply
with these programs. The hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo pointed out earlier that when there was a vote in British Columbia, well over two-thirds of the cattlemen there voted in favour of participation in the program which the province of British Columbia had put forward. There has since been a change in government there, and the present provincial minister of agriculture recently wrote me a letter saying that B.C. intends to continue this program of income insurance for the beef cattle people and the cow-calf producers, but he wants to know when there will be a federal program to participate in.
Moving on to Alberta, 50 per cent of the beef cattle produced in Canada is produced there. The minister of agriculture in Alberta says he wants this kind of program. He wants some kind of national program. Moving on to Saskatchewan, the minister and the premier in Saskatchewan, as well as the premier of Alberta, say that there should be a national program.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture recently came before the cabinet, and the president of Saskatchewan Federation of Agriculture was there. He said he wants this program and that this was endorsed by 1,600 people at the rural municipalities annual meeting in Saskatchewan, with not one dissenting vote. I asked him whether there was someone there from the Saskatchewan Stockgrowers or from the Canadian Cattlemen's Association who voted against it, and he said there was not a dissenting vote. I repeated, "Was there any member?" He said that he was the president of the Saskatchewan Federation of Agriculture and a member of the Saskatchewan Stockgrowers' Association, but that they do not speak for all the cattlemen in Saskatchewan or for all the cattlemen in western Canada. So the issue is becoming confusing, and it is becoming more difficult for me.
The hon. member talked about the North American market for beef as if it were the only one in the world. Let me tell him that I returned from a meeting at which representatives of the United States, Mexico, Canada, Central American, Caribbean and Latin American countries tried to develop a program for aiding Latin American countries. There were to be horizontal working agreements between some of the developing countries of the area and the have countries were to help the have-nots.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat thinks that we should consider solely the North American market. Perhaps we should, in the case of live cattle. I ask the hon. member to look at it this way: the World Band and North American banks lent Uruguay over $80 million to help that country build a big processing and cold storage plant; and the bottom dropped out of the beef market. Beef slumped. Next consider Panama, Guatemala, and other countries of that region. The United States encouraged them to go into beef production. What happened to them? All their producers are disillusioned and dissatisfied, because now they are broke. They borrowed money from the World Bank, from the Latin American banks, the International Development Bank, and from other banks, in order to enter the cattle business; and now they are broke. And what help do those countries now seek of us? They want us to help eradicate foot and mouth disease. Why? So that they can ship beef to developing countries. Therefore, if the hon.

member thinks that we are concerned solely about the North American market, he is mistaken.
Let me refer the hon. member to what happened in the Australian market. If I am wrong I hope the hon. member will correct me, but I think he said that the Australians were shipping beef here for 15 cents a pound less than they are selling it in the U.S.A. They may have done that at one time; we made representations to them. We do not know why they did it. We believe it was done during a time when Australia was using incentives for exporters to find markets, they were required to export to a third market before they could earn the right to ship to the U.S.A. Under that incentive program, if producers shipped so many pounds to certain other countries they were given a certain beef quota for the United States. Therefore they shipped to Canada at 15 cents below what they were charging in the United States.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: They still do it.


Eugene Whelan: They are not supposed to be doing it. They are breaking the agreement if they are. If they are, they certainly are not living up to their agreement as Commonwealth traders and fellow-Commonwealth trading partners, as far as I am concerned. We shall tell them that. But I have seen no facts to substantiate the hon. member's claim.
This incentive program led to lower prices for Australian beef in Canada than the United States. Australia removed Canada as a country in which credit could be earned for exports to the U.S.A., and prices are moving to a normal differential between the U.S.A. and Canada as far as we are concerned.
I am trying to answer questions as quickly as I can. I believe the hon. member suggested that we have accepted a reduced figure for meat exports to the United States. We have not accepted any figure. There are no quotas, although I saw quotas alluded to in two press reports. There are no quotas on poundage as between Canada and the United States. I repeat, there are no quotas this year. We will be exchanging estimates of trade in meat between the two countries and will watch developments during the coming year. If they get out of balance, our officials are to meet. That is the kind of agreement we entered into. No figures at all were used in it. I saw this alluded to twice in the press and saw it on the television media. I immediately checked with my officials and said, "We agreed to no figures." They said, "No, and we don't know where the media people got them."
The hon. member referred to the December press release and implied that we had something akin to a meat import law. My reference was to maintaining meat imports under a general meat import licence, and the Export and Import Permits Act-


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I must interrupt the minister-


Eugene Whelan: I have finished, Sir.


Albert Béchard: -whose time has expired.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I wonder if I might answer one more question.
May 20, 1976


Albert Béchard: The minister may answer only if he has the unanimous consent of the committee. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Albert Béchard: There is not unanimous consent.


An hon. Member:: Jack Murta said no.


Mr. Allard:: Mr. Chairman, I simply wish to say a few words about the dairy industry in Canada. Needless to say that according to the latest statistics, this sector has badly deteriorated ever since the beginning of the year. During the present dairy year, the surpluses of industrial milk will reach almost 1.5 billion pounds, and in order to reduce production, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) could not find anything better than to apply quotas, to resort to a quota system which penalizes those who will overproduce.
The minister merely wants production to equal demand. In other words, he wants to match supply and demand. But I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if he really wondered whether the real demand was adequately met.
I am thinking for instance of those children throughout the country who do not get enough milk, butter and cheese. I wonder whether the minister thought of the people in Montreal and other cities who live in slums, of the children who do not drink enough milk every day.
Not too long ago, I moved a motion under Standing Order 43, urging the government to distribute free milk in all schools and, as usual, members of his party rejected it. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I wonder what the minister intends to do with the milk surpluses. The best he could think of was to apply quotas.
First, the Canadian Dairy Commission imposes quotas at random and does not bother to do an adequate marketing; in my opinion, we might for instance distribute our milk surpluses, swap products with other countries like the Arabs and exchange our milk products and our food surpluses either for oil, coffee or tea. There is no doubt that it could be possible during those exchanges to do some trading to satisfy the needs of countries stricken by hunger and here we could easily exchange this kind of products.
The minister said that we could not put a switch on a cow and turn it off whenever we want to. I would answer him that a cow is not a tap which we can opened or closed at will.
We are now imposing quotas and I sincerely believe, Mr. Chairman, that it is an insult to mother nature to do so, to pay western farmers to refrain from seeding and so on; I could also tell him that nature takes its revenge and it is almost a blasphemy today to live in a country which is immensely rich and to see that our system compels the minister to impose quotas.
Business of Supply
All our surplus products could very well be stocked for future years which may be tougher, for years of scarcity when we call on nature to produce milk, to produce wheat and when nature fails to answer the call. I think we would be well advised to stock all our surplus products and give it to poor countries, or exchange them for something else, as I said earlier. One must keep in mind that crops are conditioned either by the weather, seasons which are shorter or colder, the harvesting season which may be affected by rains or early frosts, and sickness which alter the production in general.
In my opinion, the monthly quota is raving madness. Why not quotas for each milking, morning and night. More civil servants would be needed for the controls, which would permit the civil service to grow. That is sheer madness, you may say. Not worse than the monthly quota system. Farm production quotas of any kind are total nonsense in our twentieth century context of famine, provety and disease. When the government paid wheat producers to reduce their wheat acreage, they simply financed scarcity, they financed a reduction of wealth.
When the government confronts milk producers with a system of quotas they do not reflect all the natural factors that can influence production such as those I listed earlier. They reflect neither the real needs of Canadians nor those of the peoples of the world. If they applied realistic policies allowing every Canadian to be adequately fed according to his needs, if they curtailed all unnecessary imports, namely cheese, eggs and all kinds of products, beef, etc., truly there would be underproduction, providing of course that all Canadian and world needs were met.
If we were to give a discount on all basic products to every Canadian family, a discount on Canadian products, especially to families most in need, certainly the overall consumption of Canadian farm products would increase. We would not then have to go the length of imposing those nonsensical quotas.
The government is using a bureaucrat kind, a paper kind, a high level official kind, a restrictive kind of laws. Too often they are antinatural they do not meet with current and future needs of the people. The government should have nothing else than an advisory role on farm product marketing boards. These boards should be under the direct control of farmers. I would like to point out that milk consumption in Quebec went down 33 per cent since 1972, I mean in 1955, average consumption was 133 quarts, while in 1974 it was 42 quarts, down 33 per cent.
Mr. Chairman, we in the Social Credit Party view milk, cheese and bread as vital food items to maintain childrens and old age people's health and prevent disease, this is also true of everyone else. Therefore, we urge the government once more to take immediate steps to restore the astronomical prices of milk, cheese and bread to the 1972 level.
On March 2, as I said, I urged in this House that the government take steps to have milk distributed in schools and universities, instead of coke and cream soda. As usual the answer was no. Mr. Chairman, per capita milk consumption is now 71 quarts in Quebec, as against 91 quarts in Ontario, the neighbouring province. There is no ques-
95568-351/2

May 20, 1976
Business of Supply
tion that milk must take a foremost part in young peoples' eating habits.
We, of the Social Credit Party, believe that one way to help dairy farmers would be to emphasize research as concerns a greater utilization of milk so as to offer con-summers new dairay products. Moreover, to encourage milk consumption, we seriously believe that the government should give a discount on prices to consumers, which would be compensated for the producers by the issue of new credits by the Bank of Canada so as to prevent any tax increase and meet the true aim of production, which is consumption.
We sincerely believe that a healthy farming community is essential to the success of our national economy. The government must protect and encourage our dairy farmers. The agricultural market should be based on freely negotiated interprovincial agreements. The federal government should no longer be allowed to play dictator in this area.


Mr. Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Chairman, during the supper hour I read a very interesting article in the May 22 Financial Post. It was written by Dr. John Shepherd, Executive Director of the Science Council of Canada. He states that at a time when we face the most significant technical challenges in our history, science and technology are at a low ebb. I certainly think that any cutbacks in our agricultural research at this time would be tragic. We need to regain our leadership with new and improved varieties, particularly in cereal grain.
Dr. Shepherd says that one of the mythologies about Canada is that we are a storehouse of natural resources, that Canada has endless acres of arable land and huge surpluses of food to feed a starving world. He goes on about our imbalance in trade. He says that by the mid-1980's Canada could well face horrendous deficits which could be compensated for only by significant increases of exports of raw materials and agricultural products.
He further points out that although we have two billion acres of land, actually a very small percentage, 13 per cent, is classed as agricultural and only 42 per cent of that 13 per cent is suitable for commercial crops. He concludes by saying, and I quote:
One has only to envisage the inevitable external pressures which will be placed on Canada's food system. The arguments of Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute are persuasive. Between 1934 and 1976, four of the six major grain exporting areas of the world have become net importers of food. As the world grain reserves since 1961 have shrunk steadily from 105 days to a projected 31 days for 1976, so the reliance upon North American exports has become almost total.
It strikes me that with the great need of the world for food and fibre, coupled with the tremendous increased productivity of our two agricultural industries, the U.S.A. and Canada should cease petty rivalries and start co-operating in food and fibre production and developing markets.
After some disastrous attempts at trying to prevent Canadian farmers from attempting to produce too much, grain in particular, the government is still woefully unprepared for the new era in which we do not seem able to produce quite enough. This new era has arrived with dramatic swiftness.

Some 18 months ago the World Food Conference in Rome ended. We should use it as a benchmark. For the first time all the components are now in the grain industry on a world-wide basis. By this I mean no country will purposely let its people starve. Russia and China are now in on a regular and on-going basis. Russia will not be a stabilizing influence on the market because of her great production swings in the wheat growing areas. We do not have to be reminded of that. Grain policy will pretty well set livestock policy in this country.
Of all our industries, none is subject to more increasing political control than farming. Management decisions have to be made against a background of laws and regulations which control the scope for initiative and enterprise. It seems we are faced with more and more government control.
I wish to quote from a report by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, commenting on the final report of the Food Prices Review Board, a public body. I quote:
Focusing our comments on this report to only the substance and recommendations has called for great restraint. Seldom if ever have we seen a document produced at public expense which is so laden with bias, innuendo, unsubstantiated allegation, and in so many ways stunningly smug, self-congratulatory, contradictory, misleading, and possessed of an animus toward all-both in government and out-who are involved in, or interested in farm policy. We think it is unfortunate that the board chose to conclude its existence with a report of this nature.
They talked about the board's recommendations for feed grains. The government put in place a subsidy program like the two-price system on wheat. Let us take a look at the two-price system on wheat. This is a system under which farmers are asked to absorb any difference between the $5 subsidized price and the export price. The export price remained at about $5 from September, 1973, to May, 1974, and producers absorbed a loss of some 85 cents a bushel, the federal government picking up the $1.75 per bushel. This meant that the grain producers of Western Canada subsidized the bread eaters of this country to the tune of about $55 million in that period. All this was going on at the time when a wrapper around a loaf of bread was probably worth as much as the wheat which went to make up the loaf.
The Prices Review Board proposed management of domestic grain prices. They are proposing government intervention to control domestic grain prices and create a domestic feed grains and livestock industry insulated from world prices. Such an intervention, which would essentially amount to the subsidization of livestock and livestock products, would unquestionably lead to massive planning of the grain and livestock sectors. It would, of course, involve the over-all planning and management of the entire agricultural economy, the likes of which were never, never contemplated nor desired, and the consequences of which would be great and far-reaching.
There is no question that the Minister of Agriculture is dedicated to the agricultural supply management concept. It was summed up in his speech at Kelowna, B. C. earlier this year when the hon. gentleman said, "The free market system has not worked to the benefit of the agricultural producer. . . the free market system has never existed in Canadian agriculture. So far, the supply management
May 20, 1976

system is the best we have come up with. I am a supporter of the supply management system and I intend to continue promoting it." Mr. Chairman, I should like to know the basis for that statement. I, too, am a believer in supply management, but I believe in supply management at the producers' level where a quarter of a million producers make the supply management decisions, not a handful of people.
The European Economic Community has been in favour of supply management for years, and their agriculture is in a mess. Agriculture in the USSR has been under total control since the first world war, and as a result that country has gone from a surplus position to a deficit position as far as agricultural products are concerned. The United States has by far and away the best record in the world, and it is one which is certainly not based on supply management. Give the producers the best possible information available and let them make the decisions.
It is interesting to note that while our average annual wheat crop in the past five years has been about 500 million bushels we have exported an average of 470 million bushels each year and used another 170 million bushels at home, for a total of 640 million bushels. These figures show there has been a deficit of about 85 million bushels each year. Whatever the scientists' feelings are with regard to long term weather trends, they agree that the world's climate is entering a period of widely felt varying conditions which will make the planning of agricultural production extremely difficult. Unless by some happy circumstance we produce an unusually large high-quality crop in 1976, the Canadian Wheat Board's overseas sales staff will have to be very cautious.
In Canada we seem to operate on the basis of the Boy Scout idea of doing our good deed, which is to open up Canada to all overseas goods and for us to live off the exports of raw materials. This philosophy was followed in the years of the Pearson government, incidentally by the people who gave in to the first 30 per cent wage settlements. The question now is this: are Canadian agricultural products being put on the block in return for trade-offs in industrial goods? What concerns me is the fact that antiquated low tariff levels permit foreign food products to flood Canadian food markets and undercut Canadian producers. We have only to look at such examples as the entry of soya beans into Canada from the United States dutyfree. In contrast, soya beans shipped from Canada to the United States are subject to a tariff of 60 cents per bushel.
Last year Ontario had a surplus of peaches. If canned peaches are exported to the United States, the duty to be paid amounts to $1.90 per case. Canada's duty on American peaches is only 63 cents per case. Canada admits corn from south of the border at a tariff of 8 cents per bushel, but Canadian exporters must pay a 25 cents tariff to export Canadian corn.
We are at a point now in Canada where the only products we can market internationally are grains and oilseeds. We do sell some things to the United States, and small amounts of pork to Japan, but apart from this we are pretty well out of the international market. Agriculture needs help and lots of it.
After the great fuss over the new Farm Credit Corporation legislation, what do we find? We find the government
Business of Supply
completely reversing itself. The situation now is that only farmers demonstrating extreme need can qualify for FCC loans in 1976-77. Loan allocations will drop by 42 per cent this year to some $370 million from last year's level of $641 million. I would point out that of last year's loans about two thirds went to farmers under 35 years of age, which is exactly what the act was designed to accomplish.
Surely it is time we made a distinction in this country between economic activities such as agriculture, which produces commodities, and those which do not. I have said many times in this House that our senior civil servants are disdainful of trade. No real importance is attached to marketing. There is no drive. Look at the present surpluses of powdered milk. There is no doubt in my mind that if the correct action had been taken when the stocks of powdered milk first began to accumulate, we would have had no great difficulty about disposing of them around the world.
Recently, Mr. Chairman, a real milestone in labour relations was reached by Canada's west coast ports. This was the substitution of voluntary arbitration for disruptive strikes and lock-outs. Grain handlers and elevator companies have agreed to mediation under an arbitration process, which promises to keep prairie grain flowing through those ports at least as far as labour and management in this sector of the grain system are concerned. It is significant that the government should have shown no leadership in this area whatsoever. After a long period of bad relations between labour and management, the best it could do was impose a settlement. Our customers, particularly Japan and China, complained bitterly about late grain shipments. We lost business to the United States port of Seattle.
The success of this latest move by labour and management is significant for all of Canada. It is the first acceptance by a major industry under federal jurisdiction of a mediation arbitration technique. It took a number of members from this side of the House to initiate the project. Six of us went to Vancouver and met with the parties involved to find out the facts, weigh the feelings on both sides, and try to bring the parties together. The federal government did not enter the picture for 14 months.
There is another question which is of great concern to farmers and it concerns land valuation. December, 1971, was V-Day for that purpose, and as most members know on that date farms were selling at the lowest prices for years simply because there were no grain quotas, no grain sales. Farmers could not even meet their expenses let alone pay for land. So valuation day prices were many times below what they should have been. Nowadays, with the cost of everything else going up, these valuation day prices seem particularly unfair to farmers who are subject to capital gains tax if they sell their land at more than the valuation day assessment.
About a week ago I noted with some concern a press report indicating that the government is pinning its survival hopes on a food policy, and that this policy will put heavy emphasis on getting food prices reduced. Several days ago when the deputy minister of agriculture was in front of the standing committee he indicated to the committee that he was not aware of such plans and that so far

May 20, 1976
Business of Supply
agriculture had not been involved in any policy discussions. There is surely cause to ponder there.
Our expensive stabilization schemes just do not seem to be doing the job, Mr. Chairman. As I have said before, they have brought Canadian agriculture to the state that we now have only one commodity, grains, that can be merchandised internationally. Surely to bring us into a competitive situation the government should be looking more and more at income tax as a vehicle for helping agriculture in this country.
I should just like to quote what one farmer has said about the latest stabilization scheme that the minister is trying to sell western Canada. He writes:
I'll offer a deal to Mr. Lang. I won't put up that $500 cash for the stabilization plan (I'll pay off my note at the Credit Union instead) and he won't have to squeeze the general Canadian taxpayer for the $1,000 he has promised to put up on my behalf should I go belly up. That way we'll all save money.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that we started down the slippery slope several years ago when the federal government task force on agriculture indicated that there was no real future for western agriculture in particular, and proposed restricted production for the prairies. This task force report was accepted by the government.
Since the railways have to plan years ahead, they looked to their operation and decided that, as a result of government policy, it would be necessary to reduce their services in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. This led to their filing for abandonment of most of their branch lines in western Canada.
It was a technical requirement of the act that the railways had to file an application for abandonment with the Canadian Transport Commission to be eligible for a subsidy, and of course they did so in regard to almost every branch line that we have. However, the uproar as a result of this transportation policy and the LIFT program forced the government in Ottawa to act. It declared a five-year freeze on rail abandonment, which expired January 1, 1975, but has since been renewed. But the grain companies still do not know where the lines are going to be or where they can build because the railways do not know which lines are going to be retained. In addition, we have discontent over federal feed grain policy. Western producers generally feel that it costs too little to move western feed grain east.
However, the real threat facing the prairie livestock industry is perhaps not a grain freight rate inequity; it is the possibility that national market sharing agreements will hamstring prairie hog and cattle feeders next time grain is cheap and they want to expand production.
A national marketing plan would allow them only limited access to eastern markets in this country. It could also require import restrictions, which in turn would be sure to bring retaliatory action from the United States. The U.S. market is the closest and potentially the largest outlet for prairie livestock and meat. This market is desperately needed. However, it seems some policy makers in Ottawa would like to do away with this. This seems to be the biggest threat to prairie livestock producers and grain growers at the present time, and it is a threat that they must guard against.
There are some basic questions that have to be answered and, I suggest the first is this: are farmers in a business

like any other? In short, we want to know where we are going in Canadian agriculture and what the targets are. Full, efficient agricultural production in Canada is a necessary fact of life.


Mr. O'Connell:: Mr. Chairman, I intend to enter only briefly into this debate on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture and I wish to raise three or four of what appear to me to be concerns, as a parliamentarian from an urban constituency. The first is the problem of insuring that young people will find farming an attractive occupation and will make every effort to go into agriculture at a time when other opportunities may appear to be more attractive to them.
I also find that many constituents are concerned about the alleged disappearance of our prime farm land, land that would produce food. I want to know from the minister, if he has an opportunity to tell us, what he has been able to do about this matter. I want to raise the matter of purchase of farm land increasingly by foreigners, and I will raise the matter in terms of the Foreign Investment Review Agency and whether or not there is a role there for it to play in deciding whether such purchases are in Canada's interests.
Then finally, I will raise a matter that the minister may find somewhat vexing but which I think is in its right perspective as a supportive suggestion, namely, that consumers be found recognized places on marketing boards.
If I may begin with the question of young people being attracted to farming, I know this is more than a question of credit. But what I would appreciate knowing is how successful are the efforts made by farm credit institutions to put funds in the hands of young people in order to encourage them to become another generation that will own farm land and enter agriculture. What proportion of farm credit loans are going to people who are, say, younger than 40, or in the middle or younger age groups? If the efforts have been unsuccessful then we should look at further ways to encourage the younger generation. In city constituencies we are told that the farm population at the moment is aging. I am not sure what the average age is, but I believe it is in the middle fifties. Farming is a strenuous occupation and we must have a group coming up behind.
In addition to the question of credit there is the preservation of our prime farm land. As I understand it, technically speaking "prime farm land" means land that is classified in the Canada lands inventory as Nos. 1, 2 and 3. We have a very limited amount of prime farm land. I believe it is correct to say that almost one half of our No. 1 farm land in Canada is in southern Ontario.
Southern Ontario is going through a very rapid urbanizing and industrializing process, but surely preserving our No. 1 farm land is in the national interest. I suggest the question is larger than the province of Ontario which has jurisdiction over land use planning. I would therefore ask the Minister of Agriculture just what perspective his department has in this regard.
We hear these frightening stories about how much No. 1 farm land goes out of production almost every hour. We hear the counter argument that a certain amount come back in. No. 1 farm land is land that will grow almost

May 20, 1976

anything because of moisture content and warmth and the number of frost-free days, and things of that kind. I am told there is no No. 1 farm land in the Atlantic provinces, for example. The land there starts at perhaps No. 2. Here therefore is a precious resource of great interest to the consumers and to people in urban centres. What is this process of urbanization and industralization doing to our farm land? Industrialists and land developers will pay more per acre for this land than the farmer can pay, and the land will produce more investment for them than it will for the farmer under current production.
More important, before we accept the minister's estimates, what is he doing to raise at the federal-provincial level this basic concern? Once this land is gone, it is probably gone forever. Does the minister participate in any federal-provincial meetings on land use planning? If he does, what is his contribution to these meetings, and how are they progressing from the minister's point of view? Perhaps he already does, but let me put it as a question; would the minister not find as one of his responsibilities to urge that the two levels of government meet frequently at land use planning conferences in order to arrive at some national objectives in respect of land use in which the agricultural interests would be paramount? These conferences could consider the activities of our own federal government which also uses land, for example for airports often near major cities, and major cities are usually built where the best land is. What agricultural interest is there in respect of federal use of lands, and what guidelines do the two levels of government use to guide us in the use of land, particularly agricultural land?
Would the minister accept as useful the proposition that certain land of high classification be set aside in agricultural preserves or reserves to be used exclusively for agricultural purposes and denied to urban, industrial and other purposes? Would he find that a useful proposition? And would land banking for agricultural purposes make as much sense as land banking for housing or urban growth? If so, is there a federal role in land banking?
I associate the concern of urban persons and consumers for the protection of farm land with their willingness to see income stabilization of a generous kind to farmers, because it is very much in the interest of consumers that agricultural incomes be such that the farmers will indeed stay on the land to produce food and other products. Therefore their incomes ought to rise with general incomes and ought to be stabilized because of the unique character of agriculture, subject so much to the weather, to international markets, and to wide price fluctuation. The interest in preserving that land is also an interest in seeing that it is profitable to use it in agriculture. Therefore I am sure I can say to the minister that city people want income stabilization programs for agriculture.
Let me raise the question of foreign ownership before I come to my last concern, Mr. Chairman. Without knowing, I believe there is an increasing amount of purchase of farm land in Canada by foreigners. Perhaps we are not unduly concerned at this stage about it, but I understand they are willing to pay more than Canadians for this land. What do they see that we do not see? Is it that our agricultural programs are not satisfactory to Canadians, or sufficiently attractive to keep them in farming? Is it that they recog-
Business of Supply
nize a world problem that we are not fully adjusted to in our policies? Do they know better than we that not only Canada will need increasing food against disappearing land but so will the world and, therefore, they are placing themselves in a position in our country into which we do not seem to be able to attract Canadians?
Is farm land of concern to the Federal Foreign Investments Review Agency? If that is not the case, does the minister feel it ought to be and, if so, what sort of guidelines would be applicable? The agency's responsibility is to see that foreign purchases are of benefit to Canadians. Is the foreign purchase of farm land, particularly prime land, in the interest of Canadians?
Finally I would like to suggest that farmers would be reassured to have consumers on their marketing boards. Consumers want to have the assurance that these marketing boards, when they control supply and when they regulate price, as they must from time to time, are acting in the general interest as well as in the particular interest. The best way to give them that assurance is to make a place for consumers on agricultural marketing boards, even as I think there is a very strong agricultural interest in being represented on other boards. There is a suspicion which is hard to dispel, but which can probably be readily explained, that marketing boards may act unduly in the interests of producers. Most consumers feel that farmers must be given protection for the reasons I have already mentioned, but they would like to have that extra assurance that this is fair to everyone, and I think that means participation. With those remarks I conclude, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Mitges:: Mr. Chairman, my contribution to this very important debate tonight will dwell mainly on the maintenance and protection of the health of our livestock industry in Canada. I am referring, of course, to the veterinarians employed by the Health of Animals Branch of the Department of Agriculture. We all know these veterinarians are responsible for testing animals for contagious diseases, maintaining inspection services at meat packing plants, testing cattle sold to other nations, and maintaining inspection of all animals and meat imports.
Our services are recognized throughout the world, and they provide not only control measures in respect of many animal diseases, and those animal diseases transmissible to man, but at the same time open the door to many millions of dollars worth of exports of livestock and livestock products. Because up to now we have had such a tight grip on disease control we export livestock and livestock products to more countries than any other country in the world. At last count we sold livestock and products to approximately 125 countries, with a dollar value of close to $1 billion. It is the veterinary profession, working through the Health of Animals Branch, that has given Canada the opportunity of becoming the world's number one supplier of beef and dairy breeding stock.
Wiping out costly diseases has saved farmers many millions of dollars as they are able to put more meat of high quality on the retail shelf. In return, consumers have saved money at the meat counter.
Effective legislation to protect Canadian livestock was one of the first important agricultural acts passed by the

May 20, 1976
Business of Supply
Government of Canada back in 1867. Since that time our animal and health protection standards have gained worldwide envy. The need to maintain this position and to advance with modern scientific and technological achievements has been recognized by the passing of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. However, the responsibility attending such legislation can only be effectively discharged by utilizing adequate numbers of competent and skilled professional staff. But, despite increased responsibility of the veterinary staff of the Health of Animals Branch, there are at present approximately 150 established positions that are unfilled. Twenty-one per cent of the veterinary staff employed by the Health of Animals Branch are over 57 years of age, while 70 per cent are over 40 years of age. A projection of anticipated retirement separation up to 1980 indicates a recruitment requirement of 233 during the same period, just to maintain staff numbers without giving consideration to unfilled positions.
During the past five years 242 veterinarians have been hired and 142 have left the service. The average age of recent employees suggests an unsatisfactory recruitment of younger veterinarians. A similar problem exists in other departments. For example, in the Health Protection Branch 58 per cent of the veterinary staff are over 51 years of age.
Considering the additional problem that modern transportation places on contagious diseases control, we should expect that additional veterinarians will be required in the Contagious Diseases Division of the Health of Animals Branch. Coinciding with this will be increased workloads in the Animal Pathology Division, which will necessitate the employment of more veterinarians. Therefore a solution must be found for the present low recruitment rate if Canada's livestock industry is to maintain its present favourable health position in the world market.
In studying this problem it is the opinion that insufficient use is being made of the veterinarians' professional skills at the working level. This inevitably destroys morale and professional satisfaction. There is little evidence that members of the staff receive much encouragement, or are given adequate opportunity to improve their professional development.
With the present classification each department has special problems. For example, promotion within The Contagious Diseases Division of the Health of Animals Branch is restricted. Eighty per cent of veterinarians are classified within the VS1 and VS2 groups. Any remuneration commensurate with demonstrated ability or long useful service is not recognized as such a classification. This, naturally, discourages incentive. The current position in regard to the relative pay of professional staff and primary products inspectors may reflect more successful bartering on behalf of the larger group of primary products inspectors than the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada was able to achieve for veterinarians.
There is no doubt that this overlapping has caused a serious outcry of dissatisfaction from the professional staff. It is incongruous that many of the jobs classified in the federal service's veterinary positions, which require six years of post-secondary education, are not worth a great 
deal more financially, maybe not even as much, as those occupied by persons with only secondary school training.
A recent survey carried out by the Health of Animals Branch revealed that salaries and professional fulfillment were the two areas of major concern to veterinarians. In order to achieve high levels of productivity it is essential that an environment be created to improve morale and provide a challenge to the professional knowledge and skills of the incumbents, and a scale of rewards related to responsibility and productivity.
I would suggest that serious consideration be given to promoting better career progression of veterinarians within the public service. There should be a wider classification that recognizes the complexity of the work, the kind of assignments, demonstrated ability, as well as seniority and excellence in the job. A system should be adopted in which each classification has a salary floor, but not a maximum. This will permit an outstanding individual in one classification level to receive increments above the floor of the next higher category.
The present pay scale should be reviewed to reflect the extensive training, professional training, responsibilities and skills required for job performance. There is no question that a serious shortage of government veterinarians has threatened to undermine health standards for animals and meat across Canada. So far this shortage has only caused economic difficulties in meat packing and livestock industries. But as the situation continues to deteriorate inspection services may be reduced to the danger level, and the health of the nation's livestock may be jeopardized. Not only that but the vacancies mean that some government responsibilities cannot be met.
This situation is particularly sad because veterinarians in the Health of Animals Branch are now trying to test cattle for brucellosis before they are turned out to pasture, where any infection will spread more rapidly from herd to herd. They are trying to cope with a major outbreak of blue tongue in the Okanagan Valley in British Columbia. They are trying to maintain inspection services at meat packing plants. They are trying to serve the demands of exporters to test cattle sold to other nations. They are trying to maintain inspection services on all animals and meat imports.
A breakdown in any area could prove disastrous. For example, in the 1950's when the dreaded hoof and mouth disease slipped through the border inspection net in Saskatchewan, Canadian beef farmers lost an estimated $50 million. Some say the loss amounted to about $250 million because no nation would accept our animals and meat during the outbreak, and that reduced the value of the nation's entire cattle population. A breakdown in meat packing inspection could threaten the health of consumers and jeopardize export markets. A breakdown in brucellosis, blue tongue, tuberculosis and other disease-testing and control measures could threaten the health of all animals, and again export markets.
We have already lost our market for semen amounting to millions of dollars, thanks to the recent blue tongue outbreaks. As a result of this outbreak of blue tongue in the Okanagan Valley, the federal government is moving veterinarians from across the nation to that area to test cattle as quickly as possible to prevent any further spread.
May 20, 1976

So far, about 4,300 cattle have been tested and 800 condemned for slaughter. The veterinarians have to move quickly so that the disease does not spread. This involves taking staff away from other important priority areas.
Aggravating this whole problem is the current salary negotiations between the veterinarians' union and the federal government Treasury Board. More militant veterinarians are now working to rule. Salary negotiations with Treasury Board have broken down. December 28, 1975, was the final date of the last contract with the government. The Treasury Board has offered a salary increase of between 8 per cent and 9 per cent, in spite of the fact that veterinarians' salaries have not kept up with inflation for the last four to five years. Treasury Board's excuse is that it cannot exceed the AIB guidelines. It makes one wonder if they are using the federal veterinarians as scapegoats in their vain attempt to be perceived as if they are trying to hold the line.
The veterinarians have conducted a work to rule campaign. So far there has not been any extensive disruption of service, unlike in the Post Office in past years, which seems to indicate that the veterinarians do certainly take their jobs seriously. The veterinarians maintain, and rightly so, that they have a historical relationship with primary products inspectors. The primary products inspectors work under the veterinarians at meat packing plants. They need only a grade 12 education compared to the veterinarians' six years of university. Yet with the new contract they are now being paid almost as much as veterinarians, and some even a little more than veterinarians.
The PPI's new contract was signed last October, and in it they received a 10 Vi per cent increase, yet the Treasury Board is offering only an 8 per cent to 9 per cent increase to the veterinarians. Historically the veterinarians have earned proportionately more than the PPI's. The veterinarians maintain that they can legally exceed the guidelines because of the historical relationship with the PPI's and because of a 27 per cent vacancy rate of veterinarians with Agriculture Canada.
The AIB states that a group of employees can be exempted from the guidelines if there is a 20 per cent or more vacancy rate in a department. In spite of this, the Treasury Board intends to ask that their dispute with the veterinarians go to conciliation. Once the conciliators have been selected, and a conciliation report prepared, each side can either accept or refuse the conciliation report's recommendations. If the recommendations are unacceptable, then the veterinarians could legally strike seven days after the report is handed down.
Canada cannot afford to have these veterinarians strike. There has been, and will continue to be, a heavy run of cattle, approximately 70,000 per week, and other slaughter animals to the meat packing plants. Since from 85 per cent to 90 per cent of all Canada's slaughtered animals go through federally inspected plants, these plants would have to close within a week if the veterinarians went on strike. As a result, 25,000 employees would have to be laid off. The producers would be hurt, not only by increasing feeding costs but also by the damage done to their animals through the delay in slaughter.
Business of Supply
Furthermore, a strike would ruin the pricing structure for slaughtered animals. As meat supplies dry up prices would invariably rise, to the detriment of the consumer. And once the strike is ended there would likely be a glut of slaughtered animals coming to market, which would mean that the producers would receive less money.
The veterinarians in the Health of Animals Branch deserve a better all round deal. If the Treasury Board is unwilling to grant them more, then perhaps Agriculture Canada could be encouraged to reclassify them upwards.
It should be noted that 77 per cent of the veterinarians fall within the two lowest pay levels. In contrast, the provinces have most of their veterinarians working in the higher pay levels.
The Canadian Veterinarian Medical Association and the other provincial associations, including the Ontario Veterinarian Association, are backing the federal veterinarians 100 per cent. They are in complete sympathy with them and understand the factors that have led to their action. The associations recognize that their current state of affairs is the direct result of the federal government's failure to respond to repeated requests to undertake a full and complete investigation of the professional role of the veterinarians, assuring them that their professional skills are not under-utilized and that they are given recognition for those skills by a constant upward classification of their jobs.
The associations have communicated and will continue to communicate with producer groups such as the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Meat Packers Council, the Pork Producers Marketing Board, the Ontario Poultry Council, as well as companies in the meat processing industry-urging them to request the government to reach an immediate agreement with the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, the negotiating agent for the veterinarians in their salary dispute.
The veterinary associations will continue to work with these and other interested groups, using all of their resources, as they feel this approach will produce a resolution to the current state of affairs on a long-term basis, which will be in the best interests of the public, the professionals involved, and the federal government.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, if the federal government expects to maintain and improve the high quality of veterinary services in Canada, this can only be accomplished by providing a climate which will attract and retain qualified people in jobs which should be both challenging and financially rewarding.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. As hon. members are aware, we are operating under a rule which calls on you, Sir, to bring this debate to an end at 9.45 p.m. The purpose of that rule is to allow 15 minutes in case there is to be a recorded vote. I understand-and I think my understanding is correct- that no such recorded vote is to be forced this evening, and I would like to suggest that you not see the clock for another 12 or 14 minutes so that some other speakers might take part in the debate. I could not be more impartial in
13740

May 20, 1976
Business of Supply
making this request because in this party we are not seeking any further opportunities to speak tonight.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Chairman, I rise on the same point of order. That would be agreeable, and I think the House leader of the Official Opposition agrees as well.


Walter David Baker: I would like to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the parliamentary secretary for the courtesy.


Charles Robert Turner: Is there unanimous consent that we do not see the clock until 10 p.m.?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, I would like to try to answer as many as possible of the questions that have been put to me, and also to make some comments on some of the statements that have been made. First of all the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek has made some statements that should be corrected. He spoke about petty politics between Canada and the United States. I had the impression he favoured free trade. He also spoke about duty on soya beans and some of the other products coming from the United States, which is much higher than ours. This is something that many people do not seem to understand. They think the United States is a free trading nation, but the fact is that they are probably one of the most protective nations in the world so far as their agricultural industry is concerned. Let me give as an example their meat importing laws, their tariff on corn, soya beans, vegetable oil, seeds of all kinds, and wool. I could give a list of about 30 agricultural products on which their duty is higher than ours.
Then the hon. member made some statements about the money we are spending on research. Let me say that from 1974-1975 to 1976-1977 the money we gave for research went up from $74 million to practically $100 million. We are putting more money into universities and more money into research. Our total on contracts increased to $2.1 million and our total for universities increased to $1.3 million.
Then the hon. member said that the European Community had supply management. I do not know where the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek got that. The members of the European Community do not have supply management and that is why, out of their total budget, which amounts to about $9.5 billion, they spend about $7.5 billion on agriculture, and with their surplus products they try to salvage the situation.
Then the hon. member made a comparison with Russia and said that Russia had supply management. I think this is a most unfair comparison. The USSR has no real system which would provide any incentive for a producer to be productive, and that is why their agriculture will never really be efficient. There is nothing that I intend to do to any marketing board that would take away from our people. Even the hon. member for Medicine Hat recognized that when he said our stabilization program assisted farmers to the tune of 90 per cent of the previous five years' average market price and the cost input was taken into account. This would not make millionaires of producers but it will prevent them from going bankrupt.

If I am accused of anything, it is of putting forward programs that create too much incentive for over production. If hon. members will remember, I stated that if I were in Russia I would be given a medal for the over production we have here. They have fired their minister of agriculture there because he could not get production.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Chairman, we still have one speaker who would like to say a few words-the hon. member for Joliette. If we could allow him to say a few words now, then perhaps the minister could wind up the debate. He has been here all evening.


Eugene Whelan: Some hon. members on both sides of the House have asked important questions and I am trying to answer them as quickly as possible. I will do my utmost to give a few members a few minutes at the end. I think it is unfair that we are not allowed to correct some of the statements that are made.
I spoke about the hon. member who made the comparison. That is one of the things that people are so amazed about, that in Canadian agriculture there are so few people who are producing so much. Marketing boards have been with us since 1926, two years less than the age of the Minister of Agriculture. That is quite a long time. They have made agriculture productive and they have protected the little farmer so he can stay in business.
I am sure the hon. member remembers what started the Canadian Wheat Board, the greatest marketing system in the world for cereal grains, a supply management system. You cannot rush grains to the market if the Canadian Wheat Board cannot sell them, so you are put on a quota. Even the former chairman of the Food Prices Review Board said it was the ideal thing. There is no better system in the world than that marketing board. It is not socialism. The hon. member would not dare suggest in his riding that marketing boards should be banned, nor would he suggest that the Canadian Grain Commission should be banned. That was started by the government of 1935, the grain commission and wheat board, to protect the interests of those farmers because they were being taken down the river for a merry ride. I just think we should be fair when we are talking about some of these things.
I believe it was the hon. member for Rimouski who made a certain statement, but he is not in the House so I do not know if I should bother trying to answer his question. He said monthly milk quotas were stupid, and I think it should be put on the record that we want 12 months of production per year. If producers produce all their milk in three months and sell their cows, they will have the subsidy for the whole year and their whole quota, and there would be utter chaos. There would be no supply management at all. Nothing could be more stupid than to suggest filling a quota in five or six months, quit milking cows and then ship the cattle to the slaughterhouse.
The hon. member talked about slums in Montreal. Montreal has Expo and-what do you call that other thing-the Olympics, and I am suggesting that, by God, if Montreal can have those things, it can feed skim milk powder to the people in Montreal and in the province of Quebec. I said when the hon. member was not here that Nova Scotia is
May 20, 1976

doing that, and Nova Scotia is a much smaller province. If Montreal wants to work with the Minister of National Health and Welfare, he has told me that he is willing to try to work out programs, but they should not ask the farmers of Canada to do it alone. Let total society do it.
Another hon. member, who is not here either, asked many questions, and then went out. He is a city slicker.


Walter David Baker: He is a member from your side, the hon. member for Scarborough East.


Eugene Whelan: He wanted to know about young farmers and what I would suggest we should do to attract them to farming. I can tell the hon. member that since 1973 more young farmers have stayed in agriculture and more have gone back to it than was the case for 25 years in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Why have they gone back? Because they have confidence in this government's agricultural program, the stabilization program, marketing boards guaranteeing stabilization, and the Farm Credit Corporation making it possible for them to get money. They could not get it before, and now 65 per cent of the loans from the Farm Credit Corporation are going to young people under the age of 35 years.
The hon. member talked about farm lands owned by foreigners and whether we should be controlling that. He also talked about land use. The Department of the Environment, under the Minister of the Environment, is leading the provincial environmental ministers and working in very close co-operation with the federal Department of Agriculture and provincial departments of agriculture to try to work out a sensible land use policy for agriculture. I just want to ask the hon. member who asked this question about land use whether we should just say it shall be held for agriculture. I see he is coming back. He was getting hell while he was outside.
We are not going to get people interested in agriculture by saying that a particular piece of land must remain in agriculture and that they are going to stay on it. That is what they try to do in Russia and other countries, and they wonder why we have productivity. We cannot do that and expect productivity unless we can make sure producers get their proper return. I agree with the hon. member that pretty well every acre which can be cultivated is under cultivation, but we could increase productivity in many areas by as much as 50 per cent in five years with better horticultural practices, better seed, better fertilizer, better drainage and all the things. However, there had better be a better economic base to entice them to do that so that they will be protected.
The hon. member asked another question about foreigners. The provinces have the right to stop foreigners from owning land. The only condition under which the federal government can become involved is if the land is worth over $250,000, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce through FIRA can make some representations and discourage them, or tell them they cannot have it unless they comply with the rules.
I think something should be done because land in Canada is still cheap when we compare it to the $30,000 per acre in our money in Holland for productive land. When we go to the southwestern part of Ontario, orchard land
Business of Supply
costs $1,500 per acre, and for a person from Holland that is very inexpensive.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Come on, Gene.


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member mentioned consumers being on marketing boards. I am in favour of that. I was against it at one time, but they are strong representatives, especially if they are from labour.


Mr.   La Salle@: Mr. Chairman, my comments will have to be very brief. I would still like to make a few points, and I am greatly honoured to speak after the minister. I had the impression that the minister was very embarrassed by the answers he had to give. I must admit that he wants to help farmers. I would also like to say that he has made some efforts to stabilize the farming industry. But as I have not much time, I shall not quote many statistics. I would however like to remind the minister that despite all the efforts of this gouvernment, despite all the goodwill that he showed tonight, despite his efforts to reply to the recommendations or accusations made since this afternoon, it still remains that we find ourselves in a very difficult situation.
Why is it that even though the government talks about its best system, about an ever-improving production, and one which is the best in the world per producer, nearly all groups are dissatisfied? It is important for the minister to know this.
There are neither wonder solutions nor easy solutions. But let me remind you and let me insist particularly-and others have spoken about it before me-on the situation of the dairy producers in Quebec. Whatever the minister may have said in the House today, last year, because of a very favourable weather, we had excess production. The way things are going, this situation will not happen again. To my mind, the minister should study this really particular situation we had last year and try to improve the situation of the industrial milk producers. I know that the system is different in various provinces but in Quebec there is a situation of fact and we have enough members opposite to indicate to the minister the importance of the problems that now face the industrial milk producers.
So what are they going to do? Are they going to let them sell part of their herds? Are they going to let the producers keep on sending their herds to auctions? I think these questions should be asked and the Federation of Industrial Milk Producers of Quebec has certainly very serious reasons to ask for the resignation of the CDC. If the minister means that the Quebec federation is wrong, he should say so. If he means that an important part of the dairy production of Quebec should be lost, he should also say so. I think it is important that all these questions be answered and it is also important that the CDC seriously consider the difficulties that face the milk producers in Quebec. Mr. Chairman, I would have many other things to say but I understand by your last sign that we are nearing ten o'clock. May I say that it is ten o'clock?


Charles Robert Turner: Order, please. It being after 9.45 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section 9(a) and 9(c) of Standing Order 58, to interrupt these proceedings and to
95568 - 36)4

May 20, 1976
Adjournment Motion
put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the proceedings.
Shall Agriculture-Vote 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Agriculture-Vote 1 agreed to.


Charles Robert Turner: Shall I report the resolution?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolution reported and concurred in.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, May 17, as recorded in Hansard, page 13561, I put the following question to my hon. friend, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald):
Now that Bill C-92, which provides compensation for Canadian veterans who were pensioners of war, is in effect, will the minister and his department study the possibility of bringing in legislation to implement one of the recommendations of the Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs which was not included in Bill C-92, namely, the provision of pro-rated pensions for widows of veterans where the veteran's disability pension was less than 48 per cent.
I was grateful to the minister on Monday for at least leaving the door open, and I am grateful to him for being here this evening for this late show when we are discussing this important question.
A great deal of gratitude is being expressed by veterans in this country for Bill C-92, which provides compensation for former prisoners of war. But there are some who are aware of the fact that when the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs recommended the provisions which are now in Bill C-92, it also recommended what was implied in my question, that the Pension Act should be amended to provide pro-rated pensions for widows of veterans where the veteran's disability pension was less than 48 per cent. As hon. members are aware, if a veteran was on a pension of 48 per cent or more, his widow draws a full widow's pension under the Pension Act. But if the veteran's disability pension was less than 48 per cent, the widow is cut off completely from any widow's pension as a matter of right.
This matter has been the subject of discussion for many years, and I can say that in recent years the Standing
[The Deputy Chairman.]
Committee on Veterans Affairs has recommended, at least three or perhaps four times, a provision such as the one contained in the report we tabled on June 12, 1975.
The minister is aware of the arguments, just as I am, and I shall not try to repeat them tonight; but I do feel that now that we have Bill C-92 on the statute books, this piece of unfinished business should be raised again so that we can press the minister to push hard for it both in the department and with his colleagues in cabinet. It seems most unfair that there is this cut-off point. None of us has ever suggested that the widow's pension should be 100 per cent in the case where the veteran's disability pension was of a low percentage but we are suggesting that where the veteran's disability pension was below 48 per cent there should be a pro-rated pension for the widow of that veteran.
I appeal to the minister's concern in this matter, to his well established sympathy for veterans' widows, and to the capacity he has shown to win at least some gains from his fellow cabinet ministers.
Before I sit down may I remind the minister that in my supplementary question the other day I also referred to the fact that, although the committee had recommended that the compensation for prisoners of war should be available to all former prisoners of war, the act as it is now on the statute books covers only those who were prisoners of war in World War II. The number of World War I veterans who were prisoners and are still alive is now very limited and I hope consideration may be given to covering them, as well, under an amended form of Bill C-92.
I again thank the minister for coming back this evening to hear my pleas on these two points. I do not expect an answer tonight as to when legislation is going to be introduced, but I do express the hope that he will work hard on these two important points.


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to reply to the question by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) regarding the suggested provision of prorated pensions for widows of pensioners whose disability was less than 48 per cent.
I am aware, and the government is aware, that recommendations have been made to provide pro rata pensions for widows of disability pensioners. At the present time a widow will be pensioned if her husband's death was attributable to service or was incurred during wartime. In addition, if her husband's pensionable disabilities were assessed at 48 per cent or more during his lifetime, she would be eligible for widow's pension.
I believe that percentage was selected because at that rate they were obviously seriously disabled and it was considered that the pensionable condition might play a part, however small, in the pensioner's death. On the other hand, if someone is pensioned at 5 per cent for flat feet and dies from a different cause, his death bears no relationship to his pensioned condition and the question arises as to whether a pension should be paid for an unrelated death.
Canada does not take a back seat to any country in so far as our pension legislation is concerned. The benefits we provide for the disabled serviceman or woman or their surviving dependants are far greater than those provided

May 20, 1976

by most other countries. I am not aware of any of our major western wartime allies who pay automatic survivor benefits to widows on any basis even approaching the 48 per cent basis which we in Canada use.
Having said that, I must also say that the entire matter of veterans benefits, and that includes pro rated widow's pensions, is always under constant review by the Department of Veterans Affairs and by the Canadian Pension Commission and the other agencies of my ministry, to see what changes can be made to improve the lot of the veterans and their dependants.


IMMIGRATION-IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF DUBE INQUIRY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, since 1973 the federal government has been conducting intensively a comprehensive review of Canada's immigration policy. With the publication of the green paper on immigration in December, 1974, the final report of the Special Joint Committee on Immigration Policy in November, 1975, and the Economic Council of Canada reports "Options for Growth" in 1975 and "People and Jobs Study" in 1976, the government should have sufficient information and enough recommendations for an up to date Immigration Act helping to direct the flow of future immigrants and the population growth in our country.
Canada's exceptional economic growth is due not just to good governments, but above all to its human resources- the brave, hardworking settlers from France, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and other countries of Europe, and from other continents. The energies and talents of these settlers and of the immigrants who followed them are making an increasing contribution to the development, defence, and prosperity of Canada. Today new pressures and needs have arisen and they are clamouring for attention and solution which we should provide without fear because we are a nation with sufficient diversity and richness, as well as productive capacity, and an awareness of our international responsibilities. Therefore there is no reason to further delay action in this matter.
It is becoming more and more urgent to deal quickly with these new problems, the results of our anachronistic, obsolescent, and unfair laws, regulations and attitudes. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) has promised us a new Immigration Act for this fall. In the meantime problems, abuses, frustration and, indeed, personal tragedies are piling up. As a result Judge Claire L'Heureux-Dube was appointed special commissioner to conduct an inquiry into certain problems in the Department of Manpower and Immigration.
In January, 1976, the commissioner submitted a report outlining just a few flagrant shortcomings and recommending ways in which the minister should, on an urgent basis, put some order into the application of current regulations and practices. Among others, the commissioner made statements urging improvements in the legal representation available to visitors, and recommending the expansion of legal aid plans as well as the establishment of a system of control over those representing persons dealing
Adjournment Motion
with the immigration department in order to ensure a standard of competence and ethics.
The commissioner called attention in paragraph 370 of the report to the need to prevent the exploitation of persons wishing to become landed immigrants by ensuring adequate information services both here and abroad. There is a great need to provide appropriate information in the language of the visitor and of the potential immigrant to Canada. Furthermore, there is even today a lack of sufficient numbers of expert interpreters whose services are available to people seeking assistance from the Immigration Department.
Another serious aspect of the immigration issue is the working of the appeal system. I should like to refer to the testimony of the chairperson of the Immigration Appeal Board before the Special Joint Committee on September 23, 1975, which revealed that the appeal system is, and I quote:
-unnecessarily complex, cumbersome and unjust and that the present appeal system to the Board in relation to refugees and citizenship claims is a shambles, and something has to be done about it.
The chairperson of the Appeal Board went on to make at least three very good recommendations. We are all waiting for long overdue action on these recommendations, for justice delayed is justice denied.


Mr. Arthur Portelance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, Judge l'Heureux-Dube has clearly indicated in her report that the legislation in force in 1972 had given rise to some problems at that time. Since then however, the Immigration Act and its regulations as well as the Immigration Appeal Board Act have been substantially altered to correct some problems mentioned in the report of Judge Dube. The changes are briefly as follows:
a) In November 1972, any individual who wanted to immigrate to Canada had to file an application to one of our offices abroad; b) during the same year, some regulations concerning employment visas were enforced to enable the department to control the number of non-immigrants accepting employment in Canada; c) in 1973, the Immigration Appeal Board Act was amended to restrict the right of appeal to some group of persons; d) in 1974, amendments were brought to the immigration regulations so that the selection procedure would be more responsive to the needs of the labour market.
The actions taken following Judge Dube's report are as follows: a) four of the six persons judged severely by the report no longer work for the department, and the disciplinary actions recommended in the report were taken against the other two. Briefly here are the disciplinary measures taken in each case:
1.	Laurence Doirion-fired
2.	Georges-Etienne Desrochers-retired before the report was published
3.	Brian Purdon-fired
4.	Vic Bellemare-fired
5.	Gaston Therrien-suspended (10 days)
6.	R. Primeau-severely admonished

May 20, 1976
Adjournment Motion
b) Selection procedures for the training and supervision of immigration officers were improved, and we intend to do more in this area, c) We followed the recommendation whereby we should increase our investigation and enforcement methods, d) To protect work visa holders against exploitation we took the following steps: First, regularly check working conditions; second, consider the possibility of imposing severe penalties to employers posting false employment conditions; third, give the employment visa holder a letter explaining to him his rights, his salary and the employment conditions that the employer undertook to respect.
Following the Dube report certain policies are now subject to revision:	the l'Heureux-Dube report clearly
expresses the opinion-which we share-that our legislation on immigration is outmoded and behind the times. So all efforts are being coordinated to introduce as soon as possible in this House a new legislation on immigration. However, we are now reviewing a number of recommendations contained in the report to be able to bring about the necessary corrections. So here is in a concise form the steps we took on the basis of those recommendations:
1-	The department is expanding its training program and considering the systems used in Britain and the United States.
2-	We are amending the regulations and guidelines applicable to applications for permanent residence by "businessmen".
3-	Improvement has already been brought about to ensure better checks at ports of entry and more efficient methods of investigation.
4-	We are considering the possibilities of requiring a visa from visitors from countries from which come a substantial number of people without legal immigrant status. Indeed, that problem is part of a much larger situation.
5-	Setting up a system whereby employers must check the right to work of an applicant before hiring him; that procedure requires changes to the legislation and regulations, and the use-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret I have to interrupt the parliamentary secretary but his allotted time has expired.


IMMIGRATION-REQUEST FOR EARLY DECISION ON APPLICATION OF STEVEN BADGER FOR LANDED IMMIGRANT STATUS
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I asked the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) whether he would review the application for landed immigrant status of one Steve Badger, and Australian citizen who wants to swim for the Canadian Olympic team. Support for this view has come from many supporters of Canada's Olympic effort. In fact it is backed by the Canadian Olympic Association, it has been backed by various editorials, and it has been backed by various newspaper articles. Badger himself has said that he cannot afford the price of a plane ticket back to Australia, and he hopes to stay in Canada to take out Canadian citizenship and become a Canadian citizen.

Added to that, Mr. Speaker, he has received job offers both from national and provincial swimming associations. If he had the opportunity of reapplying outside of Canada, as he did in San Francisco a little while ago, he would in fact qualify under all the terms of the Immigration Act. Not only that but the Department of National Health and Welfare expends millions of dollars encouraging fitness and participaction. Our Olympic athletes are supported by that department and I know that the officials of that department would like to see Steve Badger swim for Canada.
This afternoon the minister tried to sluff off his responsibilities and brought out the so-called Commonwealth switch, arguing that if Badger wants to become a citizen of Canada, if Bill C-20 is passed three years' residency would be necessary before he could do so, so he still could not swim for Canada in 1976. Mr. Speaker, that simply is not true. Under the IOC rules, section 28(4) provides that he would do so only one year after the date on which the person concerned last represented his former country, but in this case only with the agreement of the two national sports federations, the approval of the relevant international federation, and the permission of the IOC.
Steve Badger has also received permission from the Australian Olympic Committee. He has received permission from the Canadian Olympic Committee. These two bodies have talked to FIN A, which is in charge of the international scene, and FINA has told them that once the documentation is in its hands IOC approval should be forthcoming and it sees absolutely no problem. And so, Mr. Speaker, citizenship is not the issue.
The real issue is this. The minister does not want to take a new look at this situation. He says that he does not want to make exceptions. I want to show the House the exceptions that the department is making which are a travesty and a shame.
A document from the minister received in my office today shows that last year, 1975, 21,202 ministerial approvals were made, and I should like to refer to some of them. There were 468 approvals of persons who had been convicted or admitted to having committed crimes involving moral terpitude; there were seven approvals of prostitutes, homosexuals or persons living off the avails of prostitution or homosexuality; 52 persons using, selling or distributing drugs, and one person likely to engage in activity detrimental to the security of Canada. There were 20,304 persons who could not or did not comply with any of the conditions or regulations of the Immigration Act or the regulations and orders under it.
If I sound agitated today it is because I am. I am incredulous at what has gone on in the Department of Immigration. Is this the type of people we want? The minister has the power to change the whole situation. Mr. Badger could swim for Canada. He could win a medal, the Canadian flag could be raised at the Olympic site and the anthem could be played. He could be representing us, but he is not good enough for the administration or the department, but apparently pimps, prostitutes, and others who are likely to be a risk to our security are acceptable.
May 20, 1976

I simply want to conclude by saying I do not want a stock answer from the parliamentary secretary. I want him to review this case. Let me quote one paragraph from the Winnipeg Tribune of May 8 as follows:
Surely officials of this department can lift their noses out of their sacred rule books and see before them a young man who has said he wants to swim for Canada, wants to practice law in Canada after graduation, and most important, wants to help other young Canadian swimmers. Or is Canada over-stocked with individuals of such special abilities?
What are we doing in this country? There are people who are willing to contribute and offer support. In fact there is a petition which came from Winnipeg today with 5,000 names. They know Steve Badger. They know he wants to qualify and can fulfil the requirements. He cannot qualify, but someone who has broken the law apparently can. Mr. Speaker, I want an answer.


Arthur Portelance: Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain briefly the remarks made this afternoon by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) in answer to the question of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) concerning Mr. Steven Badger. First I want to make it clear that the present immigrant status enjoyed by Mr. Badger is not corollary to his eventually becoming a member of the Canadian Olympic swimming team. The latter case is exclusively subject to the Olympic rules.
These rules first require that competitors be citizens of the country they represent. Under the Canadian citizenship legislation, Mr. Badger would therefore have, in order to apply for citizenship in our country, to have been a resident in Canada for five years. However, a more recent Olympic ruling applicable to the citizens of the Commonwealth travelling to member countries might allow Mr. Adjournment Motion
Badger to swim with the Canadian Olympic team. Once again, the immigrant status of Mr. Badger in Canada would not be the deciding factor.
I should like to add certain facts pertaining to Mr. Badger's wish to obtain landed immigrant status in Canada: Mr. Badger first came to Canada as a student in November 1974. In September 1975, he went to our office in San Fransisco and applied for permanent residence in Canada. He then gave an address in Kansas City, though he lived in Canada under his status as a student. The request was therefore turned down since, as a student, Mr. Badger did not meet all selection criteria as an immigrant.
On February 17, 1976, Mr. Badger got in touch with our office in Winnipeg and requested permanent entry in Canada without leaving the country. We explained to Mr. Badger that he could not be allowed in as an immigrant. Humanitarian considerations alone could justify an exception to Canadian immigration criteria, and this case does not seem to involve any.
The eligibility of Mr. Badger for landed immigrant status does not depend at all on his success or his failure to become a member of our Olympic team.
According to the selection procedure, the people of all countries-except for sponsored people and refugees- must meet the same criteria to become immigrants. Mr. Badger is free to make his application at one of our offices abroad. If he did so, his case would be evaluated as in September last according to the criteria and his ability to become an immigrant would then be decided upon.

May I just add a few words concerning one of the remarks of the hon. member for Provencher in respect of the list of special permits. I would refer him to the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the committee of last Tuesday afternoon. At that committee an explanation was given concerning the reason these permits were issued.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

Friday, May 21, 1976