1977-05-03

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning an important and urgent matter.
To prevent the diverging constitutional positions which are now being expressed on the future of our country from bringing forth government decisions that could be contrary to the financial interests of the people of Quebec, and given the statements of certain ministers and the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself concerning the possibility of depriving Quebec of the development resulting from the administrative decentralization of the federal government, and since unconditional federalists could be greatly tempted to impose hardship on the people of Quebec to discredit the Quebec government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the federal government give Quebec an amount equivalent to the investment it would refuse to make on the territory of that province.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Prime Minister relates to a matter I raised
some ten or 12 days ago. I wonder if the Prime Minister could now give the House of Commons an unequivocal commitment that this House will be able to debate the recommendations of the National Energy Board on a northern pipeline before a final decision is taken by the government on a northern pipeline, even if that requires bringing the House back in the summer.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know when the National Energy Board will bring down its report. Perhaps when I learn that date I will be able to give the hon. gentleman an answer.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we understand the Prime Minister has indicated that it is his firm intention to try to have the National Energy Board report in hand so that a decision might be taken by the government of Canada before September 1. Assuming that is the case, can we have a commitment from the Prime Minister, acting on that assumption, that the House of Commons will have an opportunity to discuss the National Energy Board report on a northern pipeline before the government takes a final decision?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe the two questions are quite identical, Mr. Speaker.


PROPOSAL TO REFER BERGER REPORT TO COMMITTEE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Charles Joseph Clark: We are now into the third week of the government of Canada refusing to answer a question as to whether the parliament of Canada will have the opportunity to discuss and debate before a decision is taken on a matter which is of great consequence to the country, namely, a northern pipeline. Will the Prime Minister now give us an unequivocal commitment that immediately upon receipt of the report of Mr. Justice Berger, he will refer that report to the appropriate standing committee of the House of Commons with a request that that standing committee report back to the whole House before the end of this session of parliament?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will be glad to discuss that matter with my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Charles Joseph Clark: Will the Prime Minister now give the House of Commons a clear commitment that when there is, as we expect there will be, a reference to the appropriate committees of the

May 3, 1977
Oral Questions
House of the reports of the Berger and National Energy Board inquiries, that members of parliament will have access to all documents prepared for or by the government of Canada relative to a northern pipeline, including any consultant reports relating to possible cost over-runs.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will make sure that the usual rules apply in this case.


OIL-POSSIBILITY OF CHANGES IN POLICY ON ROYALTIES AND TAXES
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It concerns frontier energy development stemming from the current low level of development in the north and especially in light of a lack of enthusiasm on the part of investors in frontier energy development. Today it seems that, according to Mr. Joel Bell, the director of Corporate Development in Petro-Canada, the government now recognizes the need for reductions in its royalties and tax regime. Will the minister tell the House whether this is government policy and in addition when he will be advising the House on any reversals of his May 1976 Canada Oil and Gas Regulation policy statement?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would refer the hon. member to answers I have given to the House. Those answers indicated that some months ago 1 raised the question with the government of Alberta as to changes in their royalty arrangement on the understanding that we would consider comparable arrangements on our side with a view to making the commercial viability of a third tarsands plant possible. Those meetings have been going on for many months. They are not a secret. This is not the first time the information given by Mr. Joel Bell has been given to the public. Indeed, I made it quite clear in this House on a number of occasions that this work was underway. I hope within a matter of a very few weeks it will be possible for ministers to sit down and address themselves to the issues that officials have identified with respect to the implications of the tax changes on both sides for the financing of a new tarsands plant.


Douglas Charles Neil: In view of the fact that during the seven years of procrastination and delay by this government Great Britain managed to develop a major oil province in the North Sea in an extremely hostile environment, will the minister tell this House whether or not he will be able to introduce into first reading by this summer the legislation which has for so long been promised?


Alastair William Gillespie: That is my hope, Mr. Speaker.


NORTHERN PIPELINE-RECONSIDERATION OF COMMITMENT TO PRESIDENT CARTER TO MAKE DECISION BY SEPTEMBER
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: I have a question for the Prime Minister which also concerns the pipeline. Considering the fact that the National Energy Board study is
[Mr. Clark.)
proceeding at a rate which can only be called farcical, and given that the study of the Alcan route is being compressed into some three months compared with the two and a half years required for the Berger study, I should like to ask the Prime Minister, considering the major impact the pipeline decision will have on the Canadian economy as a whole, involving, as it does, billions of dollars, and its impact on the northwest of Canada, whether he would reconsider the commitment he made to President Carter to have a Canadian decision made by September 1 ?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As I have said at least three times in the House, my commitment was to do our best to get our choice expressed to the president by early in the fall. This is not a commitment we are obliged to give or which I feel I have to give the president; it is in Canada's interest, as I have explained earlier, to make our choice lest the opportunity be removed from us. The hon. member knows that if we cannot make up our minds the Americans will go the El Paso route and this is not, with certainty, in Canada's interests. It is in our interest to make the choice which is best for us, and in order to do that we must move within a certain time frame.


John Edward Broadbent: Would the Prime Minister be a little clearer about the time frame? I ask him to do so with specific reference to the speeding up process in which the National Energy Board engaged, one which makes a farce of any serious study of the issues involved, in the narrow timeframe for the Alcan route study and, most particularly since the recent appointment of Mr. Basil Robinson in order, to use the Prime Minister's words, to anticipate some of the various reports. Would the right hon. gentleman not agree that the steps the government is taking with regard to all these various aspects of the decision make it appear very much that it is simply acting foolishly on its own behalf or else responding to American pressure?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I fail to see the logic of that remark, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: It is not the first time logic has escaped the Prime Minister. Considering the billions of dollars involved in this decision and its impact, particularly, on the northwest of Canada, does the Prime Minister feel that all the various components which are going into the study can be adequately resolved as a basis for a serious decision prior to September 1 ?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: All I can say is that we shall do our best. Obviously, if we cannot make our decision the Americans will do it for us; the Americans will go another route.


An hon. Member:: Oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, "Oh!". Perhaps the hon. member does not understand the alternatives. Perhaps he will consult with his leader on the front bench about not only his understanding but the logic of the reality.
May 3, 1977


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Ren6 Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Bearing in mind his remarks and those of some of his ministers with regard to the possibility that Quebec might be deprived of investments as a result of the administrative decentralization of the federal government, can the Prime Minister tell us whether that is merely a threat to prevent the adoption of the Charter of the French Language in Quebec, or a plan that may be implemented?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, as I am in charge of that program, I shall reply to the hon. member. When we launched our decentralization program, we took into account the language needs in all cases. For instance, in two cases we chose localities in New Brunswick, namely Moncton and Bathurst, which have Francophone possibilities. Under the circumstances, we must ensure that the civil servants who are asked to move there can be educated in the official language of the country, as they did here in Ottawa. That was one of the topics I discussed with the representatives of those employees who, as union leaders, insisted naturally, and rightly so to my mind, that the rights of their members be respected.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to miss the point of the question somewhat. Francophones could be sent to work in Quebec. It is as simple as that. In any event, I would ask the right hon. Prime Minister, or the minister who just replied, whether the government is willing to hand over to the Quebec government the amounts of money which would not be invested in Quebec by the federal government in the field of administration? Will the government simply hand over those amounts of money to Quebec?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is not merely a matter of transferring money. It is a question of ensuring that the federal government does not concentrate all its activities in the national capital, and of using that decentralization program to spur economic activity in some parts of Quebec. I must say that the people in Matane, Shawinigan and Jonquiere, who have benefitted from the decentralization program so far, were very pleased with the federal government activity in that regard.
Oral Questions
[DOT] (M20)


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In light of the release today by the railway transport committee of the CTC of the preferred plan for western transcontinental passenger service, which thankfully did not go nearly as far in disintegrating our national passenger service as the minister and his advisers would have wished, would the minister consider further instruction or directive to the CTC asking that they have one more round of public hearings, at least in the western provincial capitals, to ensure that all parties will be satisfied with the minister's commitment in his statement of January 29 last year that open and full consultation will in fact be adhered to?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the commission will consider that and look at the issue of what it should do in the way of any further public consultation as it receives the various interventions and comments upon its plans.


J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Again in light of his statement of January 29, 1976 that his department would conduct, in parallel to the study by the CTC, studies by technical support and planning committees for the purpose of developing details of passenger services within government policy and guidelines, is the minister now in a position to table in this House those studies? If not, is it because they are not prepared or finalized yet; if so, when they are would the minister then give consideration to making them available to the members of the House?


Otto Emil Lang: 
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister to whom I want to express my best wishes on the eve of his trip to Europe.
As he is to take part in the London economic summit called by the leader of the government of Great Britain, could he tell us whether he was informed by him of the agenda of the meeting? If so, can he give the House a general outline of it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I thank the hon. member for his good wishes. I am
5222

May 3, 1977
Oral Questions
sure that the work we will have accomplished there will be in the best interests of Canada.
The general outline of the agenda is the following: there will be a discussion on macro-economy within the various countries participating and on the effects of our mutual policies as regards, for example, inflation and unemployment. We will also address ourselves to the matter of free commercial exchanges. Energy will also be the third item on the agenda. Finally, there will be a discussion on north-south dialogue, particularly on the work done at the conference of the Paris International Committee, which is chaired by my colleague the President of the Privy Council.


REASON CANADA AND ITALY NOT PRESENT AT PRELIMINARY MEETING IN VERSAILLES
Claude Wagner: I would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Has the Prime Minister or one of his colleagues been informed in advance of a preliminary meeting held in Versailles some ten days ago, a meeting of five out of the seven participants in the economic summit, and could he tell us why neither Canada nor Italy have been represented at this preliminary meeting?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not been personally informed of that in advance. I first heard about that only this morning, but I am told that this meeting was held within the framework of previous meetings of the group which is commonly referred to as G-5 and which meets on a regular basis.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture.
On March 30, 1977, the minister received from his Quebec counterpart a letter expressing concern by the Quebec government over the massive import of the U.S. chicken surplus which amounts to 54 million pounds. In light of the Quebec government claims and of the absence of any specific action at the federal government level, as mentioned in his letter by provincial minister Jean Garon, can the minister tell the House whether he has taken these claims into account and how he intends to cope with the situation to protect Quebec chicken producers?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, when dealing with this issue I have to deal with it as a national problem. We have received the same kind of request from every province in Canada, excepting one and I believe that province is Alberta. Every other province has made a similar

request to that of the Quebec minister. That issue is being considered, at the present time. I want to make it clear that this request is coming from the producers, from the provincial ministers and from the provincial governments that make up Canada. It will be considered by Cabinet shortly.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM ALLEGED EXISTENCE OF GREEN PAPER ON ENDING CONTROLS-FORMULATION OF TARGET INDICATORS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. I would point out to the Minister of Finance that his parliamentary secretary last week in Hamilton indicated that there is in existence a federal green paper dealing with the problems and methods of ending controls which will be introduced within a month. My question to the minister is: is such a paper in existence, and when will details be released?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary secretary has confirmed to me that he did not say the green paper was in existence. There is work being done on that green paper. As a matter of fact, we are meeting tomorrow with the provincial finance ministers for the purpose of talking about the subject of the green paper-the decontrol and the post-control period. When we have been put in a position to digest the input from the provincial governments, we will then be in a position to complete the work and would hope to put it before parliament later this month.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the minister tell his parliamentary secretary to stop deceiving and misleading the Canadian public.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: My second question is this: in light of the fact the minister said in Montreal yesterday that he is thinking about whether he should bring about target indicators, which involves growth, prices, wages and government spending, I am wondering how the minister can go to the provinces, to businessmen and labour without having these target indicators. Will he indicate to the House right now that the target indicators are matters of necessity before any meaningful negotiation can take place with respect to voluntary restraints which the minister is seeking?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on the hon. gentleman's first comment, may I point out that it is he who is misleading the House in attempting to put words in the mouth of my parliamentary secretary-words he did not use. It seems to me that that is rather a disreputable tactic.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paproski:: Shame on you, Macdonald!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: A Big Mac attack!
May 3, 1977


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It has become clear to us, for the purpose of monitoring settlements and wage increases in the post-control period, that it is important to try to set a reasonable standard by which parties may be guided. One of the purposes of the discussion is to find out whether there can be an effective agreement among the interested economic decision makers on something like target indicators, which can be of assistance in the post-control period.


CONFLICTING STATEMENTS ON TARGET FOR INFLATION-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: My supplementary question is to the Minister of Finance. The Spectator, like most newspapers, does not tell lies.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Just ask John Munro.


An hon. Member:: What about that, Munro?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The former chairman and the present chairman have indicated that the inflation target for the second year will be 7 per cent rather than 6 per cent, as the Minister of Finance indicated to the Canadian people in his budget speech. Would the minister care to comment on the statement recently made by the former chairman of the AIB?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Again may I correct the hon. gentleman. I indicated in the budget speech that of course a guideline has been set down in the anti-inflation program, but I also indicated that because of upward pressures on prices it will be a very difficult target to meet. It is clear that with upward pressures coming from the cost of imported goods, food and energy it might be a difficult target to meet. I hope we will not reach the 7 per cent level, but this will depend on events through the year.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Thomas H. Lefebvre (Pontiac):: Mr. Speaker, the decision by Hilton Mines Limited in Pontiac to phase out its operations, resulting in a loss of 350 jobs and a payroll of approximately $4.5 million a year, is creating serious economic problems in the area. I have two questions to ask, Mr. Speaker, so I hope you will allow me a supplementary.

My first question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Can the minister give the people who are affected by this lay-off the assurance that his department is looking into this situation and actively involved in the search for solutions, either by declaring this a designated area or by creating an industrial park where interested industries could
Oral Questions
establish and accordingly become eligible for subsidies from his department?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I must say it is unfortunate, but the firm had to close down its operation. It had to for the quite understandable reason that the ore deposit was largely exhausted.
As to what my department could do to alleviate the problems resulting from the closing down of this mine, the hon. member is certainly aware that we have considered the situation very closely, that we have offered to help as much as our means will allow and, as we have indicated, that we are ready to help any industry interested in settling down in the region which is already a designated area for DREE purposes.
As to the other programs or projects or possibilities of assistance for workers in this sector, we are willing to consider what short-term measures we can take. As far as long-term measures are concerned, I am afraid we shall have to wait for a while and see what we can do directly and what change, if any, we must make to our program.


MANPOWER
Thomas Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Will the minister ascertain that his officials give high priority to the needs of the employees of the Hilton Mines so that they may be aware of all help available to them through his department's programs, including retraining courses, manpower mobility relocation grants, and others which will help them in the short-term while long-term solutions are being studied?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The supplementary question is clearly a representation.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD SUGGESTED REVIEW OF DECISION AFFECTING EMPLOYEES OF WINNIPEG HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, a week ago today I asked the Minister of Finance a question regarding a rollback effected by the Anti-Inflation Board with respect to a settlement achieved between the Winnipeg Health Sciences Centre and the more than 1,300 of its employees who are represented by the Canadian Union of Public Employees. My question had to do with the unfairness of the rollback in view of the fact that the purpose of the settlement was to achieve a measure of equality between the male and female employees at the Health Sciences Centre.
5224

May 3, 1977
Oral Questions
Has the minister had discussions with the AIB about this unfair rollback and has he any good news to give today?


An hon. Member:: Or the usual?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have had a report from the board on this question. It is a rather elaborate response, but in general terms I can say that the board felt it has been just in its application of the program to the re-evaluation program that was underway there. They feel that it will be possible for the workers to make the economic adjustment that was intended by the program. The board stressed, however, that it would be prepared to hear further recommendations from any interested party on this question if they would like to bring them up at this time. If I could say to the hon. member, and indeed to the members of the bargaining unit who made the application, they might like to refer again to the board on the question of the decision, and I personally would be pleased to see them put their case to the board again with their criticism of the decision made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance if he will also make his own representations to the board, particularly in view of the stand the government has taken in the House with respect to equal pay for equal work. In view of the fact that there are changes taking place in the chairmanship of the board, would the minister, in particular, make representations to the vice-chairman, reminding her of her stand for equal pay for work of equal value?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The fact that the vice-chairman, who has such an outstanding record on behalf of women's rights, has participated in the decision is one of the best assurances of the fairness of the board's conclusions. I would say that I have complete confidence in the judgment that the board would bring to bear on this question. If there is further information which the bargaining unit should emphasize or should bring to the attention of the board, then I hope they will take every opportunity to do so.


TARIFF BOARD
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As it is over five years since a report was first requested from the Tariff Board by the then minister of finance with respect to the computer industry in Canada, would the minister indicate when this report will be tabled, bearing in mind that this is a highly innovative and changing field and it is now so long since the testimony was first received that many have forgotten the reference was even requested, some have died, and others do not believe that today's problems have any similarity with those five years ago?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am
glad to take that question as notice and I will put the question to the Tariff Board and report to the House.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My question is again for the Minister of Finance. As the Tariff Board report on pleasure boats was tabled early last year after almost five years of preparation, is the minister aware that the chairman of the Tariff Board has stated that to date their recommendations designed to help manufacturing in Canada have not been instituted and that it is felt that the board recommendations have been ignored both in the May budget of last year and the March budget of this year?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Of course, I would want to check the accuracy of the quotation.


JUSTIFICATION FOR INCREASE IN FUNDS ALLOTTED TO BOARD-ALLEGED FAILURE OF GOVERNMENT TO ACT ON RECOMMENDATIONS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is again for the Minister of Finance. As the pace of the Tariff Board's work is like something out of Dickens, yet in this year's spending estimates their spending is to jump 35 per cent to $1.3 million without any addition to staff, would the minister review the activities of the board to see if their activities can be expedited, and does he anticipate in future that he will follow their recommendations more than he has in the past to give us some value for the $1.3 million, or is the board even needed?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have already discussed with the chairman of the board, who took responsibility a number of months ago, the steps that will be taken to increase the pace of the board's output. I am confident from the program that Miss McDougall has brought forward that this will indeed be possible. As to following the judgment of the board, of course the government will have to form its own opinion on the basis of the questions that are presented in the broader context of the policy. But I would point out to the House that of course the board has just put before the House the first part of the fruit and vegetable reference and will be bringing the second part forward in the near future. I hope we can have an early comment from members of parliament as well as the public on those important questions leading to multilateral trade negotiations.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Justice relating to his press report regarding the amendment of the Judges Act and the setting up
May 3, 1977

of family courts. Looking through the bill with a microscope, I find there is only one small section that refers to the question of setting up family courts and that is the contribution the federal government might make to the provinces for financing this. May I ask the minister if an agreement has been made with all the provinces about the part the federal government will play in setting up these family courts?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the amendment is to add what is called the pool of judges, with 15 salaries, for unified family courts. Obviously, they could not be appointed nor the salaries paid until the provinces established facilities for unified family courts and granted them an exercise within provincial jurisdiction. There is no precise agreement with the provinces. We have an agreement with Ontario and Manitoba as to some shared-cost payments as an experimental project. As we have discussions with each province, we will in the initial stages make some arrangements as to cost-sharing on an experimental basis. Should unified family courts be extended across the nation the probable division and breakdown will be the normal one-the federal government being responsible for payment of salary, pension, travelling expenses and those expenses provided under the Judges Act and the provinces paying the cost of the administration of justice.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister refers to the amendment to the Judges Act and appointing 15 new judges who may be for the superior courts and district courts but is there anything in the bill to set up family courts? Also, what share is the federal government going to contribute to the provinces? That is the question, not all that rhetoric.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, it is precisely in the same terms as the appointment of judges to any other court. The provinces will establish a court of appeal, a high court, a Queen's Bench or district court and we will provide-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Which one are you going to get Basford?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Which one do you want, Steve? In the Judges Act, we provide for the salary and payment of people appointed to those courts.


HARBOURS
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Tenders have been called for the dredging of the turning basin at the Port of Churchill and there are moneys in the estimates for altering the car dumping
Oral Questions
mechanism to handle hopper cars. Will these and other programs at the Port of Churchill be stopped due to the decision of the CNR not to carry on with the installation of heavy steel over the remaining 91 miles of track to accommodate hopper cars?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. I will be looking forward to having discussions with the Canadian National about the upgrading of their steel. As soon as the Hall Report arrives, I will take up with them the issue of the upgrading of track in many parts of the prairies.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Since the minister's department is granting some $40,000 to the Consumers Association of Canada above and beyond the $500,000 annual grant already received to allow them to prepare a defence on Bill C-42, is the grants committee of the department likewise prepared to assist farmers, their associations and other groups who support and defend the concept of rational production and orderly marketing for the greater benefit of all Canadians?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Author.


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the $40,000 grant the hon. member refers to is actually $25,000. It was a grant to permit the Consumers Association of Canada to prepare a special publication for all their members in layman's terms, to better advise them of the contents of the bill and explain its objectives. It is in no way going to them to prepare a defence or favourable supporting brief of Bill C-42. I may point out that with respect to making grants of this sort, various business associations which are able to explain complex matters of this kind to their member companies or corporations and do so with funds properly classified as a business expense. Thus, in a sense the taxpayer is assisting them as well.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the continuing deterioration of highways in the Atlantic region, particularly in Newfoundland, could the minister inform the House if he has reached a decision with regard to
Oral Questions
the highway strengthening program and if not what is the reason for the delay? Is it a cost-sharing program for replacement and maintenance?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there have been some cost-sharing discussions but the government has been giving careful consideration to the various proposals which were discussed several months ago, including the highway strengthening program. I expect to be in a position to make an announcement in the fairly near future.


AIRPORTS
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I have a question relating to another matter of transport, the upgrading of the runway at the Stephenville airport. The minister is aware that there is the amount of $662,000 in the estimates which was later deferred. In view of the fact that the unemployment situation is so desperate and the justification is there, would the minister reconsider deferring that money in order to let the work go ahead and put the airport back into operation?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am always prepared to consider such representations. The financial situation in the department this year is sufficiently tight that the priorities have to be looked at very carefully. With that small caution I will certainly look at the matter.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of State (Multicultural-ism). Since 40 per cent of children in elementary schools in the city of Vancouver are in need of training in English as a second language and this is the kind of financial burden the school board cannot afford to carry, has the minister any plans to provide help to the department of education in the province of British Columbia in order that it might extend help to the Vancouver school board in this matter?


Hon. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Minister of State (Multicul-turalism)):: Mr. Speaker, representations have been made from various areas other than Vancouver and British Columbia on this particular problem and we are studying it at the present time.


Benno Friesen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister said that representations have been made from areas other than Vancouver and British Columbia. Is he implying
[Mr. Marshall.)
May 3, 1977
that the Vancouver school board, through the department of education in British Columbia has not made representations to him?


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of State (Small Business). In view of the acceleration of widespread protest emanating from the producers of western Canada against the conversion to metric in the grains industry, is the minister giving any consideration whatsoever to the various representations he and other members have received and has he now reached the conclusion that the producer organizations upon which he relied when considering this particular piece of legislation did not actually reflect the wishes of the producers in western Canada?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, without accepting all the premises of the question, I want to say to the hon. member that I have been listening to the representations members made to me and the government, and particularly more recently to the representation made to me by the Minister without Portfolio from Crowfoot and-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Was that part of the deal?


Len Marchand: -and other members of parliament on this side of the House from the prairie region. A decision has been made not to proclaim that section of the bill on metric conversion relating to the grains industry-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Len Marchand: -until after further consultation-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Have you no shame?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, they ask me to listen but do not give me a chance to explain.


Charles Joseph Clark: You will have a lot of explaining to do.


Len Marchand: It will not be until further consultations have been held with the grain industry, and especially the farmers.


Mr. Fairweather:: Withdraw the bill.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, while accepting the minister's answer I note, as I am sure most hon. members recognize,

May 3, 1977

that the minister was so political as to ignore representations made by members on this side of the House on this important issue. Can the minister outline to the House what form these consultations will take. What mechanism does the minister have in mind for ensuring that the views of the actual producers will be taken into consideration? Will he rely on the hon. member for Crowfoot, or will he consider as well representations made from my side of the House?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the exact mechanism has not yet been decided. I assure the hon. member opposite that I will be happy to receive suggestions from him on how he feels this matter ought to be dealt with.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, may 1 remind the minister to read again some of the speeches and representations made by members on my side of the House?


Mr. Epp:: Otto, you may as well give up now.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Andr6 Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Last weekend we saw two television programs on CBC regarding the by-elections to be held next May 24. The first program, about the constituency of Verdun, showed us the candidates for every political party, with the exception of the candidate of the Social Credit Party of Canada, even though he was officially nominated on April 1 at Verdun city hall. And the day after another CBC program featured the official candidates in the riding of Terrebonne for every party, again with the exception of the Social Credit candidate who was also officially nominated on March 9 at Sainte-Therese city hall. In view of these facts, I would like to ask the Prime Minister what he thinks of this attitude and what kind of action he would take should he find this situation inequitable.


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, this matter has already been drawn to my attention and 1 have asked the CBC to give me a full report on it.


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the administrative delays and the difficulty for the government to give fair treatment to this company, can the Secretary of State assure the House that he will have an answer to his inquiry before May 24, which is election day?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I will have a report for the hon. member within two days.
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


BRUCELLOSIS-REASON FOR DELAY IN IDENTIFYING DISEASE IN MR. TATTERSALL'S HERD
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Can he tell us who or what is the bottleneck in the health of animals branch which would bring about a situation whereby it took more than 90 days and five positive test cases to identify brucellosis? The matter involves a farmer by the name of Tattersall who has six miles of line fence along the Buffalo Park Grazing Association, which has seven townships and 5,000 head of cattle which could possibly be infected. Why did it take so long to find that particular case and eradicate that herd?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have not checked all the details which the hon. member mentioned. However, I can say, according to the reports I have received and representations made to me about this case, that the authorities followed the usual procedures. I repeat, a heavy responsibility rests on the owner of the cattle. I do not know if the cattle owner in this instance fulfilled his responsibility. I say this since not all owners fulfil their responsibilities to the public which would foot the bill for the eradication of the herd in question or any other herd.


Arnold John Malone: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister give special consideration to this case? It is not a normal case, in that it involves 5,000 head of cattle. Will he find out where the bottleneck is, because not checking quickly on the incidence of this disease is extremely dangerous to the health of animals?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the apparent success of Mr. Morin's visit to Paris, and the newspaper reports indicating the acceptance by French government officials of the new status of the government Mr. Morin represents, will the Prime Minister be discussing any new initiatives relative to Franco-Canadian relations when he visits the Elysee on May 12, and may I express best wishes on that visit?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his best wishes. I am not quite sure what the hon. member is referring to when he talks about French government officials. He may have been referring to the mayor of Paris; he is not an official of the French government. In so far as the subject matter of our discussions is concerned, it will be a general, informal discussion.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Do they know you are coming?

May 3, 1977
Oral Questions ENERGY


PROTECTION OF SHIPMENTS OF URANIUM FUEL
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since yesterday neither the Prime Minister nor the Secretary of State for External Affairs knew what sort of security had been accorded to fuel shipments overseas to our CANDU customers, as part of what we heard described as most stringent security controls considered by this government as failproof, and since neither the Prime Minister nor the Secretary of State for External Affairs knew of the earliest stages of these security measures, I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources if he can tell us whether shipments of uranium fuel to our overseas CANDU customers are accompanied by security personnel and selected by the appropriate Canadian authorities?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, the reason being, I believe, that the International Atomic Energy Authority, having examined the whole question of security and particularly the security of nuclear materials in transit, decided that was not the best way to go.


Donald W. Munro: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It had been our impression, created by the government, that the security regulations concerning the shipment and care of uranium fuels abroad were designed and applied by this government, and that they were over and above any international controls. Since the minister seems to be aware of these arrangements could he say how it is possible for ministers of this government to categorize Canada's security measures relating to uranium fuel as the envy of the rest of the world? Therefore, would he consider the use of security personnel in uranium fuel shipments overseas, and back to Canada?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the International Atomic Energy Authority will be examining this question along with many others, with a view to increasing the safeguards system in the world at large. As my colleague yesterday made clear in the House, and the hon. member should understand this, Canada relies on the personnel of the International Atomic Energy Authority for physical inspection at various plants abroad.


Donald W. Munro: We are not self-reliant, then.


Alastair William Gillespie: If the International Atomic Energy Authority thinks that additional methods should be used for the physical safeguarding of materials and shipments, Canada, of course, would want to conform.


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF ARTHUR REPORT
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. What plans does the government have to release to the public the recently completed Arthur report on the operations of the Canada-U.S. auto pact and its impact on our automotive industry? Further, what plans does the government have to involve parliament and the public in the discussions on changes in present arrangements that may be desirable for Canadian workers and Canadian industry?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: 
OIL-SUGGESTION CANADIAN PRICE BE KEPT BELOW WORLD PRICE-METHOD OF DISPOSING OF SURPLUS IN OIL COMPENSATION ACCOUNT
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the upcoming energy ministers' conference which will result in an anticipated $1.50 price increase for a barrel of domestic crude oil, which would in turn throw some 32,000 Canadians out of work and increase the cost of living by 1.5 per cent, I would like to ask the minister in view of the negative impact this price increase will have on our weak economy if he will now end this inflationary policy and keep the Canadian price below the world price?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, without in any way accepting the preamble of the hon. member's question, I think it important that we face up to realities. If Canadians are going to have future secure sources of oil, they are going to have to be prepared to pay for them. We are not going to get our tarsands oil and heavy oils from Alberta into production at prices below the world price. Indeed, we may only be able to get them into production at prices above world prices.

May 3, 1977


Reginald Cyril Symes: The minister has just made a very good argument for the nationalization of our oil industry so that it is in our hands and not in the hands of the multinationals.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Cyril Symes: What is the government's intention regarding the surplus in the oil compensation account? How will those funds be disposed of? Is there any intention to use them for a national insulation program?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member understands there is no such thing as a compensation fund. My colleague, the Minister of Finance, and I have made it clear on many occasions that funds paid out for oil compensation and paid in as a result of the excise tax are paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. I would ask him to bring us up to date on the state of the purchase of 111 acres in the city of Winnipeg where the new defence research centre is to be located. Is the transaction nearly finalized? Is the government going to go through with the purchase?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am not precisely at this moment up to date on this particular issue. When I last had contact with it, which was a week or ten days ago, the purchase of that property was proceeding without difficulty, as I understand it.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, in the March 25 edition of the Winnipeg Free Press, the minister is quoted as saying that he has re-evaluated the purpose, role and function of the proposed base and has deemed it a high priority item. Does this mean he will be locating a defence research centre in Winnipeg and closing down the research centre in Suffield, Alberta?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give any definite assurance with regard to the first part of the question. With regard to the second part, there is certainly no indication of closing down the Suffield facility at this time.


PRIVILEGE
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. During the question period, after having asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald)
Privilege-Mr. Alexander
what I thought was an extremely important question, I was led to believe that the minister questioned my integrity. One knows that my position here is to destroy Grits, and I know that their position is to destroy me.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: When I see a crack in the armour, I pounce like a tiger.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In order to set the record straight, if I am misleading the House as the Minister of Finance implied, I have no hesitation in withdrawing any statement that would imply such motives to the parliamentary secretary. However, I think members of parliament are entitled to rely on fair newspaper reporting as they find it. On that particular day, four or five Liberals went to Hamilton and had an open forum. Incidentally, it was a disaster. I just throw that in as an aside.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am just getting to my point, Mr. Speaker. In order to set the record straight, let me read in its entirety an excerpt from the Hamilton Spectator of April 27, 1977. It reads as follows:
Paper will map end to controls.
The federal government will introduce within a month a working paper dealing with the problems and methods of dumping the wage and price control program.
Robert Kaplan, parliamentary secretary to Finance minister Donald Macdonald, revealed the existence of the paper last night while speaking at a Hamilton Mountain riding association meeting.
In an interview after the meeting Kaplan was reluctant to discuss details of the paper, saying he could not speak for Macdonald.
But he said details of the document, an official federal government green paper, will be discussed at a federal and provincial finance ministers conference scheduled for May 4.
Kaplan said the federal government set tough goals with the anti-inflation program and now has reached these goals but must find a satisfactory way out of controls.
"We want to get back to a free market system" he said. "The challenge is to find a way out of controls that won't make inflation soar and wages increase as they did before controls."
He referred to the government paper as a "de-control program" and said it is the one the federal government sees in use in the post-control period.
While Kaplan would not discuss how the plan was devised, it follows a series of tripartite meetings between Prime Minister Trudeau, top cabinet ministers, labour and business leaders. Those meetings were followed by renewed demands from business and labour for a quick end to control.
Am I not allowed, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Minister of Finance about a statement allegedly made by his parliamentary secretary? I rest my case there, sir.


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a copy of that article. I had not seen it before the beginning of the question period when the hon. member asked his question. There is nothing in that statement which indicates my belief that there was a green paper in existence at the time I gave that interview. In fact, I knew before. I knew there was no such green paper in

May 3, 1977
Business of the House
existence at that time. I wanted to indicate that that green paper would be forthcoming. The minister indicated in answer to a question today that that paper would be produced before the end of the month. He said, as I said in the interview, that there would be consultations with provincial governments, as there will be tomorrow at the federal-provincial finance ministers' conference.
I submit that the most serious error made by the hon. member in his question of privilege was to claim that the day on which the travelling caucus visited Hamilton was a political failure. It was a tremendous success.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The basic nature of the dispute between the hon. members involved is, of course, disagreement as to the interpretation of the news report of the events that had taken place. Each hon. member seems to have been given a proper opportunity to give his version of events that took place. There seems to be some area of disagreement between them, but it does not constitute a question of privilege.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It relates to the business of the House. It arises out of the incredible answer that was given by the Minister of State responsible for Small Business with respect to the government's plans for the metric conversion bill. I have asked in this House Thursday after Thursday what the business of the House is going to be. I have been told by the government House leader that the business definitely required to be completed by the end of the session includes Bill C-23, the metric conversion bill. I received a list of information to help us in this House of Commons as to the business the government intends to complete, albeit not a complete list. It is stated in the list that it is not complete, that more bills may be added.
We are castigated from time to time with regard to the slowness of business in this House of Commons. That list was requested in order that business could be speeded up. Since Bill C-23, the metric conversion bill, has now been gutted by the Minister of State for Small Business, I presume that the list was the gospel according to the Minister of Transport and that circumstances have now changed.
Having regard to the desire of everyone to know what is down the road by way of government business, may I ask whether there is any intention to advance Bill C-10 relating to the national anthem? Is there any intention to proceed with the measure concerning holidays which is on the list of priorities? What are we going to do about the gun bill which is also on the government's list of priorities? If the House is to operate properly, if members are to know what business is to be called, if I am to give any kind of answer when asked how

long debates are likely to take, I have to know, and all members on this side have to know, just what the government intends. The government ought not to be allowed, and should not be seen to be allowed, to advance a legislative program one day out of the mouth of one minister and then come out with another, the next day, on the authority of a different minister. What I want to know is whether or not the government intends to proceed with the metric conversion bill, bearing in mind the answer which has been given by the Minister of State for Small Business.
Is it intended to remove certain clauses from the bill, in circumstances where there has been discussion with some of the House leaders? I might say there has been no discussion with me as to the effect of this measure. Is metric conversion a priority, or not? We cannot go on with this kind of nonsense and expect the House to conclude its business in an orderly way.


Mr. MacEachen:: I can clear up this matter very quickly. The metric conversion bill is still on the list. It will be proceeded with after the items I have informally mentioned to the opposition whip. We shall deal with the James Bay bill, followed by the judges' bill, and then the metric conversion measure. As to the statement made, in reply to a question, by the Minister of State for Small Business, it does not in any way alter the list or remove the metric conversion bill from it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Who are you trying to fool?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What the minister said was that certain of the provisions in the bill would not be proclaimed without further consultation with certain groups. Nevertheless, it is the intention of the government to proceed with the bill and to implement its provisions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I, too, rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have looked at the notice paper attached to today's order paper and I still see no reference to the bill which has been promised having to do with unemployment insurance.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I want to correct one word which the hon. member used. He referred to a bill which had been "promised". There is no doubt there were conversations about ten days ago-


Stanley Howard Knowles: And an agreement.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and an agreement which had been forthcoming from the hon. member but which at that time had not been clarified by the official opposition. Yesterday, the House leader for the official opposition indicated that he, also, would undertake that if such a bill were introduced it would be put through the House in all stages without debate. That is when the agreement was completed, as far as I am concerned. On that basis I am ready to state, subject to the concurrence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, that we shall bring forward such a bill as quickly as possible.
May 3, 1977


Benno Friesen: I rise on another point of order, Mr. Speaker.
It arises out of the question I put to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism today regarding the need for extra help by the Vancouver school board to teach English to elementary school children as a second language. I listened carefully to the words the minister used in his answer. It seems to me that whereas my question pertained to the need for help, the minister in his answer indicated he had received a number of representations from areas other than the city of Vancouver. It was clear he was not aware of the need for this kind of help in Vancouver.
When I rose to ask my supplementary question in order to get a more precise answer, Your Honour ruled it out of order even though the minister seemed ready to reply. I see, now, that the minister has left the House even though I did indicate I would rise on a point of order. I do not know whether he is deliberately avoiding the question, but I say, with respect, that my supplementary was an attempt to elicit information and that it was different from my original question. Therefore, I think it should have been allowed.


Mr. Speaker:: My impression of the minister's answer was different from that of the hon. member. My impression was that the minister was acknowledging the representation which had been made while indicating there had been representations from areas additional to those he mentioned. If I am mistaken,
I shall certainly give the hon. member an opportunity to put his question again.


Mr. Towers:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order related to the one raised earlier by my House leader. It has to do with the metric bill. It really concerns me that the President of the Privy Council should suggest that the bill is going to pass third reading and that the Minister of State in charge of small business should tell us that it will not be proclaimed until such time as negotiations have been carried on with the business and agricultural communities. Does this mean that the House of Commons will become so irrelevant that after third reading hon. members will not have the opportunity to participate in these discussions? Does it mean there will be changes made between the time of third reading and the time at which the bill is proclaimed? This is an important point. I believe it arose during the question period. It is one with regard to which Your Honour will be called upon to rule in order to ensure that the House is not completely emasculated.


Mr. Speaker:: If the issue arises in the way the hon. member has described, there may be some judgment which I shall be called upon to make, and I will make it at that time.
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table a reference to the Administrator, under the Anti-Inflation Act, with respect to the Otis Elevator Company Limited.


CUSTOMS TARIFF
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would request you to designate an order of the day for consideration of a notice of ways and means relating to the Customs tariff tabled March 31, 1977.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 366, 1,300, 1,876, 1,980, 2,018, 2,072, 2,090, 2,160, 2,162, 2,186, 2,190, 2,203, 2,224, 2,238, and 2,289.


Mr. Nielsen: Has the report of the administrative inquiry into the death of Robert Landers, inmate of Millhaven Institution, been completed and, if so, will it be made public?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: The report of the Administrative Inquiry into the death of Robert Landers, inmate of Millhaven Institution, has been completed. It is not intended to make this report public. However, it is confirmed that the findings and recommendations of both the administrative inquiry and the Coroner's inquest are almost identical. These recommendations were as follows: (1) The installation of an emergency call alarm system, with a "panic button" in each cell. (2) The implementation of regular range patrols in the segregation unit of the institution. (3) The provision of first-aid training for all custodial staff in the penitentiary system.
To date the following action has been taken with respect to each of these recommendations: (1) A contract has been let for the installation of a call alarm system for Millhaven Institution, and the actual work on the project has begun. (2)

May 3, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Standing orders are now in effect at Millhaven requiring that patrols of ranges for normal association inmates be made once an hour, and for segregation inmates, once every forty minutes. (3) Currently all new custodial staff receive basic training in first aid as part of their induction course. There has been no policy in the Canadian Penitentiary Service which requires that refresher courses in first aid be given to correctional officers, since the round the clock presence of a hospital officer was generally felt adequate to meet all contingencies. This position is being re-examined, however, and senior health care officials in the Penitentiary Service are now exploring the possibility of introducing a more comprehensive program of first aid training for custodial staff which would provide for periodic refresher courses. The Coroner's inquest in the case of Mr. Robert Landers determines the cause of death to be Coronary Artery Disease and Myocardial Infarction by means Natural Causes.


Mr. Neil: By province, how many producers have shipped one selected carlot of high protein No. 1 Red Spring Wheat?


Otto Emil Lang: Update: As of March 3, 1977, 23 carlots of high protein No. 1 Red Spring Wheat had been shipped under the special high protein wheat program. All of these 23 carlots originated in the province of Alberta. As of March 3, 22 samples submitted under the program in Manitoba, 357 in Saskatchewan and 108 in Alberta had qualified for selected carlot shipment.


Mr. Herbert: What were the recorded expenditures of the Department of Public Works for (a) the eight months of the present fiscal year ending November 30, 1976 (b) the nine months of the present fiscal year ending December 31, 1976 (c) the ten months of the present fiscal year ending January 31, 1977?


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: The following amounts represent net budgetary expenditures funded from DPW appropriations as reported in the Government of Canada Monthly Statement of Operations published by the Receiver General for Canada: (a) $397,727,000; (b) $449,951,000; (c) $507,656,000.


Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra): 1.	How many Loto Canada householder envelopes have been printed and at what cost?
2.	What was the cost of postage for the householders and where did the funds come from?
3.	Has the government taken any measures to advertise the odds against winning $1 million in the Loto Canada draw and, if so, what are they?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. Four million eight hun-

dred fifty thousand householder envelopes have been printed and sent out at a total cost of $315,432.
2.	The postage cost of the householders was $120,000. It was taken from Loto Canada's advertising budget.
3.	No such measures have been taken to date.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	What was the total amount at credit in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account as at (a) March 31, 1974 (b) March 31, 1975 (c) March 31, 1976?
2.	What rate of interest has the government paid for the use of this money during the fiscal years ending on the dates noted above?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1974 (b) March 31, 1975 (c) March 31, 1976?
4.	What was the total amount paid out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1974 (b) March 31, 1975 (c) March 31, 1976?


Francis Fox: 1. (a) $315,731,881.96; (b) $393,645,391.52; (c) $487,626,438.22.
2.	1973-74, 6.1148 per cent; 1974-75, 6.4164 per cent; 1975-76, 6.7654 per cent.
3.	(a) $11,649,384.89; (b) $14,281,057.27; (c) $17,316,629.77.
4.	(a) $3,107,861.30; (b) $4,096,312.44; (c) $4,833,373.10.


Mr. Halliday: 1.	Was promotional material sent out by Loto Canada on or about January 21, 1977 and, if so, in what quantity?
2.	Was postage paid in each case and, if so, in what amount?
3.	To what account were such costs charged, including that of postage?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1. Loto Canada sent out a householder mailing. The number of envelopes involved is 4,850.000.
2.	This mailing was a general householder mailing delivered by the post office at a bulk rate and charged to Loto Canada on the number of pieces delivered. Loto Canada was charged the amount of $120,000.
3.	All costs relating to this mailing have been charged to Loto Canada's advertising budget.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Does the Maritime Employers' Association owe the (a) government money (b) commercial banks on loans guaranteed by the government and, if so, in what amount?
2.	In each case, are payments by MEA in arrears and, if so, by what amount?
3.	In each case, on what date will the financial obligations of the government to MEA be completely discharged?
May 3, 1977

4.	What rate of interest is payable on the loans by the government and the commercial banks?
5.	In the best estimate of the government, what rate of interest would be payable by MEA if the loans were financed from private financial institutions without the assistance of the government?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. As of
December 31, 1976, the following amounts were owed by the MEA: (a) to the government, $6,659,657; (b) to the banks on guaranteed loans, $1,010,000.
2.	MEA payments are not in arrears either to the government or to the banks.
3.	The financial obligation of the MEA to the government is to be completely discharged by December 31, 1985.
4.	Interest on the above-mentioned loans is payable by the MEA at 10.375 per cent to the government and at prime rate to the banks.
5.	A rate of interest is based on many factors considered by a private financial institution at the time of the borrowing. No estimate has been made by the government as to what rate would be payable by the MEA without its assistance.


Mr. Stevens: As of December 31 (a) 1968 (b) 1976, what was the number of federal employees engaged to enforce game laws?


Francis Fox: By the Ministry of the Solicitor General: (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) (a) 15; (b) 53.


Mr. Stevens: As of December 31 (a) 1968 (b) 1976, what was the number of federal employees engaged to investigate aviation accidents?


Otto Emil Lang: (a) 38 investigators; (b) 58 investigators


Mr. Herbert: Is it the intention of the Post Office Department to construct a post office building in the Town of Vaudreuil, Quebec and, if so (a) in what location (b) have any options been taken on land (c) has a design team been selected?


Alexandre Cyr: The Department of Public Works has received authorization to construct a Post office in the municipality of Dorion to be known as Postal Station Dorion, Vaudreuil. (a) Corner of Lotbiniere and Lalonde Streets; (b) site purchased in 1976; (c) yes, Mr. J. M. Dube, architect, was appointed as the consultant for this project.
Order Paper Questions
AECL AGREEMENT WITH HYDRO QUfiBEC


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Has Atomic Energy of Canada Limited made any agreement with Hydro-Quebec and, if so (a) are copies of the agreements available to Members of Parliament (b) do the agreements include construction of a nuclear plant in the Montmagny area and at what projected date?
Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): In so far as Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is concerned: AECL has agreements with Hydro-Quebec in regard to the construction of the G-l nuclear power plant at Gentilly, Quebec, and in regard to engineering design services and supply of heavy water for the G-2 nuclear plant at the same site, (a) Contracts such as these are not normally made available, (b) AECL has no agreement with Hydro-Quebec with respect to a possible plant in the Montmagny area.


Mr. Whiteway: 1.	Did CMHC insure a mortgage loan between National Trust and 210 Somerset Corporation and, if so (a) on what date (b) in what amount (c) under what conditions?
2.	Did CMHC insure an additional mortgage loan between CMHC and an approved lender and, if so (a) in what amount (b) on what date (c) under what conditions?
3.	At the time CMHC signed the mortgage loan insurance policy had it requested the plans and specifications provided by 210 Somerset Corporation or National Trust?
4.	Did CMHC examine the plans and specifications provided by 210 Somerset Corporation and/or National Trust?
5.	Before and up to the time CMHC signed the mortgage loan insurance policy, had any representations been made on behalf of 210 Somerset Corporation and/or National Trust by public officials either elected or appointed and, if so (a) what were their names (b) on what dates (c) what was the nature of the representations?
6.	(a) Who were the CMHC officials responsible for examining and approving the application of National Trust (b) what was their position (c) what was their salary level (d) what were the names and positions of the officials in National Trust that they had dealings with?
7.	(a) What were the names of the CMHC officials who inspected the project (b) what were their positions and salary levels?
8.	From the start of the project to its finish, did CMHC officials personally visit the project and, if so, on what dates?
9.	Did either the builders of 210 Somerset Corporation or National Trust notify CMHC of any changes or additions to the original plans and specifications and, if so (a) on what date (b) what was the nature of the changes?
10.	(a) What was the detailed nature and the amount of all encumbrances affecting the title of Le Quai d'Orsay at the time National Trust foreclosed, (b) Were any of the encumbrances overdue at the time of foreclosure and, if so, for what period of time?
11.	(a) On what date was CMHC first notified by National Trust that 210 Somerset Corporation had defaulted on mortgage payments and/or taxes (b) what action in detail, if any, did CMHC take?
12.	Did CMHC receive subsequent notifications from National Trust regarding 210 Somerset Corporation defaulting in mortgage or tax payments and, if so, what are the complete details?
13.	What actions has CMHC taken subsequent to National Trust's foreclosure to minimize the liability that could accrue to CMHC?
14.	Was CMHC informed at any time that Le Quai d'Orsay would be an apartment hotel and, if so, what percentage of the gross floor space were they informed would be devoted to residential space?


Mr. Herbert: Is the Department of Public Works responsible for the maintenance of wharves and quays that are under the control of the Department of the Environment and, if so, in which department budget would essential repairs be carried?


Alexandre Cyr: The Department of Public Works acts as the construction agent and technical advisor for marine facilities that are under the control of the Small Craft Harbours Branch of the Department of Fisheries and the Environment. However, the programming and funding is the responsibility of the Small Craft Harbours Branch of the Department of Fisheries and the Environment.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many people receive the press releases issued by the office of the Administrator under the Anti-Inflation Act?
May 3, 1977

2.	(a) How many people work on the production of the press releases (b) what is the cost of their (i) services (ii) salaries (iii) expenses (iv) office staff (v) secretarial help, etc?
3.	What is the cost of (a) printing (b) mailing?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Revenue):: 1.
Distribution is 2,200 English copies and 600 French.
2.	(a) Preparation of releases is a part-time duty for two information officers, (b) (i) and (ii) The salary costs attributable to work on releases is approximately $12,000. (iii) There are no additional expenses other than those identified in part 3 below, (iv) No additional office staff is required, (v) Releases are typed by the staff of existing word-processing units.
3.	(a) From January 1, 1976 to February 28, 1977 printing costs were approximately $17,250. (b) From January 1, 1976 to February 28, 1977 mailing costs were approximately $3,950.


Mr. McKinnon: Has Intermark completed a survey determining the acceptability of a type of Youth Corps for training and employment in Canada and, if so, which department (a) commissioned the study (b) is going to, or has already paid for it?


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Yes. (a) and (b). The survey was completed for Mr. Danson when he was a private member, without cost to any government department.


Ralph Goodale: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. John Wise (Elgin) moved:: That this House deplores the government's inability to give leadership in developing and implementing comprehensive and co-ordinated agricultural policies and programs and regrets that by ill-advised and ad hoc remedies the government has weakened the over-all agricultural economy.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in opening this debate I am once again obligated to remind this government that practically every time the subject of agriculture is raised in this House, either in debate or in questions in the House, it is as a result of opposition initiative. It clearly demonstrates our genuine concern for those not only in the industry but for all associated either directly or indirectly with the industry.
There is a host of issues that cry out for attention and there is a host of areas that deserve immediate revision and action.
Agriculture
My colleagues and I will be utilizing the opportunity during the course of this debate to focus government attention on a number of areas of prime concern throughout the country. One such area which has suffered severely, particularly under this administration, is the field of agricultural research and development. This neglect has cost producers, it has cost processors and it has cost consumers alike. Perhaps, and only perhaps, with an impending disaster facing us in the western provinces due to the drought situation will the government finally awaken to the cry for vitally needed research dollars for the purpose of developing and producing drought-resistant crops and drought-resistant grain varieties.
This is the kind of research program that must be given top priority. It is the kind of program that can be developed in field and research stations across the country. The facilities are there, the personnel can be found, but next to nothing has been done and nothing will be accomplished unless adequate funds are made available, and made available immediately. We cannot afford to take the risk of surviving agriculturally in face of a serious and sustained drought. Yet this appears to be a risk that this government is willing to take. This behaviour is totally unacceptable and must be condemned in the harshest terms.
It is time that a federal government which has demonstrated on many occasions its disdain for the health of Canadian agriculture realized the error of its ways. It is my fervent hope that it will not take a complete disaster or total collapse of the industry to bring this about. Obviously, many reforms are needed in the field of agriculture. These should be preceded by experimental trials involving the producer, researcher and processor-the major benefactor being, of course, the consumer. Much greater co-ordination is required at the federal level in terms of organization, with much more of the actual work being carried out at a more regionally based and decentralized level.
One critical problem, as recognized by the Agricultural Institute of Canada, is the constraint on the level of activity of agricultural development and research which is imposed by this government's inability or its unwillingness to pay for it. I can think of no other investment that will provide greater dividends for Canada and Canadians than investment in agricultural research and development. Yet this government remains reluctant to make an adequate commitment and investment.
Declining expenditures on research and development cannot be represented as part of the government's program of restraint initiated in late 1975. The deterioration in research funding really began in 1969 and has continued without pause since that time. It has been accomplished through erosion by inflation. An average National Research Council grant in the biological sciences area in 1974 was 6 per cent larger than in 1969. Its purchasing power was 41 per cent less than in 1969. Salaries and wages have continued to increase, but often after these expenditures are paid no funds remain for actual research work.

May 3, 1977
Agriculture
We are told by qualified sources that as little as 4 per cent of total funds are actually available for research. In terms of the gross national product, Canada spends approximately 1.2 per cent on research and development. This is substantially less than comparable expenditures in France, Germany, Japan, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States, in which countries expenditures range from 1.7 per cent to 2.4 per cent. Current expenditures in Canada are far below the 2.5 per cent which the Senate special committee recommended by 1980.
In this year of the big research budget squeeze most, if not all, are finding the screws particularly tight. For example, Dr. W. E. Tosell, typical of many, and dean of research at the University of Guelph, is trapped in that very squeeze. His budget tells him to trim, and trim heavily, but he says there are no low priority research programs left to cut. Dr. Tosell likens his decisions on research priorities for 1977-78 to the choice that could be forced upon an air traffic controller: Which plane should be allowed to crash, the one with 500 passengers or the one with five? All are important, but obviously you make the decision that will benefit the most people.
This was the rationale that spelled the end to sheep and horse research at the University of Guelph in recent years. This year it spells the end to the mastitis research program. Yet few diseases, if any, continue to cost the Canadian dairy farmer so much in terms of lost production and infected animals being removed from dairy herds. In the past many research programs have been cut. This year both programs and people have to go. This is particularly upsetting in that people cannot be reinstated as easily as programs. When the tap is turned off, that is when people and experience leave. The continuity of programs and overlapping of people during a changeover period is most important information loss.
The situation is so critical in some areas that some of Ontario's marketing boards have been forced to take matters into their own hands. The Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board is taking on an active research role with a $48,000 grant spread over three years. The money is earmarked for sprouting and variety research, two major producer concerns in winter wheat production and marketing. Another example would be the Ontario Pork Producers Marketing Board which is funding a pork research program to the extent of $90,000 this year.
Farmers and farm organizations are clearly worried by the downturn in agricultural research. The need for more federal research funding crops up regularly now during farm conventions and meetings, and so it should. Farmers and the food system combine to produce one out of every three jobs in Canada. Farming had one of the highest productivity increases in the Canadian economy during the past decade, and agricultural exports have been a boon to Canada's trade balance. Putting a freeze on research dollars is self-defeating, and the long-term costs far outweigh the small, short-term savings. The agricultural industry cannot prosper the way it should when an unnecessary freeze is placed on research budgets. The same constraint applies to research and development in general in Canada.
In 1970, the Senate Special Committee on Science Policy reported that Canada's total gross expenditure on research and development had increased from .9 per cent of the gross national product to 1.4 per cent in the period between 1962 and 1967. In 1972 the Senate committee recommended as follows:
National expenditure on research and development should reach 2.5 per cent of the GNP by 1980, it being understood that the Canadian government's direct contribution to reaching this target will be restricted to the support of worthwhile programs and projects.
In the 1980 research and development target of 2.5 per cent of the GNP the Senate committee projected a compound growth rate for the seventies similar to the growth rate for the period 1963-69. Assuming an inflationary factor of only 3 per cent per year, it was estimated that the growth of research expenditures should compound at a rate of 15 per cent annually during the seventies in order to meet the proposed target for 1980. Let us look at what has happened to total expenditures by the Canadian government on research and development since 1967, when the government spent $478.3 million. In 1975 the figure was $861.2 million, representing a growth rate of only 7.63 per cent annually, far short of the 15 per cent proposed by the Senate committee. It has not been sufficient to keep up with inflation during most years, let alone contribute to the advances envisaged by the Senate committee.
In 1972 total expenditures on research and development in Canada had declined to 1.19 per cent of the GNP. This was approximately one-third of the total budget, as opposed to the mid-1960s when the government's contribution equalled one-half of the total expenditure for research and development. Actually, it is the federal government that has led the way in the decline, reducing its support of research and development in Canada from about one-half to less than one-third. The federal government, more than anyone else, has failed to heed the Senate committee's recommendation concerning the financing of research and development and has put an even lower priority on research than it did prior to receiving that committee's report.
Traditionally, the federal government has allocated about one-tenth of its total research and development budget to the Department of Agriculture. Due to the fact that the world situation in agriculture is nearing a crisis point, I suggest it is now time this percentage was increased dramatically. Manpower requirements, present and future, is another area which has been neglected. We are experiencing a shortage of professionals in several disciplines. Policies must be developed at all levels, particularly at the government level, to correct this situation. There is grave danger that the output of trained agricultural scientists will soon be governed by limited Finances instead of by the needs of industry and the country.
The Agricultural Institute of Canada has published five recommendations that would aid the cause of agricultural research. They are: first, unite efforts at all levels for the more effective establishment of priorities in agricultural research and development in Canada; second, develop effective means

May 3, 1977

of ensuring that agricultural research and development programs in Canada are appropriately co-ordinated; third, expand the financial resources available for agricultural research; fourth, regularly determine the professional manpower requirements of Canadian agriculture; fifth, ensure that Canadian educational facilities and resources are adequate for providing the agricultural scientists needed in future.
I am in agreement with these recommendations and urge the government to adopt them. I make the following recommendations: greater emphasis should be placed on research that is done in the field, farms and feedlots across this country, if appropriate, rather than in urban laboratories, and an intensive tackling of other agricultural problems such as the preservation of the small family farm, the development of better and less expensive feed crops and the development and production of drought resistant grasses and grains.
It is interesting to note that when the Agricultural Institute of Canada presented its brief to the Standing Committee on Agriculture on Wednesday, April 27, they summarized their brief with four additional points. I should like to read them into the record. They are as follows:
1.	Canada does not spend enough money on research and development.
2.	Canada does not spend sufficient money on agricultural research and development.
3.	Canada does not spend enough on university based research in agriculture, and
4.	Canada faces an imminent shortage of highly trained manpower to serve biology in the agriculture and food industry.
In conclusion, it reads:
The over-all effects of the above threatens Canada's position as a major world producer and supplier of food. To correct this the government of Canada must reverse the present trend of funding in agriculture and food research and development.
Canada is seriously threatened with the loss of her proud position as one of the world's leaders in the production of food for export. It should be the object of all agricultural organizations and all those concerned about the state of Canadian agriculture to ensure that we maintain an efficient structure for the production, preservation and marketing of food, and that we remain able to share our expertise in the agricultural industry with the developing countries of the world.
One of the fundamental requirements of an efficient food production system is a sound, adequately financed and well co-ordinated research and development capability. This research and development must be directed toward ensuring a continuing supply of food that Canadians can afford, while providing a fair return to the producer and the processor. The food production system should provide a surplus for export which is so very important to Canada's balance of payments in world trade. Among the various faculties of agriculture at several Canadian universities we possess an excellent intellectual resource of scientifically trained academics. It would be constructive to suggest that some aspects of agricultural research be shifted from the city laboratories to the various experimental farms throughout the nation. Many of these regional experimental farms have become almost paralysed simply because of the drastic shortage of funds.
Agriculture
I conclude by asking the federal government to increase its financial commitment to agricultural research. It is to everyone's benefit that our research programs become more intensive. The public, for example, receives the benefit of agricultural research in the form of lower food costs. Funding responsibilities now seem clearly defined. The government foots most of the bill and farm organizations fund special projects. As governments continue to shirk their responsibilities to farmers and consumers alike, more and more farm commodity groups are forced to help support agricultural research. This trend cannot and, indeed, must not continue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this motion I would say that I was surprised, to put it mildly, at its wording and intent. I can only assume that in the motion, facts were disregarded in favour of a purely fictional approach.
The hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) referred to the drought in western Canada. I would like to say a few words on that, if I may. I would like to point out that the hon. member seems to have disregarded the fact that we are a confederation and before the federal government can move in on a program of aid the provinces must request it. We have spent many man-hours working on a program so that it might be ready in case the drought becomes worse. When I say "we" I mean the Department of the Environment, DREE, the Department of Transport, and my own department. All the departments concerned which might be able to participate in this program have asked to pool their resources when the provinces decide what they want us to do. It will then be considered on its merits.
We have been using all the research that is available, and some of the best dry land farming experience and ability is in western Canada at present. These people with knowledge and ability in the field are used all over the world. To hear the hon. member speak, one would think that nothing is known about dry land farming in western Canada. As I said, our researchers and advisers in western Canada on dry land farming are the best in the world. All one has to do is visit some of the areas with this farming problem and one will find that nine times out of ten a Canadian researcher has been there to give advice.
If you visit Mexico and South America you will find there the famous wheat strain called Triticale. It was developed in Manitoba by researchers at the Manitoba university working in conjunction with our researchers. They are all over the world showing people how this special variety of grain was genetically developed. When people from such large countries as the U.S.S.R. and the Republic of China come here, they know where to go. They go to see our research stations and all our people doing agricultural research, because they find it very surprising that a country as far north as ours can be so productive. It is mainly because of the ability of our researchers, plus the ability of our farmers to produce. What amazes them utterly is that all this has been brought about by the

May 3, 1977
Agriculture
close working relationship of our agricultural researchers in CDA working with the provincial departments of agriculture and farmers.
There is no other department in Canada that is more decentralized than Agriculture Canada. This applies mainly to the researchers in our department. They were sent to western Canada before even some of the provinces were created. In some instances they were there even before the settlers arrived, and when the settlers arrived they advised them how to farm. We have done the most superior job in research anywhere in the world.
Certainly, we would like to see more money. I agree with the hon. member that we cannot spend too much money on research. But to say we are doing a poor job is just not correct. For instance, when we talk about cattle, the export of purebred Holstein cattle last year increased by 40 per cent over the previous year. Prices were very good. We export these cattle all over the world. This is done through the Canadian Department of Agriculture, through genetic breeding, research, etc. We have bred some of the best cattle in the world. Our department's researchers have worked with researchers in the provinces. I repeat, we work with the provinces. We have just finished building, in Alberta, a new research station which cost $24 million and houses facilities both for provincial and federal workers at Lethbridge.
Also, in Fredericton, New Brunswick, we have the same kind of station. All the departmental people from the department of agriculture in the province of New Brunswick share the same facilities with the people from the federal department of agriculture. There is no other department that works as closely with the provincial people as we do. I challenge anyone to find another country with a population of 23 million, that is 4,000 miles from sea to sea, and has the agricultural diversification that exists in Canada, that has more people coming from around the world to see what our researchers have accomplished and to learn what will be of help to them and the rest of the world.
I would point out that research is certainly not just a responsibility of the government of Canada. We say that private research is needed and should be encouraged. What is wrong with producers' organizations participating in research programs? I see nothing whatsoever wrong with that. If they want to be part of the over-all program, they have as much right to be there as the government or the private sector.
The development fund for new crop development is now available for research by groups all over Canada. In the area of the hon. member for Elgin, as I am sure he is well aware, there is one of the most advanced research stations on tobacco. People come from all over the world to see what the researchers are doing on new strains of tobacco. Reference was made to this fact by some people who visited me in my office. They called it one of the most outstanding research stations in the world. There is also research on peanuts under the new development fund. It sounds like a "peanut" program, but it is a very important program and we look forward to peanuts being one of our main sources of vegetable oil and also of
[Mr. Whelan.)
protein. It might take the place of some of the other crops that we might not need so badly.
Also, let us consider hybrid corn. In Manitoba they are doing research on hybrid corn. Some hon. members opposite can tell us about the tremendous work they are doing in Manitoba with hybrid corn, where championship yields last year were more than 134 bushels per acre of shelled corn. If it were not for the research that CDA is doing in hybrid corn, we would not be in a position to say that we are producing over 150 million bushels of shelled corn a year in Canada. There are only two other companies doing research in hybrid corn development in Canada besides the government. That is not enough. If it were not for the research we are doing to develop new hybrid strains and use less feed units, it could be grown farther east, north and west than ever before. Corn is one of the most complete grains. It is king of all the grains in the world, and it is exported by the United States more than any other cereal grain.
These are some of the things we are doing here in Canada. We are ready to exchange information on our research with other parts of the world that are in need of it, so that they can properly look after their people. Agricultural research is something we exchange freely with any other nation regardless of political affiliation. We do it for the food of mankind. I am proud of that fact.
The record of this government since I became Minister of Agriculture stands on its merits. Farmers and consumers are benefiting from the development of policies and programs designed to stabilize and ensure producer returns and consumer costs. Net farm income has steadily increased since 1972, when I became Minister of Agriculture. The total for that year was $1.9 billion. That was pushed up to $3.4 billion in 1973- nearly double what it was the previous year. It crept up in
1974	to $3.8 billion. The last figures available show that in
1975	net farm income came to nearly $4.5 billion. Look at the spread-from $1.9 billion to $4.4 billion in three years. Do you call that the result of not supplying leadership and not developing and implementing comprehensive, co-ordinating policies and programs? The facts are simply that agriculture, which was declining in this country in the late 1960s and early 1970s, has experienced a surge of new life. Those facts are solid, and you will find them borne out by the first results of the 1976 census.
How often have we heard people talk about farmers leaving the farm? That has changed, Mr. Speaker. Let me explain. For those who do not know, a census farm is one holding of acre or more, or $1,200 or more in sales. The number of census farms increased by 250 from 1971 to 1976. The growth has been slow, but it is solid. Between 1951 and 1971 the number of census farms had been declining by approximately 13,000 farms per year. That rate of decrease has not only been stopped, it has been stabilized. What is more, the corner has been turned and the figures are beginning to creep up. The area of those census farms increased by a positive 3.4 per cent.
May 3, 1977

We are looking at 166 million acres of farmland which is returning to its farmers enough food to feed the farmer and 52 other people. Twenty years ago the farmer fed himself and ten others. Look at that spread and then tell me honestly that agriculture is a "go nowhere" industry.
Let us look at productivity. Take the man-hour output in 1961, index it at 100, and then see what happens over the next ten years. In the manufacturing sector you see productivity rise to 154.4. In agriculture that increase jumped to 217. It is phenomenal. Farmers are busy people and their work and enterprise added up to mean something like $22.5 billion in retail food sales last year. In terms of actual farm cash receipts, that means a little over 5 per cent of the gross national product or, in dollar terms, about $9.7 billion. And that is just the farmer.
The farmer's business keeps one out of every four Canadians employed. That is how many people work in businesses associated with one stage or another of the food chain. Yet although the farmer provides the key that unlocks the door to prosperity in so many other associated industries, he gets only 38 cents of every dollar that is spent in this country on food. The other 62 cents are split among the food manufacturers, the wholesalers, the distributors, and so on.
Since I have been Minister of Agriculture I have done all I can to make sure that the man on the tractor, the person who milks the cow, or who takes care of the greenhouse, etc., who is responsible for so many other food-associated businesses, knows that he can count on his livelihood. We have seen the National Farm Products Marketing Act come in to give some stability in the marketplace. Under that act we have seen such things as egg prices and supply stabilize. Never mind what you may hear, it is a fact that a dozen grade A, large eggs cost 94 cents in Canada. This morning we checked across the border and the same eggs cost 3 cents per dozen more. The former deputy minister of agriculture has just returned from California, where he said he tried several stores and could not find grade A, large eggs for less than $1.29 per dozen. Last night a man who is with the Dairy Council of Canada told me he had just come back from Burlington, Vermont, where grade A large eggs were $1.11 in the supermarket. So, Mr. Speaker, some of the things that were said about us spending more in Canada are just not factual.
The amendments to the Farm Credit Act have given the young farmer more incentive than ever before to get into and stay in farming. The loan ceiling to farmers under 35 was increased to $150,000. What is more, they were allowed more leeway in terms of time spent off the farm working to support their agricultural ventures. We have seen improvements to the Agricultural Stabilization Act. It has been broadened in scope. Farmers who find themselves in trouble in any particular sector can look for help whether their product falls within the named commodity list or not. To date we have paid out about $55 million to help horticultural producers and beef and dairy cattle farmers.
New tax legislation encourages the maintenance of the family farm. The bill to allow advance payments on storeable
Agriculture
crops is in the other place now. This bill will be a tremendous advance. Every day farmers ask when the other place is going to be Finished with it. I wish they would finish with it, Mr. Speaker. As recently as yesterday Alberta's minister of agriculture was telling farmers to buy more crop insurance. They are extending the program in Alberta to May 6 so they can do that. That program covers "no plant" insurance. If they cannot plant, they are still able to collect some insurance and get paid for part of their operations for the year. That is something a lot of people have not acknowledged. It was used in wet years and now they are going to be able to use it in dry years. I hope they will not have to use it, but it will be available for them. The crop insurance program is being utilized more than ever before with the federal government offering, as an incentive, to pick up 50 per cent of the tab for farmers willing to invest in this sort of protection.
You can say that all this means we are spending more and more money on agriculture. Do you not think the returns justify that kind of expenditures, Mr. Speaker? In comparison with the United States, we are supporting our farmers and the results are showing up in low food costs. I agree that in contrast to the early seventies Canada is now making relatively more payments to its farmers than the United States. I was one of those who continually pointed out that the United States subsidized its farmers more than we did, but that is not true any more. Since that time the United States have seen fit to drastically reduce their commodity support programs while Canada has increased its level of direct payments to producers. Taking the 1975-76 fiscal year, the United States spent $374 on each farmer. Here in Canada the total expenditure per farmer was $1,229. We surpassed them.
It appears that President Carter and the secretary for agriculture may now surpass us, however, with some of the programs they have put before Congress. They recognize what we are doing here as things that would maintain some form of guaranteed income for the farmer and also maintain food production, according to what my officials tell me. This investment is paying off. It is paying off in terms of productivity. It is paying off in terms of agricultural stability and growth. Most of all, it is paying off in helping to keep food costs to the consumer both reasonable and stable. That, of course, is one of the prime objectives of the basic food policy which is in place right now. This government acknowledges the right of consumers to be assured of an abundance of high quality, reasonably priced food. They are getting that food, and they are getting it at rock bottom prices.
The Canadian consumer spends about 18 per cent of his income on food. If he dropped the habit he is developing of taking one meal in every three at a restaurant, the slice of his income would drop, too: it would go down to about 13 per cent; and this is in a society where the trend is more and more to two pay cheque families. But if the consumer is to go on knowing that food will remain available and reasonably priced, then we cannot, as a government, let the Canadian farmer down. Too much depends on him. So he has to be assured of a reasonable return to keep him functioning. With that assur-

May 3, 1977
Agriculture
ance, he will continue to function efficiently. And I am going on record in stating that the Canadian farmer is the most efficient in the world. He is more efficient than the farmer to the south because he has to contend with a much more severe climate and a shorter growing season. He has to house his animals under more severe conditions. He has to use more energy for his poultry and hog production, etc. than farmers in the United States, yet in most cases he can compete with them. That is why I say he is the most efficient farmer in the world.


Walter David Baker: Despite the government.


Eugene Whelan: With the help of the government although the hon. member says in spite of the government. The hon. member has cultivated the Law Society, but he does not know much about the cultivation of land.


Walter David Baker: I can recognize a spreader when I see it.


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member should consult his mother-in-law, because she has complimented me on what I am trying to do for the farmers. It was the farmer's efficiency that made this country one of the largest donators to the United Nation's World Food Program last year. In 1975 this country was the largest per capita donor of food in the world, with $230 million worth of food going in aid to underdeveloped nations.
Mr. Speaker, some people who delight in making these presentations on behalf of Canada often know nothing about the sweat, toil and tears involved in producing food. The government, however, still wants the Minister of Agriculture to represent us at world food council meetings because they recognize he is the representative of the food producers who make it possible for Canada to be a leader in that kind of program. We are able to give that sort of help because of the way Canada's farmers produce.
Do not think that farmers would work that way if they were not sure that investment of money, time and hard labour was going to pay off. It is paying off, and I am hearing about it. This year at the Canadian Horticultural Council there was a motion passed unanimously and spoken to by representatives from practically every province. They said that this government and this minister had done more for the horticultural industry than any government had in past history. They commended the government for that. The only report I saw of that meeting was carried by the CBC. I spoke at nine o'clock in the morning, and the motion was passed early in the day.
The CBC reporter was the only one covering the motion. It was debated too early in the day for the CP reporters. I guess it was too early in the day for them to be up. So it was only reported by the CBC, or perhaps the other reporters did not want to write the story because it was about something good. As Chief Justice Bora Laskin, and the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) have said, the press does not like to report good news; it reports only the bad news. What is that attitude doing for the unity of the country? If the media
[Mr. Whelan.)
tell our people only the bad things the federal government does, what are the people of the country going to think?
This was a group of people who came from all the areas between Nova Scotia and Vancouver Island. They passed a motion commending the government. However, I have not seen the proceedings reported in any newspaper. I saw a report in a newspaper the other day about the price of food going up. But that report did not talk about the rise in the price of citrus products, about coffee going up over 280 per cent, and about the rise of certain other food costs. The story pointed out-and it is strange to note how newspapers report the rise in food prices-that butter had gone up 10 cents a pound in some cities and 11 cents a pound in others. As well, it was said that "Eugene Whelan, the Minister of Agriculture, said this was a must for dairy farmers." But the story said nothing about citrus fruits grown in the United States or about the citrus pack being 12 per cent larger than it was the year before.
How much are consumers paying for citrus fruit? It is true we have heard many stories of frost damage to that crop. But the question remains, why in heaven's name are we paying more for citrus products? I suggest there is no reason in the world, because the crop is between 10 per cent and 12 per cent bigger than it was the year before. So why should citrus fruit prices be that much higher? Why is someone not asking that kind of question? Of course, there is not much we can do about the price. We import the fruit. We do not grow oranges in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, two years ago we paid the highest price in the world for oranges, for the real McCoy. Why? I suggest the reason is that we do not produce oranges in this country. Therefore, if we fail to produce any product, and import it, we must pay the consequences. We must pay the going rate. We must pay the price the food brokers ask, or go without. Mr. Speaker, if we do not provide security for the producers of our food products, we shall all pay the price. The producers must be able to go to the banks and say, "I want to borrow so many dollars to finance my operations this year." The farmer must be sure of an income with which he can pay off the bank loan. He must have a market for his produce.
If he has no market, if he has no security, what will happen? He will go to the banker who will look at him with his kind eye, his glass eye, and say, "I am sorry; I cannot lend you money because you have no security. There is no guarantee you will pay it back. You have no assured market for your product, and lending you money would be like going to the horse races and betting. Notice, Mr. Speaker, that I spoke of betting at the race track. I did not mention off-track betting.
The horticultural industry has weathered some rough times, but things are now picking up for them. For instance, last year we paid British Columbia horticultural producers more money for their crops than they had received since the stabilization bill was passed. We are now using that act more than ever before. When farmers thank me for some of the things this government has done, I realize they understand our programs and appreciate what we are trying to do for them. As I said, the horticultural industry has weathered some rough times.
May 3, 1977

We are considering the first volume of the Tariff Board report which recommends additional protective measures. Those recommendations will do still more for the horticultural industry.
But things have changed. The picture is not the way it was last year. Farm cash receipts for the fruit and vegetable growers rose to $320 million in 1976, as compared with the $286 million they received in 1975. Those farm cash receipts owed something to the $14.8 million that went from Agriculture Canada, under the stabilization act to growers of carrots, sweet cherries, green plums, summer pears, and so on. We were criticized for assisting the apple growers of Nova Scotia. The Auditor General in his report said we had underestimated our losses. But he did not estimate what we would have spent in unemployment insurance if workers had been laid off, or what the transportation companies and processors and manufacturers would have lost. He did not say what all the people connected with the industry would have lost through unemployment. Luckily, we were able to sell the crop to Great Britain at a reasonable price.
We groan about high food prices in this country, but the facts go against us. In January this year the Ottawa price for sirloin steak was $3.91 per kilo. To the uninitiated let me say that a kilo is a measurement of the metric system. In Washington they were paying $4.01, and in Stockholm over $12. And you think we have high priced butter! Washington is still ahead of us, with a price of $2.91 per kilo. To take Stockholm again, the price there is over $3. In Ottawa, a kilo of butter cost $2.61 in January.
The food price index change-and the latest Figures I could relate to the international picture are for November-shows Canada as the only country among 15 others where the index has dropped about 2 per cent over the year. After us, the United States showed the smallest increase; they were up .7 per cent. In all the talk there is on food, I think it behooves members of this House to remember that food is not a separate subject from agriculture. The one is an extension of the other. The fact that food prices remain reasonable, that farmers continue to produce, and produce effectively, and that agricultural productivity and development in this country is increasing, has a lot to do with the programs and policies instituted by this government.
Let me return for a moment to the subject of research. The hon. member who introduced this motion suggested that we were not employing enough people with Ph.Ds. and high qualifications to do our research. More than ever, graduates of our agricultural schools and universities are returning to the farm. Why are more and more going back to the farm? Because they are going back to the farm, more expertise is available in agriculture. In these days highly educated people are engaged in agriculture. Again I ask, why are they going back to the farm? You know why they are going back. They now have a guarantee that farmers never had before, and those who have been trained in our agricultural colleges and universities may now return to the farm and take advantage of that guarantee. Mr. Speaker, we provide a guarantee for them if
Agriculture
they want to work. We provide nothing for the inefficient farmer. However, if the farmer is productive and efficient, he is going to make a decent living. Let no one say otherwise.
As to ad hockery, I can only say that we have acted in this way when outside forces compelled policy or program modifications. What are we supposed to do if, for example, we are locked into a program so tightly that we cannot move? If world conditions change immediately, what are we supposed to do? Are we supposed to sit and wait? We should be able to act.


Walter David Baker: What about your five-year dairy plan?


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member mentions the five-year dairy policy. We have deviated from it somewhat, but the present formula is practically the same as before. We have deviated from it somewhat because of world conditions. Mr. Speaker, the former consumer affairs critic of the hon. member's party criticized me for paying dairy farmers too much. Can you imagine a member of the party which proposed this motion criticizing me for paying dairy farmers too much? I got hell for allegedly being responsible for the surplus of their products. Mr. Speaker, Canada depends for its livelihood on productive involvement in the international market. We cannot afford to back ourselves into a corner and act unilaterally. We must keep ourselves flexible and sensitive to outside pressures and changes. We must react to those changes in the interests of our consumers and farmers. I can only suggest, as an example of utter ad hockery, the spirit which moved the motion and brought me to my feet today.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) moved this motion today. As we know, there has recently been a lot of discussion about a food and agriculture policy. In the past we have had many food and agriculture policies. However, we need a much more comprehensive and planned approach toward food and agriculture in Canada. Recently I have been concerned that some of the work done by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has been dividing farmers and consumers, pitting one against the other. That is the wrong way to start when looking at a food and agriculture policy for this country.
First we had the competition bill that was brought before the House some time ago. It has now had its subject matter referred to one of the standing committees. In that competition bill, according to lawyers for the farm organizations who looked at it, it was found that marketing boards would be rendered illegal, or pretty well useless. In many ways they would become a eunuch, or inoperable for the farmers of this country. The minister said recently outside the House that if that were the case, he would be willing to change the legislation. I hope he makes that commitment to us in a very firm way when that legislation comes before the House if, indeed, he is still Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

May 3, 1977
Agriculture
Another thing he said is that he has given the Consumers' Association $25,000 to help them understand the bill. That is fine and well. However, he should give some of that money to other organizations such as the Federation of Agriculture so that they can understand the bill as it applies to them. Something else that concerns me in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is that they have come up with a working paper entitled "Competition in Agriculture". The working paper, which I have had a chance to go over very carefully, is in essence an attack on the marketing boards in this country. It recommends a major study of marketing boards with a view toward curtailing their powers because they do not provide enough competition in the marketplace. It does not make farmers efficient or competitive enough.
There are a number of errors in that paper. Some of the more blatant ones are almost ridiculous. One section of the paper refers to fluid milk as a product being under federal supply management. That is not true. It is not a federal supply management commodity at all. When they make errors of that sort, I really wonder about the credibility of their other comments. They go on to talk about the great producer spread in broilers in Canada. Between Vancouver and Toronto there is a spread of three to five cents per pound for producers when they sell their broilers. During the second week of January, 1977, when the spread was three to five cents for producers, the spread at the retail level was 46 cents a pound. In Toronto, broilers were selling for 63 cents a pound, while in Vancouver they were selling for $1.09 per pound-a spread of 46 cents.
The paper dwelt at great length on the immense power of marketing boards, without looking at the other inputs in agriculture that should be examined, such as retailing, processing and input costs to the farmer. Many things in the past have divided the farmer from the consumer. This has been very unfortunate. The Food Prices Review Board did a lot of work. However, too much of the publicity and too many statements by the former chairman of that board-"Ma Plumptre", as some of us called her-were attacks upon farm marketing boards and orderly marketing. They were in ignorance of the other inputs into the cost of food in this country.
In 1969 and 1970 we had the task force on agriculture. It talked about more efficiency in competition in the agricultural sector, and phasing out over half the farmers in this country over the next few years. We had the weakening of the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board through the move of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board in taking the sale of domestic feed grains from under its authority.
We have in this House Bill C-34 which deals with the voluntary pooling of rapeseed, another move which will weaken the authority of orderly marketing in Canada. A short while ago we had the DM-10 report, a document written last summer by senior deputy ministers who were advising the government on food policy. The thrust of that report was toward so-called efficiency, competition and the free market, letting corporations run our food system instead of the producers and consumers collectively.
[Mr. Nystrom.J
We also have the government-and this is where the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) comes in-postponing indefinitely the decision on a national marketing board for broilers. That decision should have been made before now. If the minister checks, he will find that importers of chickens have increased the importation of broilers from other countries by 50 times in the last five years. When you have a supply management and marketing board system such as envisaged here, the quotas in terms of imports from abroad are based on the previous average of your imports. By delaying the decision indefinitely the big importers are able to increase their imports massively and thus destroy one of the intents of orderly marketing. The Minister of Agriculture should make sure his colleague moves much more rapidly than he has in that area.
As I have said before, what we need in this country is an over-all planned and comprehensive approach to a food and agricultural policy. That policy has to cover a whole series of areas. One area we have to look at is farm income. We all know that farm income has been very uncertain, and in many cases inadequate. Farmers not only have the uncertainty of prices here in Canada. Only 50 or 60 percent of their commodities go through marketing boards. They also have the uncertainty of prices abroad. We must consider competition in the world community, weather conditions, world climate conditions, all of which influence the price here at home.
The minister talked about farm income recently going up. However, he stopped with the year 1975. If he had looked at 1976 he would find that net farm income in Canada was down 20.8 per cent from 1975. That is why the minister did not refer to it when boasting about all the things he has done for the farmers. The Outlook conference said that in 1977 it looked as though net farm income would go down by-


John Wise: He could not find the figures.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That is strange. Opposition members can find the figures from the federal department, but the Minister of Agriculture cannot find them. The Outlook conference predicted that in 1977 net farm income would drop by about 40.5 per cent from the 1975 high. There is definitely a downward trend in farming in this country. The minister knows it; we all know it.
Gross cash receipts for the nation as a whole dropped in January, 1977, compared to January, 1976, by 31 per cent, and in western Canada by 38 per cent. It can be seen that farm income is falling. The various programs which the government has in place-some of them good, some going a far distance- are not good enough. They do not provide a secure income for farmers. With that type of fluctuation, it is not secure. What other sector would allow its income to drop by 30 per cent oi 40 per cent over a two-year period? No other sector would allow that.
The second area that we have to look at with regard to a comprehensive food and agriculture policy is that of self-sufficiency, producing vital foods in Canada. We must ensure that we have available in this country a good supply of vital food products. Many people have suggested that by the year
May 3, 1977

2000 Canada will be a net importer of foods, despite the vast acreage, planning and technical skills that we have in our possession. When we import food, we export jobs, not only the jobs of farmers but the jobs of workers in the packaging, handling and processing of food products. Some now say it is a likely circumstance that we will become a net importer of food. Federal government figures show that without the export of grain and oil seeds Canada would already be faced with an agricultural deficit of some $1.5 billion. For a country of this size, that is an utter disgrace. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture cannot be proud of that fact.
Also, we have all kinds of tariff inequities. We have a great deal of protection for some of the manufacturing in Central Canada. We have a great deal of protection for a lot of manufacturing in the minister's own area of southern Ontario. But when it comes to the farmers, do you know what the average protection is? It is about one half of 1 per cent. In summary, then, we have to be self-sufficient in basic foods in order not to just look after ourselves and keep farmers on the land and provide more jobs for Canadians in the future, but also to protect our consumers against very high prices over which they will have no control unless we produce these foods ourselves.
The minister talked about oranges coming in from abroad, saying we had no control over these prices. If we do not become self-sufficient in a lot more foods, if we continue to let our self-sufficiency erode, there will be many more products over the price of which we will have no control when we buy them in the supermarkets in a few years, time.
Another area which greatly concerns me is that of the quality and safety of food in this country. People would benefit from a system which emphasized nutrition as one of our highesi priorities. If this were made a primary goal of the national food policy, you would first of all have decreased health costs. Surely, preventive medicine is the best part of medicine. Surely, it is desirable to bring down the cost of health services in this country. One of the best ways of doing this is through better nutritional programs. The Food Prices Review Board said two years ago, in one of its good reports, that about 40 per cent of the hospital days in Canada may be indirectly linked with the type of diet we follow-to the types of food consumed by Canadians. A report from the United States says that about six of the leading ten causes of death in that country may be linked to the type of food people there are eating.
We could have decreased health costs. We could have increased productivity by Canadians if our people were healthier, and we could have a much better quality of life if we had nutritional programs. So far, such programs have been a dismal failure. They have been disgusting. We have junk food in most of the schools in this land. We see the increased consumption of pop, chips and foods of that sort. In the United States, in the Second World War, the consumption of pop went up by 85 per cent. In some states kids are now consuming
Agriculture
three bottles of pop a day. The consumption of milk has gone down. We should have a school milk program. Governments, both federal and provincial-we can all share in the responsibility-spend very little on promoting nutrition in Canada.
The blame falls on all parties equally. All governments have spent, in the last year, less than $1 million on promoting nutritional goals in Canada. The food industry, by comparison, spent in the last year over $90 million promoting food, and much of the food they promoted is of questionable nutritional value. All one has to do is to sit down with a small child and watch television and see what kind of advertising gets through to the small child. It isn't advertising of wholesome and natural foods; it is advertising food of very little, or negative nutritional value.
We have in our food system about 1,800 different chemicals and additives. Most of them are not there to improve nutrition or to improve food in terms of the income of farmers. Most of them are there for convenience or to make it look sexier, or the skins look redder, or they are there for the sake of the profits of large corporations in the food industry. So we need changes to improve the quality and safety of our food in terms of the health of our nation.
The fourth area about which I am very concerned-the honourable member for Elgin has already spoken at length about this-is that of research. I concur in what he said. There ought to be more research, particularly in the university community, research which will help find some of the nutritional answers which are so badly needed by Canada as a nation, research which will help the farmer improve his commodities and improve his life style and income, research which will perhaps solve some of the problems which we will be facing shortly as energy prices increase, as the energy input into the whole food sector is probably the most intensive, in terms of agriculture, in North America. These are areas in which we need to move. Too much of the research done by the private sector today is with one goal in mind-the enhancement of profits, of greater convenience in selling certain commodities, square tomatoes, four-legged chickens, or what-have-you. That is the type of research which is done throughout Canada.
The fifth area which it is important to consider in terms of a new food and agriculture policy is that of resources. First of all, we have the question of land use. The Department of Agriculture has stated that about 250 acres of good quality farmland goes out of production every day. That is more than 10 acres an hour-land we cannot recover. The Agrologists Institute of Canada stated recently that we have in this country some 44 million hectares of land which we can farm. That represents only 4.87 per cent of our total land mass. Of that, only 7.3 hectares, or .8 per cent of Canada's land mass, is good quality land in areas where there is a reasonable climate. If we continue present policies, by the year 2001, according to the agrologists, about one-third of our good quality land will be under concrete and beyond retrieval by future generations. So we have to look at resources; we have to look at the

May 3, 1977
Agriculture
question of energy; we have to look at the question of allocating energy in a much more rational way.
The last area we should consider in terms of food policy is market power itself. We have to do something to control the processors and the retailers. We have the Mallen report which states we are paying about 4 per cent more than we should because of the lack of competition in the food system in Canada. A series of recommendations is made. We had the Barber commission which also made a series of recommendations with respect to the cost of farm machinery. All kinds of studies have brought to our attention a number of things which should be done.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we need, in a food policy, provision for orderly marketing. The farmer has to have some security. He has to have some clout in the marketplace when he markets his commodities. I should like to move an amendment and perhaps speak to it for a few moments thereafter.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the motion be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma and adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"and this House further regrets the government's failure to give full support to an orderly marketing system which would give producers the collective strength to reduce corporate power in the food system and stabilize farm incomes as well as prices to consumers.''
I move that motion because I think a major part of food and agriculture policy in Canada has to be an orderly marketing system under which the farmer has stability of income and the consumer, on the other hand, has stable prices. We have too many of our foods on the open market system where the farmer does not know from one day to the next what he is going to get for the food he produces, while the consumer, on the other hand, does not know what he will have to pay for the food he is going to have to buy.
It is important that this House should say to the government: We have not gone far enough in the direction of orderly marketing. There have been too many attacks on the orderly marketing system. We only have in Canada three national supply management programs. There are about 100 different marketing boards, most of them under provincial jurisdiction. I think it is important that at this time, when the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is attacking the orderly marketing system, this House should say to the government that we should have more orderly marketing in Canada for the sake of both farmers and consumers.
It is very strange that some people are saying that the three orderly marketing systems we have are very bad-that they are really bad in terms of producing food because they are supply management programs. But almost every other industry in Canada practices supply management. If you follow the same philosophy vis-a-vis the unemployed, since we have an oversupply of workers you reduce wages in this country. Of course, we would not stand for that, and rightfully so. But when farmers are faced with oversupply the price that they get for their product is reduced.

There is now also oversupply of farm machinery. If we did not have supply management, the price of combines and tractors should be dropping until that supply is used up. But that is not happening. If doctors or lawyers were being paid too much, they would argue that we should be bringing in cheaper lawyers and doctors from England or overseas; they would work for less and undercut the Canadian supply. But we do not do that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I want- [Translation]


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


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


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that I rose to speak immediately after the representative of the New Democratic Party. I do not know whether you saw me, but you did not recognize me ...


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Indeed, both are right. I had just indicated to the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) that he would be recognized. I thought you were rising on a point of order and I wanted to say to the hon. member for Medicine Hat that he would be recognized immediately after the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).
I will recognize another government member and you will come immediately afterwards. The hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) on a point of order.


Mr. Laprise:: I am a little hesitant about questioning your decision, but it does not follow the established practice that a representative of each party be recognized on such a motion. That is not what happened this afternoon. I would therefore like to know why the orders are being disregarded.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have had the privilege to sit in the Chair a few times during opposition days, and each time I recognized the mover's party and one member of the other parties, that is the New Democratic Party or the Social Credit Party, and finally one government member. Then I reverted to the party of the member who had moved the motion and to the third opposition party. I simply believe I ought to continue that way, and that is why I recognized the hon. member for Medicine Hat.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that opposition days, especially those devoted to Canadian agriculture, come so seldom in this House that it is always a little difficult to know just where to start; there is so much to be said about so many different facets of Canadian agriculture by so
May 3, 1977

many in this House, especially those in the official opposition. I wish to confine my remarks to just two aspects of this opposition day debate, and they are very closely related. They are the western drought situation, which is very serious indeed in western Canada, and the total Canadian beef cattle industry as at this time of year, the end of the first quarter of 1977.
Two weeks ago today I spoke in the budget debate on this same theme, with appropriate comments and recommendations pertaining to budget considerations. Today I wish to update those earlier comments. In that two-week interval the drought situation has worsened over the entire western Canadian front. It extends from the interior of British Columbia right across the prairies to the east side of the province of Manitoba. It is part and parcel of a much bigger drought area in the United States covering the southwestern states, including west Texas, some of the midwestern states, the northwestern states bordering on Canada, and the Pacific coastal states of California, Oregon and Washington.
We are hearing more and more of the inevitable comparisons between the ten years of the dirty thirties and the present crisis. I was personally involved in those earlier difficult days. Southeastern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan had the doubtful distinction of being the drought capitals of Canada, especially my home city of Medicine Hat. The comparisons that we are making today are very valid. The public at large, even in western Canada, is not aware how serious the situation really is. Even younger farmers do not fully appreciate the present situation, and certainly not the serious consequences which will continue to escalate as the drought persists for two years, five years-who knows, maybe another ten years.
Hon. members should have noticed the picture which appeared on page 8 of today's Globe and Mail showing a wide section of harrows almost covered over with drifted soil. The picture was taken in the Regina area. This picture could have been resurrected from 40 years ago, except that it showed a very wide harrow set-up not generally used in the thirties. Yesterday's Ottawa Journal carried this brief item under the column, "Canada in brief'. The heading read, "Dust storm eases", and was datelined Regina. It read:
A severe 12-hour dust storm has swept down on this city after the dryest prairie winter in 100 years tapered off Sunday, leaving a faint pall of dust still hanging on the horizon. Winds of 50 mph tore across southern Saskatchewan Saturday, stirring up the worst dust storm so far this spring in the usually windy and dry provincial capital. The prairies are dryer than they have been for almost 100 years.
Also in yesterday's Globe and Mail there was a front page story about the California drought, and in the county of Marin the initials BYOB mean "Bring your own bottle". Of water, of course, not booze. Yesterday's Calgary Albertan had the front page headline, "Water crisis closer", and the aritcle went on to describe the town of Crossfield, 30 miles north of Calgary, where the town's water supply could dry up within ten days. There is also an emergency domestic water crisis at Olds, Alberta, north of Calgary, which is not usually considered in the drought area. At Didsbury, Alberta, there is another water crisis. There is even an indication in the Albertan story that the city of Calgary may perhaps have a water shortage, which
Agriculture
is related to five years of less than normal precipitation; and there is a plea to Calgary residents to conserve water.
In my own city of Medicine Hat the South Saskatchewan River is at least as low as it was during the thirties. But there is this difference, Mr. Speaker. Today the exposed shorelines are visibly green with algae pollution caused by upstream sewage effluent, and this is causing extreme concern and difficulties in water treatment and pumping for irrigation use.
To understand the background of this drought picture we must appreciate that even though last year's grain crops were above average, to all the way to excellent, western Canada has experienced three winter droughts, the most severe being the last winter from which we have just emerged. Snowfall was much below normal, and snow moisture which was available, was eventually lost by evaporation due to our Chinook winds. These chinook winds blow year round. We usually bless them in the winter and curse them in the summer, since they do cause loss by evaporation of about 40 inches of precipitation a year, and that is of water, not snow. That is four times our average snow and rain precipitation. Over most of the western prairies there has been no rain of any consequence since last August. In the extreme southern parts of Alberta and Saskatchewan adjacent to the United States border there has been no rain of consequence since last June.
Members will appreciate the special significance of the drought in western Canada if they are reminded that out of a total of 50 million acres of usable grasslands for domestic livestock, mostly cattle in all of Canada, some 45 million acres are in the prairie provinces. Most of this acreage is well within the present drought area. Some 150 years ago these same western plains, consisting of approximately 130 million acres, because there were no cultivated lands then, supported six million buffalo, six million antelope, a million mule deer, and a million elk. Today, the 45 million acres of western grasslands carry about six million cows. That is about twice as many cows as there were during the thirties.
Range management authorities believe these serious drought cycles have been part of our North American weather and climate patterns for many centuries and they will continue to be part of our present and future weather cycles. Some authorities suggest that our short grass plains areas of western Canada were the result of excess summer grazing by the buffalo, especially during drought cycles. Whatever the reasons or circumstances associated with these serious drought cycles, the important thing that we learned, or should have learned, from the experiences of the thirties respecting our grasslands is that our cattle numbers must be adjusted downward to fit the reduced carrying capacities of our ranges.
I seriously question the wisdom of feeding expensive feed, either hay or supplements, on bare ground for prolonged periods at this time of year. This is what is happening in parts of western Canada right now. Some of it is recommended by provincial governments. That same feed will be needed next winter for our cow herds. There was a reasonable carryover of
5246

May 3, 1977
Agriculture
hay after our very mild winter, but it naturally follows that the prospects for the new hay crop almost nil.
Last week the press carried various news stories about the indication of a drought assistance program announced by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). I was out there most of last week. The press carried a report on three different aspects: there would be assistance for deep well development; pumping of water to fill stock water reservoirs, dams and dugouts; and assistance to move cattle, presumbably to a new source of grass or feed. No other details were provided: at least, I did not read or hear them. I trust more details will follow shortly on the total program.
The urgency should be apparent to all. The first two items on deep wells and long distance water pumping are most commendable. I will make a further comment later on these two points. However, with respect to the item relating to the federal government's assistance to move cattle out of the drought areas, surely this suggestion begs the question: Where could they be moved to? The grassland drought area is so vast that there is no available pasture in western Canada. Cattlemen have been moving their cattle in large numbers for over two months now, either directly into feed lots in western Canada for finishing, or through the market system to Ontario for spring and summer grazing and finishing next winter.
In a survey conducted by my office covering 19 cattle market outlets across southern Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, I have estimated the volume of this drought cattle movement is up by almost 50 per cent over previous years. The only grass in western Canada that just might be available, with federal action, is some of the 1,000 square miles within the Suffield National Defence reserve.
On April 19 the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard), responsible for the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, indicated in committee that the Suffield PFRA pasture would be opened this year. Surely this decision could be forthcoming immediately and, hopefully, for an enlarged area available for grazing. If it is not asking too much, I would like to request that the forgotten domestic animal, sheep, be given a place on the Suffield lands in the form of a special community pasture exclusively for sheep.
I have given the House a background review of the western drought, as I see it, and as one who was very much involved and influenced by the prolonged drought in the thirties. It is only natural that I should have some personal recommendations for a federal government emergency drought program. I would like to indicate a few points on that program at this time. First, and most important, we should recognize that there is a genuine and urgent need for the mutual co-operation of cattle producers, the federal government and the provincial governments on the prairies.
Cattlemen are already reducing their cattle numbers drastically. In so doing, they will be faced with abnormally high income figures for 1977 and later years if the drought persists and becomes worse. I suggest the federal government's tax policy should permit some form of income to be set aside for these emergency cattle sales-that is, the income from them-

on a tax free basis provided they are reinvested into cattle purchases. This is not just before the end of the following year but at the end of this present drought cycle.
In addition, provision must be made for cattle producers who allow their herds to increase after the drought, by natural increments, to be eligible for this special tax incentive. This is necessary, since an adequate grass cover could take several years to develop after the drought ends. Provincial governments already have the means to make their contributions by the use of their lease rental formulas for determining grazing rents. Carrying capacities will be much lower, so lease rentals should reflect this lower carrying charge. We should note that a somewhat similar tax incentive program for cattle has already been initiated in the United States.
The crash program for deep wells and long distance water pumping should be given to the technical arm of the federal government, which I think is ideally suited for this. I am referring to the PFRA. This agency has the experience and the know-how, so let us turn them loose, with instructions to act immediately. I can only assume that such a crash program would also be available to small towns with a domestic water shortage. Is it not appropriate now to support the suggestions of other members of this House that PFRA be returned home to the Department of Agriculture, where it belongs? The same climatic conditions exist today that gave birth to PFRA in the mid-thirties under the department of agriculture. If a sense of rededication for the survival of the prairies is needed by PFRA and by the government, surely that need is here now, with this drought.
It is my understanding that some behind the scenes meetings have been going on with various government agencies and the western provinces. If there is co-operation here, let us hear about it in regular information releases. Is there some joint action, if only to share information with the United States, on this whole question of drought? I am sure that country will willingly share its resource knowledge on this subject with Canada. There are indications that the drought is more critical in the United States. Authorities at Iowa State University at Ames, Iowa, have taken a special interest in this subject and have indicated that last summer the drought centre for North America was about over Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and that this centre is now moving northwesterly right for our Canadian prairies. Most of us in the west would agree, and quickly add, that it has already arrived there. We must also note that the U.S. Congress has passed legislation to aid drought-stricken areas in 17 western states, and the United States department of interior will provide interest-free loans to farmers and others forced to buy water because of the drought.
I want now to make some specific comments about our Canadian cattle industry and, more particularly, about federal government policies dealing specifically with cattle. During the Christmas recess, when the House was not in session, three very important policy announcements were made. At no time was there an adequate opportunity to debate these cattle
May 3, 1977

policies, even after the House resumed the winter session. I say very sincerely that this is most regrettable. The three policy announcements were: first, on December 23, 1976, the beef import policy for 1977 by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of Agriculture; on January 4 of this year, the cow-calf program for 1977; and on January 24 of this year the fed cattle support program for 1976.
On the first one-that is, the 1977 policy for beef imports- I spoke in some detail two weeks ago during the budget debate. It is noteworthy that last Sunday on CBC's "The Nation's Business" the minister made reference to this policy and suggested it had been requested by cattle producers. He might have been a little more specific. Cattlemen were asking for this action to control imports a year earlier than mid-October, 1976, when the government first introduced beef controls, the day after the U.S. triggered their meat import law.
I will only add to my earlier remarks on this policy that the government's lack of response by suitable action in the spring of 1976, after which a 60 per cent increase in offshore beef occurred for the calendar year 1976, that this deliberate political action delayed the long overdue recovery in the cattle and beef marketplace by a full year. Even today, in spite of the 1977 beef import agreements-and they are not official trade treaties, but only another form of a gentlemen's agreement which gave us so much trouble last year-there are clear indications that offshore 1977 beef imports from Australia are now up by over 90 per cent over 1976 for the first 3'/2 months of this year.


Eugene Whelan: That is not true.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: You only have to consult the blue book and you will see it right there.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have to interrupt the hon. member because his time has expired, although he has been given an extra three minutes for the point of order. Is there consent to allow the hon. member to complete his remarks?
Some. hon. Members: Agreed.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: I appreciate your comments, Mr. Speaker, and I will try to complete my remarks quickly. As I was saying, there were clear indications that offshore 1977 beef imports from Australia are now up by over 90 per cent, that is, in the first Vh months of this year. Surely we will not see a repeat of last year and see the present upturn in cattle markets, which is occurring right now, choked off for a second time by political action. That could well lead to the final demise of our cattle industry.
The second announcement was the January 4 cow-calf stabilization policy. It was a long overdue policy statement and was received pretty well by our cow-calf producers. It follows the minister's own stabilization legislation. However, after all the troubles of the cow-calf producers throughout 1976-and I happen to think it was the worst year ever for cow-calf producers-and after the personal promises of the minister to
Agriculture
cattle producers and to provincial ministers of agriculture, we find that this policy covers only 1977 and is not retroactive to 1976, when surely it was most needed. I repeat, this was after the minister had promised a cow-calf policy for 1976 in 1976. Why not? I can only suggest that the reason can be lack of support in cabinet for the minister's recommendations.
The third and last policy announcement the day before the House resumed sitting announced the government's fed cattle support price for 1976 and the resulting payouts for three of the four quarters last year. I want to point out that the payout-and it was welcomed by some pretty desperate cattle producers-would never have been necessary had those offshore beef imports been properly dealt with and had they been held to historical levels throughout 1976. In arriving at this support level the minister had to change his own rules. First, he used 95 per cent instead of 90 per cent as the factor to adjust the previous five-year average, and then he used the flat dollar figure-$1.69 or something like that-to compensate for the cost of production factor. During 1976 it was generally agreed that the two principal input costs, that is, feeder cattle and feed-barley in the west, and corn in the east-were lower than the previous year. This should have lowered the support price. The minister has never explained how he arrived at this payout plan.
I should like to conclude these remarks about our cattle industry by urging the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), the Minister of Agriculture, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien), all of whom are involved in the future of our cattle production, to think long and carefully about the political direction that Canada's cattle industry should take. I sincerely hope that they will give consideration to letting our price system function and letting the consumer pay for the groceries, including beef, at the checkout counter rather than at tax time. Let us keep freight rates neutral among commodities, and let us concentrate on the economic management of the whole economy in order to stay competitive with our international trading partners and hold input costs down to a reasonable level. Canada's cattle industry is at a crossroad, the most critical one in our history. I have no doubt it will survive, if only because of those 45 million acres of native grasslands in western Canada that by and large will continue to be grazed by cattle, but surely our survival must depend on a truly market oriented basis.


Mr. Claude Tessier (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, the government is once again being asked for more money, but nobody seems to worry about where it will get it or think about the vehemently denounced $7 billion deficit which was mentioned a few days ago.
Mr. Speaker, I, for one, advise my hon. friends to abide by the following golden rule: If you want to get happier-or less unhappy, as the case may be-keep clear of governments, whether they are red, blue or grey. Farmers apparently have earned themselves the reputation of being constant complain-
80012-531/2

May 3, 1977
Agriculture
ers. Some of them probably are, for governments have caused them to become so dependent that every year, time and again, agriculture in Canada is in a state of crisis. I am working and shall continue to work towards making them as free as possible. If the situation remains the same, however, producers should not be held responsible. On the other hand, if the necessary adjustments are made, the government should not yield to blackmail, no matter where it is coming from. Adequate information will be necessary. One thing is certain, and it is that farm producers have become businessmen, and they will have to behave as such, something for which they are quite ready.
As for the government, it has the responsibility of ensuring the support required to confirm Canadian agriculture in its proper rank, in its industrial structure, while ensuring a transition to protect the agricultural producers who cannot attain the level of a profitable undertaking, perfectly integrated in the overall Canadian agriculture. Still, all the advantages of the industrialist cannot be had without paying the cost of the inconveniences: it will be one or the other, the individual will have to make a choice and assume its consequences.
Today's motion is an ideal occasion to reflect on the role each one must play, here and elsewhere; first of all in the House, where the opposition will be either enlightened and dynamic or negative, destructive, more or else opportunist, even clumsy. To the government, it gives the opportunity to explain specific points; to national associations and organizations, to express themselves in national terms; to unions, to ponder their own responsibilities, because there is no field other than agriculture in which unions and government work so much together. Finally, it gives producers themselves the opportunity to consider what they can expect and must give, what they can receive and the cost they must pay.
For instance, to accuse the government and implicate the House in deploring the fact that the government is incapable of setting up a policy, complete and coordinated programs, to profess that the House regrets the fact that the government has weakened rural economy through inconsiderate expedients, says everything and nothing. If governing is the art of making choices, I feel the opposition then has no talent for governing. It is also bungling the opportunity of discussing agriculture, efficiently and responsibly, while being practical and realistic. It is also a waste of time, as such accusations can have no repercussions in the real needs of producers. It is also and finally to prove an almost total lack of consultations between the opposition and farmers' groups, set up by them and for them. In short, this is the question the opposition should ask: Is everything still to be done in the field of agriculture or has the government failed in what it has done? Let us agree on one point: if the government were to do more, it should increase the farm income, reduce the farmer's week, provide him with all sorts of guarantees and solve all his problems, in short, it would be paradise on earth.
In answer to the opposition's questions, I would insist on two points: first, the 1977-78 dairy policy and, second, agriculture and alimentation as experienced by Agriculture Canada and

by the government. This policy, Mr. Speaker, is the tangible recognition of an equity principle between the natural milk and the industrial milk sectors. Indeed, an injustice existed between natural milk and industrial milk producers. The government, through its policy, solved the problem of cumbersome surpluses which were accumulated by the producers themselves, but almost without their knowledge. This was done with the tacit endorsement of certain leaders who put the interests of industry-if not their own-before those of a great many primary producers, particularly small ones.
The 1977-78 dairy policy enabled the government to pay an accrued debt of $152 million in order to refrain from having to mortgage unduly the future and to jeopardize rural economy. The dairy policy has also been the consecration of a $2.66 subsidy on the occasion of its implementation which, as hon. members know, should be gradually reduced. Third, the policy also was an opportunity to demonstrate that indexing could be made to work, even if it was to be passed on to the consumer. This way we could see the price of butter increase from $1.08 to $1.18 and the price of milk powder from 68 cents to 70 cents. The dairy policy was also an opportunity to see the milk quota raised to $105.6 million a hundredweight.
Industrial milk producers also had a guarantee, namely that the maximum deduction would never exceed $125 million in the future. Furthermore, the dairy policy made it possible to reduce the deduction to $1.20 while it should have amounted to $1.91 if policy data had been applied mechanically. The 1977-78 dairy policy allowed for a real increase in the producer's revenue. The net revenue of $10.10 in 1976-77 is increased to $10.66 in 1977-78, the highest level ever reached; it was $10.57 in 1975. However, we can remember that at that time there was still a milk war and that there were some rumours about a war over production costs.
This 1977 dairy policy forced the government to invest some $477 million which were distributed as follows: $266 million in subsidies, $20 million in marketing costs, $15 million in export costs, $20 million in the form of world food assistance, $4 million for market analysis, sales promotion and research and finally $152 million which represent the debt remittance from the transfer payments fund. Here are as many positive advantages which are exactly the contrary of the ill-advised and ad hoc remedies mentioned in the motion which was put forward today by the opposition. Of course, the average contribution of 25 cents a hundredweight of milk provided for the fluid milk supplies which should help pay part of the export costs for milk products made quite a few hon. members jump.
It is quite true that one's man joy is another man's sorrow but we should consider that this 25 cents is an acknowledged principle of interdependence between industrial milk producers which indeed has an impact on their current and future incomes. That point has to be understood, Mr. Speaker, and has to be made understood.
In addition, this milk policy is also the sanction of an equity principle, that is the end of an inequity which has existed
May 3, 1977

because of the manipulation performed by some leaders in the Canadian milk industry. All they want now is to save face and, to do so, they keep on misleading producers. That is why today I take the liberty of putting a formal request before the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) so he might offer evidence of this interdependence and equity established through the 1977-78 policy. The minister must also publish the quotas of all Canadian producers from 1974 to now and keep on doing it in the future.
Finally, if necessary the Canadian Dairy Commission must recuperate the administration and the distribution of quotas but, for the time being, it must provide for a fair distribution. The government acted in the interest of the dairy industry, and even though the conflicts of interest and the tactics of some dairy leaders allude to the contrary, future and truth will prove that the minister and the government were right. That is another glaring evidence that the government made the right move.
In a much more general viewpoint, that of food, the government did achieve what I shall call a real performance. Obviously, it is not a matter of food for angels, nor is it paradise on earth, but this is a matter of food in general, which passes through the producer, the processor, the wholesaler, the retailer and the consumer.
Agriculture overlaps the food circuit together with the processing and distributing sectors, in order to meet one of the most basic needs of people. That circuit implies two characteristics that seem not to be as obvious in other economic sectors: It is very fragmented and gets into a most important part of our economy. This diversification makes the participation of the government absolutely necessary, particularly in the fields of research and regulation. There are more than 300,000 primary producers and, as it is obviously impossible for an individual farmer to do large-scale research, the Minister of Agriculture takes this responsibility and the government finances research projects such as those carried out in educational establishments like Saint-Hyacinthe college or Laval University.
Another result of the diversification of the agricultural sector is the fact that farmers are unable to have a real influence on a market subject to cyclical variations. Since agricultural markets tend to extend beyond regional and even national boundaries, their regulation must be carried on by the government. The second characteristic of our food chain is its numerous ramifications. The basic Canadian economic activity is, directly or indirectly, largely dependent upon farming and food industry. Agricultural products account for 18 per cent of total Canadian freight and about 25 per cent of the total volume of goods carried through the St. Lawrence Seaway. In addition, about 3 per cent of the volume of fuel and lubricants sold in Canada are used by various farming vehicles. The handling of agricultural products and supplies gives work to 25 per cent of the Canadian wholesale trade labour force.
Besides, food industries and manufacturing of a large variety of farm material and supplies are sectors of primary importance. Our society and our economic system are becoming ever
Agriculture
more complex. For example, pesticides which were seen without any reservation as blessings a generation ago now require severe control. That is one of the very many areas where, within the framework of the government's global objectives, the Department of Agriculture has to play a more important role.
The department determines well the problems which concern Canadians, and it does so with limited resources as we know. Indeed, the part of the budget and the staff allocated to the Department of Agriculture during those few last years do not reflect its increasing importance. In fact, 2.2 per cent of government expenses are allocated to agriculture, while the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce administers no less that one fourth of them. To respect government priorities and meet public needs they reflect, the Department of Agriculture has evolved towards greater decentralization. Our expenditures vary from province to province in direct proportion to their farming operations. It goes without saying that our research stations must go in climatic and pedagogic areas suited to their research objectives. For example, the results obtained at the Ste. Foy Experimental Farm might not be useful in the Peace River area, so there is a research station in Alberta. The physical distribution of our experimental farms and other regional offices is but one aspect of the close relationships we maintain with the agrifood sector.
The Department of Agriculture of Canada is actively co-operating with many other departments. In addition, in view of the distribution of powers between the federal and provincial governments with respect to agriculture, a close relationship is maintained with provincial departments and deputy ministers of agriculture. The Canadian Farm Services Co-ordination Committee and its sub-committees, as well as the Canadian Agriculture Research Council are good examples of ongoing co-ordination mechanisms linking both levels of government, those representing the sector, colleges and universities. Those co-ordination committees are interested in various aspects of agriculture varying from grain diseases to the management of farm operations. Some of them study the basic principles and resources of agriculture, namely climate and land fertility.
Mr. Speaker, I could continue but I will conclude by summarizing very briefly the challenges that the present Minister of Agriculture decided to take up with the government. Second, the government protected agriculture from a multitude of natural calamities. Third, the government protected the farming sector from temporary market disruptions, and the milk policy is a clear proof of that. The government also improved and broadened its farm markets. The government also helped improve the structure of the agrifood sector. The assistance to developing countries is another illustration of departmental concerns. Of course, a lot remains to be done, and this government is there and helping effectively in terms of producers' needs, and I hope as you do for an ever more adequate answer in that direction.

May 3, 1977
Agriculture


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the motion introduced by the Conservative party, which reads as follows:
That this House deplores the government's inability to give leadership in developing and implementing comprehensive and co-ordinated agricultural policies and programs and regrets that by ill-advised and ad hoc remedies the government has weakened the overall agricultural economy.
Mr. Speaker, this motion gives us the opportunity to discuss once more a vital problem in Canada, that of agriculture. First, I wish to commend the hon. member who proposed the motion on the agricultural policy. I think that after the agricultural disaster of the last twelve months, it is important for every member of the House of Commons to study the situation in order to prevent its recurrence. For several years, I have realized that too often in agriculture we have a policy of expediency and short-sighted programs. Sometimes, we appeal to grain producers, sometimes to beef, hog, chicken producers when it is not to dairy producers urging them to increase their production. This government even offered bonuses to those who would produce more. But a few months later, it offered bonuses to destroy that production and only twelve or thirteen months ago, the minister had to face a production surplus that could not be sold.
The studies were not comprehensive enough, the markets were considered only on 12- or 24-month periods and the victim of that lack of foresight was the agricultural producer. Not only the farmer must face alone the whims of the weather, but he must cope with the fluctuations of domestic and foreign markets. He cannot get the protection needed against excessive imports, if not against dumping. The only answer proposed by this government is the following: decrease or simply discontinue production.
We have witnessed that shameful attitude of a government which should support the efforts of producers in the wheat issue, when several million tons of wheat have been left rotting in the fields, or when the producer was given a subsidy not to sow his land while millions of human beings were starving. All farmers will remember the call of the Minister of Agriculture in favour of beef production. An unbelievable number of dairy producers abandoned milk production and turned to that promising business only to realize a few months later that they had been taken in. They produced at lost because the feed grain prices had increased twofold. That was a failure for most eastern producers who had to rely on imports of western grain.
We have noted the same failure in egg and broiler chicken production, when uncontrolled imports obliged producers to run at only 50 per cent of their capacity. Now what about milk producers and dairy products? I think all farmers will long remember the year 1976-77 when some of them had to pay $5,000 and even $6,000 as a penalty for overproduction.
Mr. Speaker, I am ashamed to talk of over-production. Could we ever have imagined that, in 1976, we would have forced our farmers to throw away their milk if they did not want to be fined? Yet, this is what happened. It is enough to make you think that a somewhat responsible government

cannot make forecasts for two or three years, when normally its policy should cover at least five years. As a result of this lack of foresight, in 1977 we have only 46,000 dairy farms left from the 96,000 we had in 1970.
We still import more than 60 million pounds of cheese and millions of pounds of butter, and the authorities say that this is normal; in fact, it is very difficult to learn the exact quantity. We import more than 80 kinds of cheese. And I note on the list of imported cheese some types, like Cheddar, which have priority in Quebec and of which we produce an excellent quality. Why must we look elsewhere? The same thing could be said about butter.
During my visit to British Columbia, I asked a distributor why he had only imported butter in his storage facilities. He told me that it was the only type available. That brought to my mind the warehouses in Quebec that are quite full and cannot find buyers. We should put an end to these ridiculous situations. This year the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) wanted to give new hope to our dairy producers, who did not seem to be able to regain their position after last year's disaster. Because of the $8.60 a hundredweight fine on overproduction which was needed to bring about an average reduction of 18 per cent of the dairy production in 1976-77, the producers had to sell part of their herd or to stop milking their cows in the last months of the year so as not to be ruined by the fines.
This is how production in 1976-77 was limited to 9.7 billion pounds. This year, the revenue level wished for 1977-78 is $11.86 a hundredweight with 3.5 per cent butter-fat, for a federal grant of $2.66 a hundredweight. This increase of 41 cents over last year is not even equivalent to the cost of living indexation of 9 per cent recommended by the Anti-Inflation Board. It is not, as has been said, based on the increase in the production costs either, since the input cost increase is well over 41 cents. We must also consider the processor, to whom the minister suggests that-he pay the producers $9.20 a hundredweight on reception.
Does the minister realize that processors will find it hard to meet his request, because they also have to face increases in wages and all other operating costs. The figures mentioned by the minister in his statement for costs to be incurred afterwards are rather provisional or fictitious, because there are too many contingencies. The same goes for the $152 million the minister undertook to write off. Those $152 million cover only the amount paid by producers who delivered surpluses, for which they payed penalties. But what about all those who were forced to sell part of their dairy cattle, if not all of it, at rock bottom prices to pay their debts? What about the others who produced milk all through winter and had to discontinue milking their cows? Those farmers will not recoup their losses before one or two years.
Let us come back to the matter of quotas. Last year, all producers had their quotas reduced by 20 per cent. It would be only reasonable that after the increase in national quota volume, those producers got free the 20 per cent taken away from them. This is not what is currently done, because pro-
May 3, 1977

ducers must pay to get back the volume lost on their former quotas. I hope the minister will establish a specific program so every producer receives fair treatment from regional agencies.
The minister delegated to dairy producer unions the reponsi-bility for administering quotas for the government. He deserves commendation for having directly involved farmers through their unions. There will be a benefit, in that producers complaining about their quotas will not have to come to Ottawa any more to register their protests with the minister. They will simply force their leaders to do their duties. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) announced a $200 million increase relative to last year. The figures are quite accurate, but people must nonetheless be told where those $200 million come from. A simple computation shows the 10 cents a pound increase on butter and the 2 cents a pound increase on powdered milk roughly account for the $200 million producers are granted by the minister.
All this boils down to this: the consumer foots the bill and the government goes scot free. Finally, there is a last area where the government did almost nothing, and this is controlling farm equipment prices. In my view the government should have done more, as regards both purchase prices and credit costs. I submit the minister should take note of this, and see to it that farmers in the future not lose their shirts buying equipment. And so it goes with the modernization required of the farmers. We are forever asking them to modernize and to do so they must borrow heavily without ever having the possibility of a reduced interest rate on the sum they have borrowed. I know that the Minister of Agriculture is not the only one to blame, this is rather a finance question. But I believe that with the help of the Minister of Agriculture we could increase our aid to farmers to make agriculture an even better paying proposition.


Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) for moving the motion which is before us today, namely:
That this House deplores the government's inability to give leadership in developing and implementing comprehensive and co-ordinated agricultural policies and programs-
As my hon. friend from Medicine Hat said, most areas of the prairies are in a desperate situation because of lack of rainfall. The last rainfall in our district was last August, and the drought which began in August, 1976, in south central Saskatchewan now encompasses most of the region. There has been virtually no precipitation either of rain or snow since last August. It has been the driest winter since 1902. The area affected is large, covering virtually all the farmland in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and a part of southeastern Alberta. I was in the Swift Current-Maple Creek district over the week end and when the aircraft in which I was travelling took off from Regina on Saturday it was not until we had reached 9,000 feet that it was above the dust pall hanging over the southern
Agriculture
prairies. Anyone who has lived in that area knows that May is the month when we get strong winds-this is surely the curse of the Palliser triangle.
Though the drought is as bad as it has ever been, fortunately, Mr. Speaker, our farming methods are greatly improved. Farmers can pretty well take anything mother nature throws at them; whether they can survive this government is a different question. The amount of money being expended on seeding the prairie crop is staggering. There must be at least $100 million worth of seed alone going into the ground, not to mention the cost of fuel, chemicals, wages, depreciation, and machinery repairs. Driving through the region one cannot help thinking that the greatest food reserve we have is the ability of our farmers and ranchers to continue to produce year after year. This is why it is so important, not only for the industry but for Canada and the world, that the federal government do everything possible to ensure a strong and viable agriculture.
One of the most annoying circumstances the producers face is the multitude of rules and regulations which flow from government and their departments almost extemporaneously, with almost no thought given to their consequences. Surely an industry such as agriculture which produces a saleable commodity should receive special attention. It is a direct responsibility of the government to ensure that the grain industry, which is so important to the strength of our exports and foreign exchange situation, should continue strong.
I think it behooves the government to take a look at the Rowell-Sirois report produced by that Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations which had its origins in the desperate situation of Western Canada in the thirties. The Commission said that Canada's most serious economic troubles in the thirties arose because of the impact of drought and world depression on the wheat growing industry of Saskatchewan. This industry, upon which the economic integration of the country was chiefly based, suffered the most unfavourable coincidence of circumstances in its history.
If the repercussions upon other sections of the Dominion were widespread and severe, conditions in Saskatchewan itself were nothing short of disastrous. Since, economically, this area was the most vulnerable in Canada, no other province was so dependent upon fluctuations in the export market. Nowhere was production so dependent upon the vagaries of the climate. The Commission reported that drought and ruinous prices were about equally responsible for the disaster and that the national economic policies of the Dominion did virtually nothing to soften the blow.
The main reason for the situation being so serious then, Mr. Speaker, is still with us today. It is that western agriculture is faced with such high fixed cost. I mentioned this earlier. I do not believe it is an exaggeration to say that this spring the total cost of getting the crop in will be a quarter of a billion dollars. The gravity of the situation is that for the grain farmer failure of a crop involves not merely the loss of livelihood but also the working capital which has been invested. Working capital has to be generated before the farmer gets another chance to become self-supporting.

May 3, 1977
Agriculture
Certainly conditions have changed since then and there are other safeguards undergirding western agriculture, for which we are grateful. But we still have to look back at the thirties, because for some three decades the expansion of our wheat industry had been a major factor in our prosperity, the growth of large incomes and the accumulation of wealth in some of the older regions of Canada. The province of Saskatchewan had no access, either by taxation or borrowing, to this surplus which its industry had created during prosperous times to tide it over years of adversity, so some transfer of income was absolutely essential to prevent widespread starvation in the province and the collapse of the wheat industry in those days. Thus the borrowing powers of the Dominion of Canada were used. Some things do not change, Mr. Speaker, and it is no wonder that the various regions of this country still look upon a centralist government in Ottawa with suspicion.
I sincerely hope, Mr. Speaker, that in the government's national emergency plan there is inclusion of drought measures. The only course of action in the short run is to concentrate on deep well drilling, pumping what surface water there is into town and farm dams and dugouts. Rain will not help our wells or dugouts this spring.
PFRA was set up in 1935 for two reasons, one being to alleviate soil drifting and the second to provide farm water supplies. That act has been a godsend. It seems to me that this measure has been allowed to run down over the years and what we are faced with now on an emergency basis should have been anticipated at least ten years ago. I cannot help looking at that South Saskatchewan irrigation project which has never really got off the ground. This year for the first time Lake Diefen-baker will not fill from the runoff of the South Saskatchewan River.
The most serious and immediate problem faces the ranchers, who even now are having to sell down their herds. As the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) said, almost half the cattle going to market now could be considered drought cattle and he suggested there should be some sort of tax deal for people who, through no fault of their own, are caught in a situation which requires them to sell down their herds on an emergency basis. The federal government must make available community pastures, even on an emergency basis, for feed and water. 1 am satisfied, however, that the PFRA people have the situation in hand as best they can, and that no cattle will have to leave community pastures because of a water shortage. However, the grass situation may be a different story. Surely means can be found to move feed into those pastures if necessary.
There is naturally great concern for cost factors in almost every area of agriculture. I will just take one, the marketing of our wheat over which producers have no control. The total operating costs of the Canadian Wheat Board for their pool account on wheat for 1975-76 as opposed to 1974-75 show a $35 million increase in the year. Total operating costs in the
1974-75 year were $68 million. Operating costs to the board

on their pool account for wheat in 1975-76 were over $103 million, a $35 million increase.
It does not seem to matter what item you look at, Mr. Speaker-bank interest, exchange and so on show an increase of 135 per cent. Country elevator administration charges increased by 60 per cent. Total carrying charges on the pool account for wheat went up 45 per cent in the last year.
Several days ago the Agricultural Institute of Canada appeared before our committee, and in their brief they said that declining expenditures on agricultural research and development cannot be claimed as part of the government's program of restraint initiated in late 1975. They said that the deterioration in research funding really began in 1969 and that it had continued without pause since then. It has been brought about through erosion by inflation. An average National Research Council operating grant in the biological sciences in
1974	was 6 per cent larger than in 1969; however, its purchasing power was 41 per cent less than in 1969. The Institute went on to deplore the lack of young Canadians entering our universities and research establishments, and said that in the United States there was a completely different picture, where bright young people were flocking to agricultural colleges, universities, and research centres.
Lack of federal support for research is going to mean that Canadian Wheat Board permit holders will be asked to vote this June on whether or not they should allow one tenth of one per cent of the elevator value of the six major grains to be set aside for research into production and grain marketing. Given last year's market, this would mean that $3.1 million would have been collected. It seems to me that the federal government has responsibility for basic research, transportation and export promotion, and probably more effort should be made here, with less attention being paid to our internal marketing systems.
An example of the great work turned out by our research scientists would be the new wheat "Sinton" which is the only red spring wheat resistant to leaf rust. I am pleased to say that this new variety, being grown commercially for the first time this year, was developed at the Agriculture Canada Swift Current research station. By all reports it is an excellent variety, no question about it.
In the Canadian Wheat Board annual report for 1975-76 the board talks about marketing problems encountered in the
1975	year. The report goes on to say that there were temporary holdbacks of sales lasting for two and a half months, from mid-August to the end of October, due to rain and tough grain. As it turned out, they say in their report, this came at a time when prices were at their high point in the crop year. By the time the results of the 1975 crop were known and the board was again able to go all out in sales efforts, prices had already started to decline.
It is pretty hard to explain to a producer why there would be a two and a half month halt in our selling operations when prices were at their peak. As I have said before, whereas bright young people are flocking into agriculture in the United States, the reverse seems to be true in Canada. These young
May 3, 1977

people know that other sectors of our economy have a basically rigid price structure which is especially resistant on the down side. This tends to steer them away from agriculture.
I have just been reading a report, Mr. Speaker, by Dr. W. A. Meneley, a geologist from Saskatoon. In his report he said that, in general, deeper observation wells, those greater than 100 feet in depth, do not display any pronounced seasonal water level change. Instead, they show a more subdued rise and fall in water level which reflects the longer term variations in the climate. The spring minimum water level trend in deep observation wells is above average and rising, in response to the generally favourable recharge conditions which have persisted in Saskatchewan during the past decade. Surely this is an area that deserves the immediate attention of the government.
It is these deep aquifers which provide the most reliable source of water supply available in southwestern Saskatchewan. Dr. Meneley says that ground water, even in deep aquifers, can be managed as a renewable resource. The immense storage capacity of our major aquifers can be drawn upon during dry years to provide essential water supply needs with the knowledge that the overdraft will be replenished by recharge when more favourable climatic conditions return again to the prairies.
In my own riding of Swift Current-Maple Creek we are sitting on top of a huge water resource. I hope that the Government of Canada puts all its effort into developing that resource. Water supply problems which will arise during 197778, Dr. Meneley says, can be resolved for the most part by providing incentives for developing deeper wells which are less affected by drought. The incentives should include provision for test drilling, electric logging to identify deeper aquifers, and support for well construction based on a percentage of the total well cost, including pumping equipment, rather than the fixed amount grant that is presently available from PFRA. The fixed grant creates a bias in favour of shallow well construction.
In southwestern Saskatchewan, where alternative surface water supply sources are lacking and no shallow aquifers are present, it may be necessary to construct very deep water supply wells, such as the 1,360 feet deep well that now supplies the village of Frontier. Such wells are very expensive and cost some $50,000 and up. That is the cost to drill and equip. This is beyond the financial capability of most individuals and most communities in that area. We are talking about a well that will pump 50 gallons a minute and up, or 15 million to 20 million gallons a year.
We are all hoping for good rains; but failing that the government has a responsibility. I suggest PFRA be brought back under Agriculture where it belongs; that a crash water program get under way; and that we have more research for basic agriculture. As I said before, my people can put up with almost anything mother nature wants to throw their way. How long they can put up with this government we will have to see.
Agriculture


Mr.   Wm. Andres@Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, it is a distinct pleasure for me to get involved in this debate this afternoon, especially a debate on the opposition's motion. It is a motion of non-confidence in agriculture. Having been involved in agriculture for over 40 years and having seen some of the difficulties in agriculture that we faced back in the thirties, in the forties, in the fifties-and I could go on-


Steve Eugene Paproski: In the sixties and in the seventies.


Mr. Andres:: I am a little bit surprised that a motion of this type would come at a time like this when never before has the Government of Canada, under the direction of our present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), recognized agriculture to such an extent as one of the most important industries in this country.


Mr. Beatty:: Eugene Whelan wrote this speech. Wait and see how many times et cetera is said.


William Andres: Agriculture, like never before, has been recognized.


An hon. Member:: Where?


William Andres: Everywhere except in the opposition benches. Unfortunately I am surprised it has not had its recognition there. We, on this side of the House, have always recognized that fact. The minister has been a leader in this.
The agriculture sector generates substantial economic activity and creates employment in food marketing as well as in the agricultural and farm service industries. Almost 50 per cent of the people have jobs which are directly or indirectly related to agriculture, the food processing and producing industries in this country. Agriculture has been extremely efficient. In the last few years it has become so efficient that only 6 per cent of the people are directly involved in the production of agriculture. However, the fact that such a small proportion of the Canadian population is able to provide food for the rest of the country, and be a major world exporter of grain, is an indication of the strength and enormous productivity capacity of our agricultural industry.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Et cetera, et cetera.


William Andres: "Et cetera, et cetera", as the hon. member on the other side says.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is what the minister said.


William Andres: They have one enlightened member there, at least. I am appreciative of that. Our commitment to the world food aid program is well respected throughout the world. Canada is the largest contributor to the world food aid program in terms of actual dollars and commodities offered. For a country as sparsely populated as Canada, I am proud to be a member of that society. We export nearly $4 billion worth of agricultural products. Our balance of food is over a billion dollars.
5254

May 3, 1977
Agriculture
I repeat the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture across Canada that our farmers are the most efficient in the world, and that each farmer in Canada can feed his family and 52 other Canadians. That is a record to be proud of, Mr. Speaker. That is something that is not being done in the rest of the world. In a country such as this, as the minister indicated earlier, it is efficient to provide food for that many people in Canada and throughout the rest of the world.
The government policy has been responsive to the needs of the agricultural industries. The government has recognized the problem experienced in the farming community in the face of great social and economic changes in the past decade. Government policy has consistently encouraged efficiency in farm operations. It has introduced and implemented programs for improvement and rationalization in the major areas of agricultural research, regional development, small family farm development, and domestic marketing. The main policy emphasis has been upon marketing and price levels of agricultural products, because the government understands that the viability of our food system is vital to our economic security both now and in the future.
We all recognize that agriculture is the basic industry in this country. A viable agricultural industry is basic to a viable economic structure of any nation. Our Minister of Agriculture has recognized this and has implemented policies to bring about just that. Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
William Andres: Mr. Speaker, when I was interrupted at six o'clock I was speaking about government policy on agriculture and the government's responsiveness to the needs of the agricultural industry. As always, the government's purpose is to serve the long time interest of the consumer, and that will remain so.
I should like to point out some of the initiatives that have been taken by this government. As was indicated earlier by a member on the other side of the House, the initiatives have not come from the opposition. It is the government that has been responsive to the needs of agriculture and this is recognized by the Minister of Agriculture.
In May of 1975 we had before us an amendment to the Farm Credit Act. This amendment enabled young farmers to get started in agriculture. They could borrow up to $150,000. Another major change allowed younger persons under the age of 35 to make a start in agriculture during a five year period.


Mr. Peters:: They now have a debt of $150,000 and they have no markets.


William Andres: Let me tell the hon. member that I have been involved in agriculture for some time and I can well remember the time when one started in agriculture on a shoestring, and one stayed on that shoestring. But today young people come out of universities and out of various professions and can become involved in agriculture through assistance from the federal government.


An hon. Member:: You should try it.


William Andres: I will tell the hon. member something. If he opened his eyes, he would see one of those people before him. I happen to have what I consider to be one of the most efficient agricultural operations anywhere in Canada, and I challenge anyone to compete with me. I am proud to have two of my sons, who have graduated in agriculture from the University of Guelph, operating that farm as efficiently as any in Canada. The hon. member says we do not have any markets. Because of some of the programs initiated by the government-I will be speaking about some of them a little later-we do have stable markets and we have a darn good idea of what will happen by the end of the year, provided we have a crop, and provided we do not have frost, and so on. This is the time of the year when we are susceptible to these kinds of disasters. But again the federal government has recognized this and has instituted programs to help us through these difficulties.
Another bill that was put forward and is at present before the House is to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, allowing the maximum limit on loans to be increased from $50,000 to $75,000. It takes considerable funds to run an agricultural business, and that is what it is today. We have certain input costs, but every efficient farmer can cover them at the end of the year.
We have the Stabilization Act which was amended in July of 1975 to provide greater assurance of market and price stability to farmers. The new act provides a set of programs for the major agricultural commodities in Canada which will give producers an effective stop-loss guarantee during periods characterized by market uncertainty or rapidly rising input costs. In 1976, under this program, support was given, as it related to my riding, for such commodities as sweet cherries, prune plums, and some varieties of pears. There seemed to be some difficulties in those areas and the federal government was there to support the farmer and help him through them.
The government has committed itself to measures which provide incentives for growth and stability in agriculture such as purchase programs under agricultural products boards. In times of critical need, the government has proven to be responsible.
I was personally involved in obtaining assistance for the sour cherry growers in 1975 when a surplus crop would have been left unharvested because the processor was not ready and willing to purchase it. It was through the Agricultural Products Marketing Board that the federal government purchased the surplus crop, froze it, and sold it the following year when
May 3, 1977

there was a light crop-and I might say, at a profit. The Agricultural Products Marketing Board stabilized returns by buying that crop, and thus the cost of the program was recovered and the producers saved from disaster. There was also an advantage to the consumer because in a light season supplies were available and prices did not skyrocket.
The program was also activitated for the peach crop even though the surplus was bought by the processors and the board was not required to make the purchase. We often find that processors and buyers play games with producers because they are dealing with a perishable commodity. It was not until the federal government stepped in and said it was ready to purchase the crop in my area that the processors purchased the crop, which up to that time had not been contracted for by them.
Last summer I was instrumental in the announcement of a federal support program for Ontario grapes. The federal Agricultural Products Marketing Board purchased some 7,000 tons of surplus grapes worth over $1 million to the growers in the Niagara Peninsula. Revenue from the sale of these products will offset the cost to the government.
Just to show what kinds of programs we have as opposed to some of the programs that some of the provinces, particularly the province of Ontario-


Walter David Baker: Do not be partisan.


William Andres: I am not partisan, but I have to be fair and point this out.


Walter David Baker: Try to be truthful, too.


William Andres: I am completely truthful, Mr. Speaker.
The federal government made an outright purchase of over 7,000 tons of grapes, while the program that the provincial government-and I am not quite sure what that program might be as I expect a drastic change in the provincial government very shortly-said, "We will guarantee a loan to the agency to buy some of the grapes." Mr. Speaker, they never put a nickel into that-they never took a chance on it. They said, "We will provide a loan to the farmers if they want to keep the grapes for a little while." The Minister of Agriculture however, said, "We will buy the grapes," with no strings attached.


William Arnold Peters: Little old wine picker Gene.


William Andres: Some of the crops in the horticultural industry are very perishable so the federal government has a program to assist in the construction of cold storage facilities to preserve them for an extended period. In 1975 18 projects were assisted at a construction cost of over $4 million, of which $500,000 went into a processing plant in the riding of Lincoln in the Niagara Peninsula. The effect of cold storage is to extend the season of perishable crops, which is in the interest of the consumer. The crops would otherwise go unharvested. I have seen cases where a crop matured very quickly but could not be processed. Because there were no cold storage facilities, the
Agriculture
Minister of Agriculture supported a program to assist them to the tune of $500,000.
From time to time we run into a problem with labour for the harvest even though, according to statistics and hon. members opposite, we have unemployment in this country. In agriculture, however, we find it difficult to get people to work at harvest time, so the federal government has responded by bringing in Caribbean agricultural workers to assist in the harvesting of perishables in Ontario and other provinces; but more specifically in the Niagara Peninsula. It seems that people here are a little better off than hon. members opposite sometimes indicate, and are not ready to do some of the stoop labour-that is what it is. When the weather gets a little warm it appears that our people do not want to work in the orchards so we have these other people come in to harvest the crops in order that they will not spoil. It has always been the objective of the Minister of Agriculture to make sure that all produce is harvested.
Another major factor has been legislation enabling orderly marketing schemes and supply management to bring stability to agricultural commodities. There has been much criticism of CEMA yet it has proven to be most beneficial not only in providing producers with a fair return on their investment according to a cost of production formula, but has also brought stability to the market with a guarantee of fresh quality products at fair prices to the consumer. The Minister of Agriculture pointed that out this afternoon when he spoke about the price of eggs, and I am sure hon. members will recognize the program has been extremely successful.
We also have a national turkey marketing agency and deliberations are going on at the present time with a view to establishing a national broiler plan. Some consumer groups in the country have been critical of such national schemes but I think it is very shortsighted for anyone, especially the consumer, to oppose them because they bring stability to the market place and assure the availability of food at modest prices.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. He may continue, nevertheless, if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Andres: I thank you and hon. members, Mr. Speaker. I shall be very brief.
I should like to speak about the tariff board as it affects the Niagara Peninsula and the agricultural industry. Last week the Tariff Board released its findings in reference to fresh fruits and vegetables. Over all, it suggested moderate increased seasonal protection for Canada's 135,000 commercial growers and a safeguard against distress priced imports. These recommendations are based upon intensive study and representations made by the horticultural industry in Canada. I am very pleased with the recommendations made by this board, modest as they may be. Some of the reaction that I have seen in the news media, such as the heading, "Canadian consumer will now be faced with increased price for fruits and vegetables," is
80012-54%

May 3, 1977
Agriculture
totally erroneous. For the life of me I cannot understand how remarks like that are justified. Such remarks are irresponsible.
True, according to some statistics the price of fruits and vegetables has increased dramatically in the last few months, but I point out that such figures apply to fruits and vegetables not grown in this country. They are imported. The reasons given for the high prices are disasters such as bad weather in the country of origin. Mr. Speaker, fruit and vegetable prices increase in the off-season, but one always finds that they decrease when Canadian products come on the market. 1 am therefore pleased to note some of the recommendations made by the tariff review board.
Unfortunately, the tariff review board overlooked an item about which I shall make representation to the minister concerned. I am speaking of grapes. I understand the tariff review board overlooked that item and I shall make representation on behalf of my riding. One of our major crops is grapes. Mr. Speaker, I submit that Canadians need to be more aware of Canadian grapes and the products thereof. The quality of our grapes has improved dramatically. Some people still do not know this. I am sure that before long all Canadians will recognize how good are our grapes.


William Arnold Peters: Our grapes and wines have won lots of awards lately.


William Andres: Let me now say a word about research and development. Some hon. members have complained about the lack of research and development in agriculture. I say that new research facilities, new crop varieties, better methods of disease and insect control, and new farming techniques are accomplishments of the government's research branch. At Vineland in the Niagara Peninsula we have a unique sharing arrangement with the Ontario ministry of agriculture and food, under which emphasis is put on protection research. Provincial scientists carry out research on production of fruit and vegetable crops, and federal scientists are responsible for all protection research. Mr. Speaker, many times I recall gaining new knowledge and new insights from the people working at this station, particularly federal employees.
There are four federal research stations serving Ontario agriculture and funding has increased in the last five years from $6.6 million to $13.3 million. This amount represents approximately 10 per cent of the total annual research branch budget. At present 490 people staff the Vineland station, of whom 104 are scientists.
I have been pleased to put these facts on record to emphasize some of the things the federal government is doing. Speaking as one who is pleased to have an agricultural background, I am glad that my family still depends completely for its income from the primary production of the land. We know that as long as we have our present Minister of Agriculture, and as long as the federal government follows its present policies, we, and the consumers of Canada, shall remain in good hands.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the lot of any Minister of Agriculture of Canada can never be, by the very nature of the job, a happy one. No minister ever assumed responsibility for his portfolio with such good will, good will shown by farmers and members on all sides of the House, than was shown to the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). Yet the events of the last five years, particularly of the last three years, have forced Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to move the motion the House is considering today. It deserves to be read time and again. It reads:
That this House deplores the government's inability to give leadership in developing and implementing comprehensive and co-ordinated agricultural policies and programs and regrets that by ill-advised and ad hoc remedies the government has weakened the over-all agricultural economy.


Steve Eugene Paproski: To the Senate with Whelan.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Anyone who considers the history of agricultural policy of the last 40 years can make the case, I suggest, that never in the last 40 years has the agricultural industry been under such intensive attack by powers within the government as during the present. I speak not only of the powers within this government, but of those within provincial governments right across this country; indeed, I speak of governments around the world.
I suggest that nothing better demonstrates my point than the rhetoric in the amendment to the motion proposed by the New Democratic Party. Let me read the amendment to the motion proposed by the party which once used to stand up for agriculture. It reads:
and this House further regrets the government's failure to give full support to an orderly marketing system which would give producers the collective strength to reduce corporate power in the food system and stabilize farm incomes as well as prices to consumers.


Mr. Benjamin:: What's wrong with the amendment?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: What's wrong with it? The hon. member's party has proposed the very policies which have put agriculture on the defensive. That party's amendment would take the decision-making power out of the hands of producers and put it into the hands of bureaucrats. It would let bureaucrats take the farmer by the throat and increasingly push him into the ground.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame on the NDP.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, no party has a stronger, longer record of support for orderly marketing than Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, the Conservative party. My party put on the statute books of this nation the Natural Products Marketing Act in 1934. That was 43 years ago. We did it to give producers some control over their own destiny. What has happened since the war is this: bureaucrats, mandarins, call them what you will, have fought to take over the direction of marketing boards. Their purpose has not been to make them into instruments to expand the market and increase the farmer's income. Their purpose has
May 3, 1977

been to use them as instruments of the civil service with which to control and curb the decision-making powers of the farmer.
In the last number of years we have witnessed the government, speaking through its civil servants in Ottawa, interfering with the independence of the Canadian Wheat Board. I know the history of the Canadian Wheat Board. The original act was passed in this House in 1935. It was opposed by the Liberals in opposition. In 1939 the then Liberal government introduced four bills which would have got rid of the Canadian Wheat Board. Those bills were passed but not put into effect, because war broke out. The civil service realized that in the Wheat Board it had a device with which it could control the price to the farmer, and that is why the Wheat Board was saved.
After the war, by virtue of the British wheat agreement, our wheat prices were controlled at a time when world wheat prices were high. The wheat industry was controlled long after the ordinary citizen in Canada was freed from controls. I have seen this gradual encroachment on power of the so-called and self-styled leaders of opinion, of this managerial elite, of people who think they know better how to run this country than do the elected members of parliament. The NDP amendment would have us all walk into the trap of turning power over to the bureaucrats.
This evening I will not go so far as to lay blame for what has happened on the minister. I have expressed my feelings for the minister in the Standing Committee on Agriculture. He knows that Conservative members serving on that committee have tried to expand the control of the Minister of Agriculture over those institutions of government which are properly concerned about agriculture.
What has happened to ARDA today? That is the one device which would have helped the people of Thunder Bay, Algoma, the Ottawa Valley, northern Quebec, northern Ontario, and all the other agriculturally depressed areas. ARDA was to be their main line of attack for raising their income. Where is it now? Is it under the minister? I do not blame that on the minister. I blame it on a government that has sold its soul to the mandarins.
Where is the PFRA that was passed by this House in 1935 to rehabilitate the dried out deserts of the prairies which now produce half the agricultural wealth of this country? Where is the PFRA? Is it under the minister? It is under another minister. The shame of it all! Now when we are again in our moment of need, as we always will be with these periodic droughts in the west, our Minister of Agriculture is unable through his own department to take that organization, which is a federal organization which all the provinces in the west have agreed would have the priority in handling drought problems, and have jurisdiction over it.
Where is the crop insurance? Where is the PFAA? We have a bill in this House to get rid of it because crop insurance made it obsolete. Why does the bill stay before the House? It is because we caught the political machine of one of the
Agriculture
minister's colleagues monkeying around in the PFAA. The head man appointed by that minister was up before the courts on criminal fraud. After the judge heard the preliminary evidence, he said that man would be tried. However, the trial has never taken place. The finger of responsibility always has to come back to the minister who holds the responsibility, the Minister of Agriculture. All the Minister of Agriculture could do last year was to get up in the House and say the trial has not taken place. But his civil servants have burned all the papers, burned all the records. Why were all those secretaries fired a month before Christmas when they had not done anything wrong? Why were they fired when parliament voted for them to continue work until the end of March that fiscal year? It was because that machine did not want parliament to ask any more questions.
It came out in answer to a question by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) recently that money which belongs to the farmers has not collected any interest for the past three years. You can understand why farmers all across the country are asking what is going on here.
Why was it necessary for 5,000 Quebec dairy farmers to come onto on the grounds of these buildings last year? When the minister held out his hands and said "Mes amis, I am your Minister of Agriculture", they responded with an attack of milk bottles that he knows all about. When those same farmers went to the polls on November 15 last and voted separatist, they knew that somebody here was not working on their side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The dairy industry is under the hands of the mandarins, that small group of bureaucrats who think they know how to run a cow. They make quotas they hope will satisfy. They think they can plan grain, grass, and breed the cows to give the right amount of milk. Those nitwits could not fight their way out of a paper bag on a misty day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I could go on and on and take point after point. In 1969 these bright boys got together and produced a thick volume known as the task force report. What did these great minds of Canada say? These people who did that task force report for the Liberal government of that day said there were three times too many farmers in Canada and the only way to help them was to cut them down to one third of that number. Boy, did they try! This government rushed into the breach. It put in the Lift program for the prairies. Lower inventories for tomorrow turned out to be lower incomes for tomorrow. It took us out of wheat production at a time when the world was going into one of its worst droughts in history.
A few months later the minister put the wheat price down and dumped wheat on the market. That is when I labelled him "Firesale Otto". When we said, "Please get the price up because we have not got the wheat", he replied that the experts said that there were 500 million bushels hidden on the

May 3, 1977
Agriculture
farms. Boy, what a mouthful those rabbits had to swallow! When they went to get the wheat in 1972, there was no wheat and the price went up to over $5 a bushel.
I would like to believe it was only our mistake in Canada, but the same thing happened to United States farmers. At the time they were negotiating with the Russians at the same price we were charging in our firesale operation, no one believed the farmers when they said there was no wheat. When they went to get it to meet the Russian sale, they could not find it.
The American farmers were very angry. We know what farmers do when they are angry. They did the same thing in the United States as they are going to do in some of these by-elections in Quebec. Those farmers are going to try to scare heck, not out of the Minister of Agriculture, but out of the government that does these awful things to them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Have we taken a beating! Three years ago as the drought came up the central plains from the Gulf of Mexico, we could see we were moving from the wet to the dry part of the cycle. With timely rains we grew a good crop in 1975 and a better crop in 1976. Then what happened? The wheat board said, "We have no more grains to sell," and quit selling. That was in June, 1976. In September-October, they rushed out and made a deal to sell 200 million bushels of grain at $1 below the real price. According to the contract, the people who bought did not even have to pay for it in the sense of taking delivery of the wheat. They do not have to take delivery until August 1 of this year.
Somebody has to pay for the storage. Guess who that will be? The farmer. Somebody has to pay the interest on the money that was borrowed to make the advance payment on that wheat. Guess who will pay that? Right, the farmer. He cannot be blamed for wondering why they are attacking him all the time.
The price is away down. All we have had is public relations ever since that time to prove that the price should be down. In spite of that, the price keeps going up. Meanwhile, these people may take a dollar's profit out of their grain.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The price has been going down for a year. Where have you been?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) is a little confused some of the time. This is one of those times. If he looked at the records, he would know the price was down to $4.15 to $4.20 a bushel. The Rotterdam price has been moving up in spite of this propaganda.
Today we are in a period of drought. Sure enough our beef farmers are the first line of attack about anything being done, but the grain farmer knows that he has to meet this situation. He knows that with all this money spent for planting the grain, and knowing that the wheat price is also lower than last year, he will not get any more. He knows he will not have too much

this year, even if the rains do come. He cannot help wondering what is going on here.
If anyone wants to take the time to read the speeches this afternoon of the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) and the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton), they will see they were not begging speeches. They put on the record the heart-felt feelings of grain farmers who had got on their feet in 1974 and 1975 and had been going ahead. All of a sudden they were slapped down in 1976, and now they face this drought in 1977.
I would like to make my concluding remarks, to stay within my time limit, on this question of drought. We have in the official records of the Department of Agriculture going back to 1875 the amount of rainfall we get every year. Also in that department we have the average production of wheat every year. Every Minister of Agriculture who is representing the farmer should have on his wall a chart of the rainfall and the production so that he knows when we are going into the drought cycles and when we are coming out of them. But since the present Minister of Agriculture is not even allowed to look after wheat, he has to take the information from his colleague. In 1961 we experienced the worst drought in Canada's history, and when the farmers asked for help, it was ready.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Two hundred bucks!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: When the farmers asked for help the provincial governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan and Manitoba recommended to the federal government that we should slaughter a million and a half head of beef cattle. That was the recommendation of the civil servants of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta in the year 1961. The federal government refused to take that advice, went back to the provincial ministers-not their deputies-and said, "Here is a 17 point program to meet that drought." It said to the farmers, "After you have done all you can, if you cannot get the feed to feed your cattle we will feed them No. 1. wheat; if you move them out to the pastures we will feed them." Out of six million head, only 7,000 head appeared. The farmers fought like tigers because they knew the government was ready to feed the cattle if they failed.
With regard to the water question we moved pumps and pipes from every part of Canada, and when any farmer asked for his well to be filled or his dugout to be filled, pumps were put in and his well was filled. That is why the people of Saskatchewan, in spite of all the propaganda they hear from the NDP, put in Conservatives in federal elections in Saskatchewan. They know who stood by them.


An hon. Member:: Tory times are bad times!
May 3, 1977


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: All 1 can say
is that Liberal times are inflationary times and times of unemployment. Mr. Speaker, drought is not a laughing matter. It is a great thing for the member for Regina-Lake Centre to laugh. He is confused quite a lot of the time. This is serious.
It was after the drought of 1961 that federal taxpayers spent money to carry out a study of the entire underground water table of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta. This is when they outlined the great aquifers which exist. Today we know that on the prairies we sit on a trough of three underground lakes as big as the Great Lakes. That underground survey was done so that never again would we have to risk our cattle herds in a drought. All we have to do is take the expertise and the machinery we have available, with the drilling equipment we have, and go down to the aquifers, those which are not salty, bring the water up to the surface and pipe it all over the area. I have another purpose-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. However, he could go on with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I see that one hon. member is raising an objection.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No way, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Then I call upon the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cote).
[ Translation]


Mr.   Florian@: Mr. Speaker, it is sad that a certain hon. member of this House has refused to let my predecessor finish his speech since I do believe it would have brought back something of our past, almost reaching out to ancient times, that is, when he was himself Minister of Agriculture.
Well, Mr. Speaker, nowadays everyone tries his best to defend certain positions or criticize the agricultural field or its minister or the government itself. First of all, I quarrel with the wording of the motion. It is proposed in terms that are accepted by this august assembly but as far as I am concerned, the wording does not quite correspond to reality. The motion is presented by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise), one of my good colleagues, who I know has the necessary ability to discuss the agriculture issue, in fact or in practice, since he has been involved in the same kind of agriculture I have myself practiced in the past and has himself suffered as I did when his own party was in power. That is why I grant that it is possible for him to introduce a no-confidence motion.
Agriculture
The motion says "this House deplores" but it is not really the House, Mr. Speaker; when we speak of the House of Commons, we think of all the political parties and right now I feel that only a very small group, not even half the members of the opposition, could deplore something that they know nothing about in the agricultural activities of the last few years, but possibly they might deplore something that has not been done.
I endorse this last possibility. As for the wording itself, I reject it and accept, for example, that regardless of our political conviction, the democratic principles allow us to declare openly at any time that the laws of this country do not correspond to reality or could correspond to it or should be improved upon. But no matter to which party we belong, any responsible member, whether on this side of the House or on the other, must admit that we did not do what we should have done in due time in committees, when we were in power, or what we should say to the government when we are not in power. That is why I think it is unfortunate that our farmers run their farms the way various MPs or MLAs discharge their own duties. I feel many more farmers would go bankrupt, Mr. Speaker. I think this is illogical. I seldom rise in the House. Why? Because I think that the legislator's role is primarily to draft bills which can meet the future needs of farmers, and very often we are not able ourselves to plan for the future because we cannot foresee it. I often notice in the House, on this side or the other, that easy solutions are found: When it is raining, it is easy to say that we should call in the sun. When the sun shows up, the opposition usually claims credit for it. When the weather is bad, this government has summoned the clouds.
Mr. Speaker, I have discussed a few points but not for the sake of demagoguery or position. That is not my purpose because, to my mind, it would be destructive. It certainly is not constructive to attack this one or that, without suggesting solutions. We are not elected for that. When an elector in our riding makes his little cross on his ballot to send a member to the legislative assembly of his province or to the House of Commons of his country, he is confident the man for whom he has voted is more serious than that.
Mr. Speaker, I heard criticism a while ago, but nothing positive with regard to the government, except when the minister tried to explain certain points. But, according to the opposition, nothing has been done; yet, it makes no suggestions. I though I would be able to emphasize each point, Mr. Speaker. The speeches of each hon. member who took the floor can show us how serious these people are. My colleague the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) had nothing but criticism. However, I admit he can do better than what he showed the House this afternoon. I would have thought he could have proposed solutions to genuine problems. So, Mr. Speaker, if time permits I would like to attempt to submit solutions which the present government should study, even if I were one of its members. This is the kind of suggestion I was expecting from the hon. member for Elgin.
As far as the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) is concerned, he expressed a view which I found

May 3, 1977
Agriculture
extremely disappointing. However, only twice did he attend the meetings of the Committee on Agriculture relating to the last budget and he blamed the government for pouring too much money in the budget, and the Minister of Agriculture was blamed in committee. Yet this afternoon we saw the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville say to the minister that there should be more money put in the budget for research. You have to be consistent. Either you tell the House that there is not enough money and you vote the supplies in committee or you ask the minister to put in more. Or you refuse in committee to put money in such and such an area of agriculture and, back in the House, you say the same thing. You have to be consistent.
Mr. Speaker, I will leave all that aside. The dairy policy is the last point I will attempt to deal with. The hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) already talked about it. I do not have the time, because it goes by too quickly, to take up his challenge. I refer to what was said by the hon. member who spoke before me, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). I heard some pretty good ones a while ago!
Mr. Speaker, in 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1963, I came here to Ottawa as a representative of the farmers' association and at that time the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain was Minister of Agriculture. He cried over our shoulders earlier suggesting that he was not happy with the present agricultural system and the 5,000 farmers who came before Parliament last spring. The mover was, as I was, a milk producer in 1957 when milk was selling at $3.25 per hundredweight. If I mention that, that is merely talking about ancient times but I would like people to be aware of what they suggest in the House. That is reported in Hansard and will remain there. Irresponsible words should not be spoken as if nobody could go back and read them over. That is serious.
In 1957, the mover and 1 were selling milk at $3.25 per hundredweight and I do not dissociate myself from the farmers at that time. Collectively, we said that the government was not a good government because at that time the Progressive Conservative party offered us much more than we were supposed to have. Then, we supported collectively all Canadian farmers and we endorsed the opinions put forward at that time. Six years later, Mr. Speaker, any farmer who produced about 300,000 lbs. of milk had suffered a loss of income. That is what the Progressive Conservative party proposed to us, they promised us the moon and we did not even get a star because we had lost 56 cents per hundredweight of milk. Over six years, it was a regressive increase, a decreasing increase.
Yet, some ministers of agriculture at the time will now have us believe that everything is wrong because the present government has favoured 5,000 farmers. At that time, I came here to submit briefs, but nobody understood us. The agriculture budget, which was split about 50-50 between eastern and western Canada, has been shifted, and I am pleased to see that western farmers have gained by it, but 65 per cent of the agriculture budget has been shifted to three provinces of Canada and 65 per cent of the farmers now share 35 per cent

of the budget. Today, nothing has been reduced in western Canada and let somebody prove to me that the western producers' income from wheat, oats, feed grain or export grain has decreased. There has been no decrease, but now a balance has been struck in eastern Canada. There is no more for one than for the other, but there is a sort of balance, but at what cost?
Mr. Speaker, when milk producers came here last year to blame the government for being the victims of a democratisa-tion process carried too far. Many years ago, in the province of Quebec, someone created a sort of myth known as autonomy. Autonomy should have allowed a provincial government to have jurisdiction over a great number of Canadian pieces of legislation, but under that autonomy, some powers have been transferred over which we have lost control, and now that control is in the hands of the producers' associations of which I have been a member myself.
I am happy that they are taking over providing they handle it properly. Unfortunately, that happened last year. In the case of opposition members, however, I see the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) in the background and I feel he should be aware of the situation. If he had gone through what I experienced, he might be discomforted by certain attempts at criticism from his colleagues. He would realize that Quebec has no need at this point for criticism, but rather for understanding. If we throw problems at one another, we will find no solutions. But solutions are needed as regards the dairy policy which accounts for 48 per cent of the national production. Last year, the cost to the Canadian government of that policy was higher than in any other country, including the European Economic Community. Figures show that the cost to the Canadian government for this same commodity of the dairy policy was higher than the overall EEC budget for the whole
1975-76 fiscal year, because the EEC has no direct subsidy on the hundredweight of milk. The Americans next door could give farmers nothing more than $2.35 short of what our farmers got here. Admittedly, this is not enough, and I look forward to having more and more, just like our farmers do. But as far as saying that everything is wrong, this is another story. We must be rational about this. Whatever is given must come from somewhere. That is the name of the game.
I therefore ask the opposition members who introduced this non-confidence motion and who have contributed to this debate when they have allowed us to increase the budget of such and such a department. They have always criticized the budget of each department, and when they make some minor criticism, often it is not about the budget, but about the administration. We are criticized for not granting even more money. If there were farmers to hear us in the gallery, I think we would be ashamed.
I said earlier that the producers would get into trouble if we were to administer the country in this way or if we wasted our time as we are now doing. I submit that I can achieve nothing by doing what I now have to do. According to the rules, the leader of the House had to grant an opposition day and the opposition had to find a subject of debate, whether it was
May 3, 1977

justified or not. I find this deplorable and a waste of time. But I think that if we do not want Canada to face serious consequences or our producer organizations to face administrative failures because of our dairy policy, we shall have to be more serious on both sides of the House and we shall have to describe the problems as they really are so that Quebecers will not imagine that things are as bad as all that in Ottawa.
When they play these little games, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) or the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle)-who are well aware of the situation in Quebec and who can understand what is going on because they know what separatism is like as they have left certain political parties themselves-harm me as a Quebecer, they harm the various farm producers, because they are using a philosophy which has no bearing on Canadian policies. When this happens, what I heard earlier is repeated. 1 found what the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) said unfortunate. This is ridiculous and some will say later on: It is the fault of the central government if the situation is so serious in Quebec.
Let us not forget the $632 million invested in agriculture last year. No one is aware of this in Quebec. Even if we talk about this investment, the few members of the opposition say that it is not true. The farmer does not know if it is true or not. If they say we did not do enough, if they criticize us for not getting enough money from taxes, I am ready to accept it because the government does not give anything, it only redistributes wealth.
How many members from my province have been able to explain the efforts aimed at making our agricultural costs competitive with those of other countries? How many members from my province have been able to say to what extent the problems caused by the weather in our regions are reduced owing to the hundreds of millions paid by the government of Canada? Nobody mentioned that. How many people have heard about the protection given to farm product marketing by a bill, the famous Bill C-176 that cost a lot of money.
Mr. Speaker, I tend to look at the hon. member for Joliette as he is about the only one that can understand me as he speaks French. At that time, it was sad to see what was happening to some members of the opposition. One of them joined us and we must convince him about those bills and show him that we wanted an orderly marketing of farm products for agricultural associations but it took us two years to pass the legislation, this is unfortunate and now that this bill comes back to the House, it is criticized. If we play into the hands of some farmers, who do not realize the value of those bills, we shall do the same thing as the hon. member for Joliette and the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe.
We shall do the same thing as some hon. members who ignore under which legislation they were sent. They wish to serve their political ends, to make speeches while newsmen
Agriculture
listen to us to report it in the press. Those people do not sit on the Committee on Agriculture. I do not see them there. As my allotted time is probably expired, I shall end my comments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman but his allotted time has expired. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil).


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join in the debate in support of the motion of the official opposition which in effect deplores the government's inability to give leadership in developing and implementing comprehensive and co-ordinated agricultural policies and programs. My remarks will be relatively brief because I understand there are one or two other speakers, both on this side and the other side, who wish to make a few comments.
Under the British North America Act, with respect to agriculture the powers are divided between the provinces and the federal authorities. The provincial governments have powers to make laws or to pass legislation within their boundaries. The federal government, of course, has the power as well to pass legislation dealing with agriculture within the provinces. That power given to the federal government has an overriding authority over the provincial legislatures. Under these circumstances it seems to me that it is important, where there is an overlapping or a combination of authority, that there be a maximum of co-operation between the two levels of government-the departments of agriculture of the various provinces and of the federal government. If we have that degree of co-ordination and co-operation, we end up with a well-functioning agricultural industry.
Basically the provincial authorities, the provincial governments, are much closer to the grass roots. I would suggest that they have a greater appreciation of the problems of agriculture within their boundaries. There should be a constant flow of information passing back and forth between the provincial authorities and the federal authorities in order that there be a better understanding of the problems respecting agriculture. This is not always so. There is not always this degree of co-operation or understanding. There are a number of reasons for that. One of them perhaps is politics-the fact that a provincial government is of a different stripe than the federal government. There is a question of power in the bureaucracy, and there is a question of clash of personalities.
The business of livestock comes to mind. That was a case and is a case where there have been problems in the livestock industry for some considerable time. In the livestock industry and in considering its problems, there was no co-operation and very little, if any, consultation between the federal and the provincial authorities. It seems to be that each of the provinces wants its own way. First of all, there was a feeling based on faulty statistics that there was a shortage of cattle in the country. The provinces encouraged the livestock producers to increase their herds. They gave them interest free loans and so

May 3, 1977
Agriculture
on. Suddenly they found there was overproduction, and each province discovered it had to start its own stabilization program to help its producers keep in business. You can see the mess the livestock producers are in today.
I blame the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) because he should have been aware of this situation. If he was not aware, it was a case that he was not consulting with his provincial counterparts. He finally did assess the situation. I believe this, because he was asked questions in this House from time to time and the situation was explained to him. But he stalled and stalled, and the result was that each province went its own way. The minister failed to analyse the situation properly.
One of the problems that arose was the question of the importation of offshore beef. Despite the fact that the provinces and the livestock producers had been telling the Minister of Agriculture that the importation of offshore beef was a problem, he delayed action until it was too late. As I said, it is important, if we are to have a sound agricultural industry, that there be co-operation. Some time ago the government moved the responsibility for PFRA from the Ministry of Agriculture to the Ministry of Regional Economic Expansion. PFRA falls within the purview of the Minister of Agriculture. I am not suggesting that the present Minister of Agriculture was responsible for having PFRA moved to DREE.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The other minister went to the Senate.


Douglas Charles Neil: I know that this minister would be happy to be responsible for PFRA.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: And for the Wheat Board.


Douglas Charles Neil: But the government transferred responsibility for PFRA to DREE and, as everyone knows, DREE is not an agricultural agency but an agency to develop industry in various parts of the country.
PFRA was set up in 1935 by the government of R. B. Bennett, a Conservative government, and its purpose was to assist in the reclamation of agricultural lands that were seriously affected by drought and soil drifting in the prairies in the 1930's.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That was the last gasp of that government.


Douglas Charles Neil: I think that is the last gasp of the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Charles Neil: PFRA responsibilities were later extended to include water conservation and development, land use adjustment, large scale irrigation, reclamation, community pastures, and so on. PFRA was instrumental in the construction of the Gardiner dam on the Diefenbaker Lake, which has added greatly to the province of Saskatchewan and to the agricultural industry. We have an irrigation scheme in the Outlook area. An hon. member opposite says "What is wrong with that?" There is nothing wrong with that. The dam was built by a Conservative government. A former minister of agriculture for

years was elected to the House on the promise of building a dam. That was his province, and finally when the Conservative government put foward the motion to build the dam, he voted against it.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Douglas Charles Neil: It was a great program.


Eymard G. Corbin: I think the hon. member misunderstood me. I said there was nothing wrong with that dam.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Not a damn thing wrong with it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They both promised it for 50 years.


Douglas Charles Neil: I accept the hon. member's statement regarding what he has said. I heard him in passing and I assumed he was making a detrimental comment, so I wanted to put him straight.


Eymard G. Corbin: Not at all.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A plague on both houses.


Douglas Charles Neil: After the dam was built, the federal government never followed through with its plans. The plan was that the irrigated area in central Saskatchewan around the Outlook area would be extended. There was an agreement with the province of Saskatchewan, but for one reason or another-one of the main reasons being lack of communication and co-operation between the two governments-the irrigation area was never extended. It would be a godsend today in Saskatchewan if the irrigation area around the Diefenbaker Lake had been extended.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: There ain't no water in it.


Douglas Charles Neil: I think one of the basic reasons was that the bureaucrats who were running the department forgot the lessons of the 1930's. They lacked foresight and they failed to understand the need for water. If PFRA had been allowed to function as it was originally intended, if the government had given its support to it and had left it within the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture, I suggest that many of the drainage areas in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta would have been developed in order to make water supplies available for some of the towns and cities in the prairies, and for irrigation purposes, because PFRA had the top expertise in Canada as far as water drainage and land development in Canada was concerned. But once PFRA was shifted to DREE, it went down. As the honourable member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) said, it is now in the hands of the undertaker.
In closing I would like to make one or two brief comments on the amendment of my friends to the left to change the period at the end of the main motion to a comma, and add the following words:
-and this House further regrets the government's failure to give full support to an orderly marketing system which would give producers the collective strength to reduce corporate power in the food system and stabilize farm incomes as well as prices to consumers.
May 3, 1977

They talk about full support to an orderly marketing system. Our party does not support the amendment put forward by the NDP. We are not opposed to the principle of marketing boards, provided they are producer controlled and set up in a democratic manner by producers. We do not believe in the supply management concept such as suggested by my friends to the left who would like to see the agricultural industry and every other industry in Canada controlled by the bureaucrats. We cannot go along with that concept. We believe in a democratic society where the producer is allowed to make up his mind. For that reason, and to give other honourable members an opportunity to speak, I will conclude by saying that we cannot support the undemocratic amendment of the NDP.


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to be taking part for a few moments in this debate following the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil).
It is interesting to note again, in a motion put today by the official opposition dealing with agriculture, that this is another excellent example of how completely devoid they are of any constructive ideas. The only constructive thing in the debate so far is that it has been helpful in highlighting the possibility of drought in western Canada. To their credit, the two members who did such a good job, the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) and the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton), did not blame the government for this, as I am sure some of their colleagues would have done. That has certainly been the only positive aspect of today's debate.
Hon. members opposite were again carping and critical and harking back to the 1930's and 1950's when they were last in power, with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) reciting the litany of his achievements. I will say he had a number of achievements to his credit, but since that time his party has been devoid of any agricultural policy and today's debate proved that again. They are critical of this government, of the minister's efforts, and of his tremendous success in dealing with the problems of food production and the food producers in Canada. I can only assume they are envious of the minister and his record.
My good friend, the hon. member for Medicine Hat, who took part in the debate before the supper hour, made an excellent contribution. He made one statement, however, with which I wish to take some exception unless I misheard him. He was concerned about the abnormally high incomes producers might be receiving for beef cattle if they were forced to market them by virtue of the drought conditions. I would say that with the record of returns to beef producers over the last three or four years they are not going to have abnormally high returns; indeed they may have a tax liability.
If the hon. member can name ten cattle producers in western Canada with an income tax problem, I will be glad to produce 1,000 names of people who have a much more serious
Agriculture
negative income problem. I am not saying that there should not be reforms in tax laws as far as the beef industry is concerned, but certainly it is not an urgent priority in terms of legislation to improve income averaging.
Over the past four years or nearly four years, the beef producer has suffered financial losses, the magnitude of which we have probably never seen before and will hopefully not see again. The reasons are complex and the solutions are complex. Unlike some others I do not propose or suggest that I have any simple or magic answers. There are a great many myths and a great many simple answers that have been put forward, not only in this debate but in other circles. We heard the hon. member for Moose Jaw mention that provincial government assistance programs guarantee loans. In the case of the government of Saskatchewan and the government of Alberta a few years ago, some said this was the cause of the downturn in the western Canadian beef industry. This kind of charge is untrue and has nothing whatever to do with the broader basic problems of world over-supply and North American over-supply that brought about the chaotic marketing conditions we have witnessed.
There are those who say that when this government came out with the seven cents per pound premium, later scaled down to five cents, then three cents, and eventually phased out, it created a drop in beef prices which upset the market. The fact of the matter is that the Omaha market was dropping, and no matter what the government or the producers of Canada did they were faced with a downturn in the American market which our market generally follows. It is true that over the last three or four years generally our market has dropped to the same degree. Even last year while the critics were blaming the "down under" beef imports from Australia and New Zealand for causing the problems in the Canadian market, the fact of the matter was that finished beef in Canada was generally priced two or three cents above the Omaha price. Even while a great deal more beef was imported from Australia and New Zealand last year, at the same time more ground beef left this country for the United States.
There are those who say that government intervention is the cause of problems in the beef industry in Canada. They want no government help; they say they do not need government help. What surprises me is that these are quite often the same people who have very large leases of Crown pasture land or are perhaps enjoying the publicly funded water conservation program of the PFRA or the patronage of PFRA pastures or provincial community pastures. The rates for all these are generally much below those of producers who own their land. In my part of Saskatchewan the majority of cattle producers do own their land as opposed to the case in southern Saskatchewan and southern Alberta. I have always been interested to hear people say, "We do not need any government help or intervention; keep giving us the things we enjoy, the benefit of the taxpayers' money."
We hear some people say that a marketing board with broad supply management powers would resolve our beef marketing difficulties, and I am aware that the Minister of Agriculture

May 3, 1977
Agriculture
(Mr. Whelan) strongly believes in that principle. The only problem with this is that the majority of western Canada beef producers simply do not share or support that view. The minister has repeated that any such proposal would only come about with the democratic and majority support of producers. I am glad to hear him say that, but I say to him that such support may come about eventually. In my view, however, it will be many years down the road before producers will make that decision on their own. I would need a lot more evidence than has been available so far.
In the meantime I suggest we should set aside the debate on "whether or not the marketing board," and instead the minister should continue working in those areas where there is support for development of a better consensus to help the beef producers of this nation. There are some areas where there is pretty general consensus which my friends in the New Democratic Party can certainly support.
There is little doubt that beef producers today, regardless of their philosophical views on marketing, or their political views, are prepared to recognize there is a serious problem and are prepared to work out solutions. It is generally agreed that improved information service to the producers about numbers, supplies, kinds of cattle and so on, and information about the industry in this country, the United States and elsewhere, would enable them to make their own decisions. There is little doubt in my mind or that of anybody associated with the industry for any length of time, that we need increased research into disease control and disease prevention. Every year we are still losing unnecessarily tens of thousands of dollars because calves and cattle of all sizes and ages are afflicted with diseases which have been with us for many years. We are making little progress to control or prevent these diseases.
Third, and related to that, we also need funds to support more and better veterinary preventive medical programs, which should be made available through provincial governments to producers on a cost-shared basis. Money spent on such a program would be of direct benefit not only to the producer but to the consumer as well, because it would increase and improve the efficiency of our industry.
Fourth and finally, it seems to me that we need more and better co-ordination among federal departments and agencies dealing with beef. In this respect I am thinking of some structure similar to the grains group which was set up by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Oh, no!


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: My hon. friend opposite says, "oh, no!" However, by setting up that group the minister brought together all those government agencies dealing with grain and allowed them to focus their attention on grain, including the transportation and marketing of grain.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: And you are still not getting a good deal.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: That, I think, should be our approach with respect to the beef industry. We should make sure there is greater co-ordination of the activities of federal agencies dealing with beef, so that each agency will know what the other is doing in fields of marketing, grading, production, export and so on.
I think the Minister of Agriculture has done a tremendously good job in going across this country and speaking to many hundreds of producers in all parts of Canada. As I say, he has spoken to producers in almost every corner of the country. I know that it has been difficult for him and others to arrive at any definite consensus with respect to the beef industry, particularly in view of the problems that industry has gone through in the past several years, but I believe that today we are closer to arriving at a consensus with respect to the needs of the industry.
It is obvious to me, to beef men and farmers right across this country, that the minister has made tremendous efforts to meet farmers, talk to them, and learn about their problems. He implemented in the beef industry a finished beef stabilization program which has been of great help. That program was improved again this year. Provision was made for four quarterly payments which will more accurately reflect changes in the market.
At the turn of the year the minister was able to announce a cow-calf stabilization program which will be effective this year. Like the hon. member for Medicine Hat I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this program at greater length. The program represents a beginning. I hope market conditions this fall will be such as to make the program unnecessary. On the other hand lam happy to see that program in place. It will be of benefit if the market place does not increase prices. We must try to make that program effective and workable and I suggest that can be done if co-operation in this respect is shown.
In another debate I intend to take exception to certain remarks made by the former minister, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, relating to some insinuation and charges he made in this debate. If they are anything like as serious as he intimated, the matter should be brought directly to the attention of the attorney general of Saskatchewan. But I know the hon. member is not prepared to do that. I should like to discuss that matter at greater length in another debate.
We know what Tory policy is.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, you don't. What is it? The Tories themselves don't know.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: We know primarily what it is. They made their policy clear in today's debate.


An hon. Member:: Do you know the NDP's policy?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Yes, I think we know it. What is Tory policy? First, it is that there shall be no government intervention of any kind. Second, they say, leave the working of agriculture entirely to the open market or the market place. One should
May 3, 1977

define those terms, because I am not exactly sure what they mean. Third, they say, open all the borders, even though in 1975 hon. members opposite asked the Minister of Agriculture to close the border. Fourth they want no beef stabilization program of any kind. That has been the Tory policy. They want no grain stabilizaion program of any kind. They oppose the plan now in place. I could go on listing the negative aims and objects in agriculture of the official opposition.
Let me conclude on a positive note by saying that the party opposite made certain constructive suggestions when highlighting the seriousness of the drought in western Canada. Let me say, as well, that PFRA and other agencies operating in the area will certainly respond to demands and programs which may be put in place. I believe the Minister of Agriculture himself is now discussing such programs with ministers of agriculture of western Canada, as well as with premiers. I assure hon. members opposite that the government, PFRA, the Minister of Agriculture and others responsible will respond, if the need to do so arises. Contrary to what the hon. member for Moose Jaw suggested, PFRA is in place. It is performing its function and ready to carry out its responsibilities. It still has the necessary expertise, and the organization will do the job if it is asked to do it in the next few weeks.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Thanks a lot. I will remember that.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak only to the amendment. I was surprised to hear hon. members on my right reciting history. It is apparent that the Conservatives never look forward. They only look back. I heard a great recital of what they had done but the fact is they did little. Actually they have opposed for some time practically every constructive piece of legislation which has come forward.
I was amused to hear western Conservatives praising Jimmy Gardiner's PFRA army, considering that they fought unsuccessfully for years to get rid of him.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I think the hon. member is speaking about PFAA. Does he not know the difference?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture presented a brief today; in it those representatives of farmers said among other things the following:
Farmers are however disturbed by calls for a 'national food policy', as if we didn't have one, and as if the body of existing policy in this country presented a scene of widespread disarray. This is not so.
One can see why we proposed the amendment to the motion. We wanted to cure some of the problems which have developed in the west as a result of archaic thinking. It is apparent that some people are not willing to face the problems of the beef industry. If there was ever an industry that needed help, it is the beef industry. If there was ever a time when the federal Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) needed help in this regard, it is the present. That minister shares responsibility for agricultural policy with the mortician who is trying to bury PFRA, bury our transportation system, and bury the farmers of western Canada. Today he has been getting help from the Conservatives, particularly Conservatives coming from western
Agriculture
Canada. It seems to me that the minister's seat mate is trying to fight him. Also, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott) has not the faintest notion of the role of marketing legislation, and I suggest that he possesses no information which would lead him to conclude that marketing legislation is detrimental for the consumer.


An hon. Member:: Hogwash!


William Arnold Peters: That minister has hired a number of people of the Beryl Plumptre kind who are out to hang somebody. It seems that the person they are out to hang is the farmer.
Conservative members of this House should remember that in Ontario a Conservative government has been in power a long time. In Ontario we have more than 80 farm marketing boards, and I hear that the Davis government will not eliminate any one of them. I suggest that members of the Conservative party should come forward into the present century and look seriously at marketing legislation. No particular piece of marketing legislation is the full answer, for every commodity needs to be governed by a different type of marketing legislation.
Instead of fighting the Minister of Agriculture who has a knife in his back from his seatmate, and a knife in his back from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, he should be getting the support of all members of this House. In my opinion he has been doing his best to try to help the farmer. Hon. members can give that support by supporting the amendment.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, in the time remaining I would like to add to the remarks of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) with regard to the amendment. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) tried to make a speech about R. B. Bennett. That is as far as his thinking has gone. The whole principle of orderly marketing has been asked for by farm organizations since the early thirties.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) says he cannot support the amendment because he wants producer-controlled marketing boards. I advise hon. members that we left out the words "producer-controlled" because that has been in the CCF-NDP policy since 1934. We felt that if we put the words "producer-controlled" in the amendment, the Conservatives would not vote for it.
I am glad to hear the hon. member for Moose Jaw, speaking on behalf of his party, say that they are in favour of producer-controlled marketing boards which, by the way, is the same as the amendment reads, "collective strength". The hon. member said he will vote against the amendment. If ever there was a classic case of talking out of both sides of your mouth and out of your top end and bottom end, this is it. The hon. member is against orderly marketing but in favour of producer-controlled marketing boards. I do not know out of which end he is talking. He must be talking out of both ends at the same time.

May 3, 1977
Agriculture
As the hon. member for Timiskaming said, when the PFRA was under the Minister of Agriculture, the Tories screamed bloody murder to have it taken away from him. By that time Jimmy Gardiner had fired all the Tories and hired a whole bunch of Liberals. Now they want it back under the Minister of Agriculture. I do not know what makes them think there would be any difference under one Liberal minister or another. It is not what they are doing but how they are doing it that bothers the Tories.
The fact that the official opposition wants to oppose this amendment lines them up with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott). They are against orderly marketing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 9:45 o'clock p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the debate and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the proceedings now before the House in accordance with Standing Order 58(9)(a). The question is on the amendment (Mr. Nystrom). It is the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the amendment lost. The question is now on the main motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the		motion lost.
It being after ten o'clock this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 10.24 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, May 4, 1977