1978-03-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that Statistics Canada this morning announced a further increase in the cost of living for February and a year to year increase of 8.7 per cent, and in view of the fact that the recent Ontario government's budget announced a health premium tax increase of 37.5 per cent, an average family increase of $144 a year which will not be recorded by Statistics Canada in their method of calculating the consumer price index, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That since this government's Anti-Inflation Board is still restricting wage and salary earners' increases to 6 per cent, the federal government instruct the Anti-Inflation Board to inform Ontario that the health premium increase be rescinded since it is inflationary, regressive and decreases the standard of living for most families in Ontario.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for discussion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SHIPPING
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that radar and other equipment was moved from Cuslett, in Placentia Bay, in the fall of 1976 to channel Port aux Basques in order to-
-provide a much needed aid to navigation in the international shipping lanes adjacent to Port aux Basques and the approaches to the port itself-
-as stated by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), and in view of the fact that the Vessel Traffic Management Centre has been ready at Port aux Basques, fully equipped and staffed with five permanent coastguard marine traffic regulators and an officer in charge, together with three technicians, and that a notice was sent out to mariners on January 4 advising vessels entering the zone, including all the designated international shipping routes to the Gulf of St. Lawrence within an area of 39 miles of Port aux Basques, to establish radio contact as they enter the zone, and in view of the fact that this notice to shipping was withdrawn under instructions from Ottawa on January 20, without any reason for the said order but reflecting political interference from Ottawa and bureaucratic imperialism by the maritime region-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: -of the Canadian coastguard, ever jealous of the Newfoundland region acquiring any power or responsibility, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie):
That the Minister of Transport countermand the instructions of the Department of Transport at Ottawa of January 20, authorize the Vessel Traffic Management Centre at Port aux Basques to commence operating immediately for a zone comprising an area within 39 miles from channel Port aux Basques covering the international shipping lanes and ferry routes as originally intended, and that the minister explain on motions the reason for the waste of manpower and funds involved in having the Vessel Traffic Management Centre at Port aux Basques lie idle since January 20 and dismiss all those found responsible for interfering with the public interest through jealousy and bureaucratic imperialism.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is an urgent matter; that is why I ask leave to present it under Standing Order 43. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall):
That this House takes note of the continuing concern of veterans over the failure of the government to raise the basic rate of the war disability pension to

March 15, 1978
Oral Questions
the level of the formula agreed to in 1973, and calls on the Minister of Veterans Affairs to take this issue back to the cabinet so that the increase our veterans deserve can be agreed to and put into effect without further delay.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for discussion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an important and urgent matter.
As the federal government announced a few days ago that it would borrow money abroad to cover its foreign account deficit, and as Canada is backed into a corner by its debts, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the government start negotiations with the Bank of Canada so that the latter can issue new credits to finance government operations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, such a motion cannot be put without 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 is directed to the Minister of Finance. The cost of living increases announced this morning indicate that some of the most dramatic increases were in the area of fresh fruit, fresh vegetables and other imported foods. Clearly, these increased costs have been aggravated by the devaluation of the Canadian dollar. Clearly, too, the impact is hardest upon low income Canadians who spend more of their money on food than other Canadians.
Will the Minister of Finance tell us why he is allowing the impact of the devaluation to sit so unfairly upon lower income Canadians? What measures does he and his government propose to turn around a situation where the poor pay most for the devaluation of the Canadian dollar?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, of course, I have always said that devaluation of the Canadian dollar is not really only a benefit to the Canadian economy: one aspect of it is the fact that imported goods coming into Canada during the winter, especially foodstuffs, will be more expensive. That is a fact of life. I think Canadians would be well advised to be careful in their buying and make sure they are buying foods produced by Canadian farmers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AVAILABILITY OF APPLICATION FORMS FOR EMPLOYMENT TAX CREDIT PROGRAM
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition said yesterday that the forms made available by my colleague, the hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration, were not available in Manpower offices in some parts of Canada. I think the people who phoned on his behalf probably called the janitors, because the forms have been received in the offices referred to by him.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, of course we can verify that later on.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Trudeau:: Please do.


Charles Joseph Clark: The matter I want to deal with right now is this very startling direction to the poor in Canada, that they will simply have to accept the situation where they pay far more than they used to for commodities on which they spend more of their dollars than the Minister of Finance does. The Minister of Finance says to them that it is just a fact of life. Clearly, it is an unacceptable situation to put that burden on the poor of Canada.
Will the minister not consider some slightly more generous policy than telling people that they have to put up with this fact of life? Since he is the Minister of Finance of Canada, will he not bring in some proposal, now, which will bring some aid to low income Canadians who are bearing the heaviest brunt of the economic policies of this government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to say to the House that, in fact, the consumer price index declined from last month to this month.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Of course, I am always startled by the opposition continually complaining about the high level of expenditures, because the hon. Leader of the Opposition just rose in the House and proposed that. I think it is impossible in
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).)
March 15, 1978

any economy to protect consumers against inflation, especially when it comes from abroad. It is a fact of life, and if we tried to protect all Canadians against that type of thing, it would be a real recipe for disaster.
If our Canadian dollar is being judged by the Common Market as being lower, Canadians have to accept that. Because of lack of discipline in the past in the marketplace in Canada, we have to pay that price today. It is quite evident that Canadians have accepted the fact better than the opposition, because they are accepting the compensations which are making Canadian products more competitive. This is why the Canadian balance of payments in trade has improved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it really is incredible that even a government led by a Prime Minister who claims that the number of Canadians living below the poverty line is, in fact, lower than he knows it to be, would suggest-


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on!


Charles Joseph Clark: It is incredible that a government like that would
say-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I can wait them out.


An hon. Member:: Let the cows yell.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister deliberately misleads Canadians about the number living below the poverty line.


An hon. Member:: He just said the contrary.


Charles Joseph Clark: Now this Minister of Finance tells the poor of Canada that they should simply accept, as a fact of life, that under a Liberal government they will have to suffer. What I want to ask the Minister of Finance, and we have pressed for this several times-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Charles Joseph Clark: I can wait them out, if they continue shouting. I want to ask the Minister of Finance what his excuse is now for failing to bring in a budget that would bring some aid to the Canadians who are being hit the hardest by the increase in the cost of food in this country. Will the minister also tell us whether he is giving any active consideration to changes in the tax structure-a tax structure which is now helping to drive out of production some Canadians farmers whose efficiency has contributed to such reductions in the cost of food as now exist?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition would have been well advised to stick to his text, because he was all over the place in the last question. I said
Oral Questions
that we had an economic statement on October 20 which stated the goals for our economy. We cut taxes by $3 billion from January 1. I said that I have to wait to see what the results will be on the Canadian economy before I decide to change the economic policy of the government.
I think that in Canada at this time we are experiencing a more stimulative economic policy than any of the developed western nations. The hon. member is very immature, in my judgment, if he does not want to wait until we have the report of the first quarter of 1978 before passing other judgments.


MEASURES TO PROVIDE RELIEF TO LOW INCOME CANADIANS
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the cost of waiting is paid in the form of plants closing down and an increase in the number of low income Canadians who are asked simply to accept as a fact of life that they have to pay more for basics under a Liberal government. I want to know from the Minister of Finance whether the government is now considering measures that will provide relief to low income Canadians who are the most victimized by the economic policies of this government, and whether the government is considering new proposals that could be part of a budget, if the Minister of Finance ever finds the courage to bring one in.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: This could help Canadian farmers whose capacity to continue producing efficiently is being jeopardized by the tax system. Is the government actively considering measures to aid consumers who are being victimized now by very high-cost imported food, and to aid farmers whose capacity to produce food efficiently is being undermined by this government's policies?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman forgets that in Canada we have programs which are indexed to the inflation rate and that they increase automatically every month or every three months according to the formula adopted by the House.
I do not understand the attitude of the hon. member who is making promises everywhere in Canada about tax cuts amounting to $2 billion coupled with reduced government spending and who at this very moment in the House of Commons makes other representations which will cost more money to Canadian taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, I think that under the circumstances we have a stimulating policy for the economy. Canadian products are more competitive now that they have ever been in recent years. I think we would rather have a budget in a few weeks or a few months to gain an insight into the situation instead of taking the approach of the government of Ontario which has merely increased taxes instead of lowering them.
3788

March 15, 1978
Oral Questions


REASON FOR HIGH RATE OF INFLATION
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. I find it absolutely incomprehensible that almost at the end of the twentieth century we have a government such as this. Why does the minister think the government is here? It is supposed to provide a framework for full employment and price stability. It is overwhelming to see that the government sits there and thinks it does not have to do anything about any of these problems, with one million Canadians out of work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: Is it the position of the Minister of Finance- literally, today-that with one million people out of work, with only 80 per cent of the capacity of our plant and equipment in use, inflation in Canada is the result of excess demands on the economy? Is that what the minister is trying to say to the Canadian people?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I never said that; I just said that we had measures which came into effect on January 1 and cut taxes to the tune of $3 billion. When I hear the opposition asking for some action, I think that when the hon. member goes back to Toronto he should ask the government there why it increased taxes by $350 million.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I happen to be one who thinks parliament is supposed to do something. I do not believe we are here to do nothing about the economic problems of this country. How long does the minister have to wait? The results are in. Retail sales in Canada in the month of January were up 6 per cent. Why is the minister saying he has to wait for statistics before taking action in that regard?
To be more specific, Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the degree of inflation in this country is a result of devaluation of the dollar. It is incomprehensible that the Minister of Finance would say that the dollar is floating, or the dollar is setting its own level, and the government has no responsibility to set the framework within which that happens. Why did he change interest rates too late? Why did he do that, if he expects the dollar to be just floating around? The question I ask is whether the minister is going to do something. Is the government going to try to do something about the devaluation of the dollar before it goes further down and causes more inflation? Does the government have any policy whatsoever or any action to propose?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances, it is evident that today the opposition is losing its cool. The hon. member made a long speech about the value of the Canadian

dollar. I say to him that last night the minister of economic development of Quebec attributed the fact that the unemployment situation is better in Quebec to the level of the Canadian dollar. I would like the hon. member to read the speech made by the treasurer of Ontario, who said that the 90 cent dollar is good for the economy of Ontario.


Mr. Lawrence:: He said we need a federal budget.


James McPhail Gillies: I make no apologies for losing my cool, with one million Canadians out of work.


INCREASE IN PRICE OF OIL AND GAS-EFFECT ON CPI
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. Since included in this morning's consumer price index is a whopping 14.5 per cent increase in fuel and utilities, I ask the minister whether he can confirm studies done by his department which show that the March 1 increase allowed by the government in the price of oil and natural gas will mean an additional 1 per cent increase in the CPI. This will mean a real cost of living increase this year of 8 per cent to 9 per cent, compared to his forecast of 6 per cent.
Will the minister confirm that his department's studies on the oil price increase and, further, that his own forecasts on the cost of living are out of kilter?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we decided some time ago that oil prices in Canada were to increase per barrel. We did not accept the international situation to the effect that the price increase had quadrupled in one month or one year. I would like to remind the hon. member that these policies were agreed to a long time ago and they are taken into account when we make our forecasts. I would also like to remind the hon. member that one of the great proponents of an international price for oil is the government of Saskatchewan.


REQUEST GOVERNMENT ASK ONTARIO TO RESCIND OHIP PREMIUM INCREASE
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, since the minister did not refer to that study or acknowledge that he had any knowledge of it, I will be happy to send him a copy. It was produced by his department.
My supplementary question to the Minister of Finance is this. Since the Anti-Inflation Board is restricting the salaries and wages of ordinary workers to an average of 6 per cent, and since the Ontario government has announced a 37.5 per cent increase in health premiums which, oddly enough, the Leader of the Progressive Conservative party has not mentioned today, will the minister get in touch with the Ontario government and
March 15, 1978

request that it rescind this inflationary and regressive health tax which will seriously decrease the standard of living of many Ontario families?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the hon. member's view on the budget of Ontario. The hon. member has the opportunity to vote for having that type of government in this province. I do not.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: My final supplementary question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. Given the fact that the minister's forecast of 6 per cent inflation is proving to be completely erroneous since we will be recording increases in the cost of living this year of between 8 per cent and 9 per cent, will the minister, as a minimum, change the guidelines of the Anti-Inflation Board to ensure that wage and salary earners in Canada receive increases at least up to the level of the CPI, so that a decrease will not be recorded in their standard of living?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I stated on several occasions that it is not possible to protect Canadians forever against the effects of this offshore inflation. Trying to do so would spell disaster as far as importing goods is concerned, for our purchasing power on international markets has dropped due to the devaluation of the Canadian dollar, and it would certainly fuel inflation and cause us to lose our competitive edge in the world.
The Canadian public has accepted this approach, and the terms of most working contracts today are within the limits we had set, which explains why Canada's competitive position on international markets has considerably improved over the past year.


AGRICULTURE
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture.
Quebec industrial milk producers have had a lot of difficulties with quotas this winter and they had to stop producing milk or throw it away because bargaining between them and whole milk producers has been detrimental to them. In order to be fair, can the minister tell us whether he will make representations to the Quebec marketing board on this matter.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows that the administration of a marketing commission, board or system of any kind within a province is the province's prerogative or right. We can make
Oral Questions
suggestions, but we cannot tell them how to distribute quotas: that is their responsibility. I must say some of them are not doing a very good job.


REQUEST MEASURES BE ADOPTED TO PROTECT DAIRY INDUSTRY
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, the dairy industry in Canada, especially in Quebec, is a basic industry. Considering that a few years ago the dairy producers fought vigorously against the government allowing the Canadian market to be flooded by a substitute called margarine which is now jeopardizing the dairy industry, can the Minister of Agriculture tell the House whether he will take steps to protect better the dairy industry so that milk production will not be reduced during the next dairy year thus ensuring that dairy producers will have a viable industry?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware that several years ago dairy production was on a downward trend. It has increased and has been more stable in the past five years than at any time in its history. Returns to our dairy farmers have been the best in living memory. It is true there are some faults, but we have one of the best dairy policies in the world.
I ask the hon. member to make a comparison with the terrible dairy policy in the European Community, where they are compounding the problem and creating economic difficulties for us as a result of their inability to manage their system. It is being compounded as a result of their surplus dairy products being thrown on the world market at distress prices. The hon. member must remember that we are dealing in a world operation with surplus dairy products. We have our position. As far as I am concerned, we have one of the best dairy industries in the world; in fact, it is the envy of most of the world.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER OF IRELAND
Mr. Speaker:: Before we continue with the question period, may I call the attention of hon. members to the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished visitor in the person of Mr. George Colley, Deputy Prime Minister of Ireland.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
3790

March 15, 1978
Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the Minister of Finance for several days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I have always had admiration for his veracity. I am beginning to wonder why, over and over again, he asserts certain things which he must know are not true.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: The choral group over there is starting to hoot: that is the best contribution they can make. The minister pretends there is going to be a budget, or at least he suggests that possibility. I suggest that he and the Prime Minister have decided to hold the election in June, to have no budget, go to the country and pretend that we in the opposition denied them the opportunity of doing something for the Canadian economy which is in the worst mess it has been in for years.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased because of the compliment the right hon. member has paid to me: I thank him for that. Of course, I am the Minister of Finance and I operate in my own department. I am not in a position to decide the date of the election, and I am not influenced by that. I want to say to the right hon. member that I presented a budget, or economic statement, on October 20. I made provision for tax cuts amounting to $3 billion, which came into effect January 1.
The right hon. member will know, because he has been prime minister, that before we move we want to know the effects of a tax cut. We want to know that before we prepare a budget. That is reasonable and it is something that everyone expects. I am sure the right hon. member does not want me to bring in a budget like the Ontario government's budget that increased taxes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, any alibi is apparently good for this government. I suggest to the minister that after the pilgrimage to western Canada of 14 ministers, at the expense of the Canadian people, he has found out that the criticism is of the government-and he is ruining this country day by day and week by week.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of visiting Saskatchewan. I talked to a very non-partisan group, the Board of Trade of Saskatoon. I explained our economic problems and my faith in Canada. I am very proud to tell the right hon. member that his fellow Saskatchewaners gave me a standing ovation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour: it concerns recent meetings he held, together with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, with executive district 26 and some of us on the problem affecting the Prince mine.
Since there seems to be a strong conflict of opinion between the management of the Cape Breton Development Corporation and the district executive of the United Mine Workers, is the minister in a position to advise the House whether progress is being made between the parties regarding that mine, affecting several hundred men?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask a question along these lines. I have been in touch with both Devco and the union. They are holding meetings today and, hopefully, over the course of the next few days, in an effort to resolve on their own, without further governmental intervention, the problems that were identified with regard to employment of people in that mine.
I might again emphasize that Devco indicated, I believe in the hon. member's presence, that they had no intention of closing the mine. The problem they will endeavour to work out is the employment of people while they are trying to settle their problems with the mine.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. How many persons have been recruited to work with or for the RCMP to perform dangerous, complex and important tasks in return for the assurance of Canadian citizenship as part of the remuneration for work and services performed?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand the purport of the hon. member's question. Indeed, 1 do not know to which area he wants to address his question or which area of the RCM Police he is asking about.


IMMIGRATION
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, my question is perfectly clear. I will ask a supplementary of the
March 15, 1978

Minister of Employment and Immigration. Has the Department of Immigration been refusing to ratify or confirm any arrangements, undertakings or contractual obligations made by or on behalf of the RCMP involving citizens of other countries who have been recruited or induced in any way to perform work and services with or for the RCMP?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, that question is pretty broad.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Do hon. members want an answer, or do they want to shout me down? We work, and are proud to co-operate, with the RCMP in the many areas they have to work in, guarding and protecting the security of this nation. We deal with each case they approach us with on an individual basis, check out the merits and decide, on the information received from them, what is in the best interests of the country. I make no apology for that. I will not go into specific cases, if the hon. member is not prepared to do so.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I can assure both ministers that I am very prepared to go into specific cases. I am asking, as a matter of policy-and I can name them-whether such contractual obligations have been incurred by and on behalf of the RCMP, and whether such obligations and solemn promises are being repudiated by the Department of Employment and Immigration.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, there have been instances where certain arrangements have been made. The hon. gentleman is suggesting that some contractual obligations have been undertaken and that there have been breaches of those undertakings. I do not have any particulars. If the hon. member has some allegations to make, I would be pleased to have him indicate what they are. I remind him that if he is dealing with matters involving national security, I would appreciate some private indication of the nature of the complaints or allegations in order to avoid any discussion of matters which could be detrimental to national security.


GATT NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of Finance does not want to act as Minister of Finance but wants to amuse backbenchers, I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister, the Liberal "Hee-Haw". Manufacturers' domestic sales of TV sets declined by 50 per cent in January. Four TV manufacturers ceased operating in Canada last year, and Canadian General Electric has just announced that it is going to discontinue manufacturing TV sets in Canada in June. Thirty thousand
Oral Questions
jobs have been lost in the electronic and electrical industry in the last eight years.
My question for the Prime Minister is, what steps is his government taking to assist the industry, and what instructions have been given to our negotiators at Geneva in negotiating particularly with respect to the electrical and electronics industry? We are in the process of de-industrialization. Is the Prime Minister taking any steps to stop that?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take note of the question, on behalf of the minister.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, all the studies show that there is a loss of 10,000 manufacturing jobs a month in Canada now, and that central Canada is being denuded of industry. Is the Prime Minister prepared to get himself a Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to take some interest himself in this subject and to try to put a stop to this process? Has he any personal knowledge of what is happening in Geneva in those negotiations, and what instructions has he given? Is the industry to be thrown to the wind?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is possible at any time to point out a loss of jobs in any part of the country, but I remind the hon. member that statistics yesterday indicated that 290,000 jobs were created in the past year.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North-Nipissing East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State (Small Business). Because the Federal Business Development Bank is supposed to be a lender of last resort, and hence should be a risk capital bank to a certain degree and at the same time attempt to gear itself to the over-all needs of small business, is the minister planning any change in legislation or regulations to cancel the financial penalty that a small businessman is required to pay if he wishes to pay off his loan sooner than the required date? Also, is the minister planning to provide for longer term capital through the Federal Business Development Bank than the bank seems to have been willing to give to date?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to start by indicating that the Federal Business Development Bank is a Crown corporation and, as such, is governed by its enabling statute and managed by its directors. Naturally, the bank listens very carefully and very cordially to advice from its only shareholder. I point out that the prepayment penalty which is imposed on these term loans is a traditional practice and the bank is considering its position in this regard.
With regard to the bank being a lender of last resort, as it properly describes itself, I personally believe that a borrower of

March 15, 1978
Oral Questions
last resort, if he finds himself with funds and wants to pay off his loan, should be entitled to do so without penalty.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I hope to meet next Monday with the newly appointed president of the bank, Mr. Guy Lavigeur, and have a chat with him about this subject and others. With regard to the extension of the term or otherwise, I might add that this is a matter which is very much related to the loan itself, to the risk of the borrower and to a number of other factors. I will be discussing these matters as well.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question involves two departments of the federal government; therefore, i should like to put it to the Prime Minister unless, because of its nature, he would like to pass it to the Deputy Prime Minister. On December 19 the Secretary of State for External Affairs, speaking in this House, said this:
I am, therefore, announcing today that Canada is phasing out all its government-sponsored, commercially-supported activities in South Africa.
Later, the minister went on to say:
In addition to this phasing out of our commercial activities, we will also withdraw all Export Development Corporation government account support from any transactions relating to South Africa.
An official publication put out by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, dated 1978, draws attention to the services available to businessmen around the world and says, in particular, that businessmen are urged to take advantage of the personalized government service available at its 88 posts around the world. Then the publication includes South Africa in the list of those 88 posts.
In view of that, I would like to ask the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister which policy prevails, the one announced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs which was approved in the House, or the one indicated in the official publication of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, obviously, the statement made in the House prevails. I am sure the hon. member knows that there are routes to take in order to get answers to questions of this kind. If he had given notice, we could have inquired whether or not this was a mistake in printing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I will ignore the tone of that answer and ask the Prime Minister if he will take this matter up with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and ask him why his departmental publications do not conform to the government policy which has been confirmed today by the Prime Minister.
[Mr. Abbott.)


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, obviously, the answer is the same. It is very possible that the publication was in draft form, and perhaps even in print, before the statement was made. But the hon. gentleman knows something of the traditions in this House and, if he really wanted an answer rather than a debate, he would have sent us notice of that question and he would have had the answer.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is reluctantly directed to the Solicitor General, because he may not want to answer; he may want to leave it to a more senior and competent minister, like the Deputy Prime Minister. However, my question relates to the attempt of the Solicitor General to find copies of documents which he has been Fiercely looking for over the past few weeks.
In view of the article in the Toronto Sun of March 7, 1978,1 wonder whether the minister has had the opportunity to request an interview by General Dare, himself, or a combination of both, with Peter Worthington, the editor in chief of the Toronto Sun. Has the minister initiated any investigation with respect to the source of information contained in the article to which I refer?


Mr. Paproski:: Try Lubor Zink.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the hon. gentleman's opening remarks and his sensitivity today, especially after the comments made by the Minister of Finance relating to his own success in the hon. gentleman's riding and relating to the ovation the minister received there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, Hear!


Mr. Blais:: Having been in Saskatoon myself, I know that if I were the hon. gentleman I would be very concerned.


Mr. Andre:: We are all concerned for our country with you guys in charge, you turkey.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I am sure the same goes for the Calgary area. I understand that our presence in that area-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Solicitor General was intending to answer the question put by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.


James McPhail Gillies: The minister is a disgrace.


Jean-Jacques Blais: We will also be going to Don Valley soon. The question put by the hon. member referred to certain allegations contained in publications in Toronto. As I indicated
|


March 15, 1978

previously, the subject matter is subject to investigation and that investigation is ongoing.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, when we in Saskatoon appear to be giving a standing ovation, we are usually slapping our thighs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Prime Minister will learn that there will be more than thigh-slapping in the next election; I can tell him that. In view of the fact that the government has already involved itself in one raid on the Toronto Sun in relation to the attempt to get the source of the government blacklist leak from that newspaper, will the government give the Toronto Sun notice of any future raids they might carry out?


Jean-Jacques Blais: I am not the one conducting the investigation.


James McPhail Gillies: That's for sure; you are not doing anything.


INQUIRY WHETHER WARREN HART TAPES WERE DESTROYED
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General, if I may bring him back from Saskatchewan to his responsibilities, which so far he has avoided so well.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Herbert Jarvis: I hear a chorus of "Oh, oh". Over there incompetence really does demand such a chorus. I should like to ask him a question about a specific incident, the Warren Hart incident. The Solicitor General is aware of the reports of the tapings by Mr. Hart, allegedly under the direction of a former solicitor general, a member of the House, and he is also aware of the reports that these tapes were destroyed. Will the minister advise the House whether, in fact, the tapes were destroyed and, if so, under whose authority; and were any transcripts made from those tapes before their destruction?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: I think all aspects of that question were covered quite explicitly by me on previous occasions when other members asked exactly the same questions. The hon. gentleman referred to allegations of directions respecting the taping. That has been specifically denied: no directions of that nature have ever been issued.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Warren Hart has been contacted by a Lieutenant-Colonel C. A. Christian. Can the Solicitor General confirm that that gentleman is in the employ of the McDonald commission? Would he, at the same time, tell us whether Lieutenant-Colonel Christian is the same Mr. Christian who was previously a member of the Canadian armed forces who was recalled in the late 1960s from a tour of duty in Europe?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the gentleman who has been identified. But surely the hon. member has a
Oral Questions
telephone in his office and can obtain that information from the royal commission as readily as I can.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


MANPOWER
Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Why is it that Canada Manpower centres and farm labour pools across Ontario are requiring farmers who apply for offshore labour to sign a blank application form, which gives Manpower the right to write in the wages at a later date without consulting the farmer?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: We have had few complaints from farmers in this area. They know about the wages spelled out and the means employed, in the interest of hiring offshore labour, to see that they get a fair shake. I do not think it is appropriate that they should be signing blank application forms. I will check it out. I thank the hon. member for his representation.


William David Knowles: In light of the confusion and frustration being experienced by fruit and vegetable farmers when applying for offshore labour at farm labour pools, will the minister now withdraw the conditions which are creating the problem and permit the farmers, who are producing cheap food for Canadians, to obtain the same number of offshore workers as they did last year, at least until the minister has had time to consult farm organizations?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, not only have I had time, but I made time to discuss this matter as recently as two days ago with apple growers in one part of Ontario. I think I met every group that is hiring offshore labour. We have gone over the terms and conditions. The concern that they recognize I have is that at a time of high unemployment, we should be making a solid effort to hire as many Canadians as we can. I have indicated we will bring in the same number this year as we did last year, so there will be no cutting back. We have indicated that we are prepared to be flexible in the timing so far as various farmers and various crop periods of the year are concerned. Also we are prepared to allow some flexibility in moving from one farm to another. So we have done everything possible to accommodate these individuals. But I think our prime responsibility is to Canadians looking for work.

March 15, 1978
Oral Questions HEALTH AND WELFARE


OHIP PREMIUM INCREASE PROPOSED IN ONTARIO BUDGET
Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether she has made, or is considering making, any representations to the Ontario minister of health on behalf of the hard pressed people of Ontario who are faced with an increase in the cost of living because of the unreasonable increase in OHIP premiums exceeding AIB guidelines.


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I wish I could, Mr. Speaker.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. We are well aware of the minister's view on the market share quota, but would he seriously consider expanding the market share quota for Ontario-not very much, say 20 million pounds-on an experimental basis only, for aged Cheddar cheese strictly for export, the milk to be used for no other purpose than exported Cheddar cheese?


Eugene Whelan: We are
willing to consider anything. However, I am sure the hon. member knows that the market share quota is decided by a group of people from all producer organizations in every province, along with the Canadian Dairy Commission. I can transmit his wish to them and have it discussed.


CANADA COUNCIL
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State, whom I see at present counselling the Prime Minister, perhaps to see if he is eligible for a Canada Council grant.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arnold John Malone: Could the minister say whether or not he has received representations regarding the regulations that apply to Canada Council grants and, if so, could he give us an indication of the scope and the extent of those representations from across Canada appealing to the minister to establish definite guidelines for the allocation and receipt of Canada Council grants?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: I did not quite grasp the whole question, as a result of faulty hearing, but I believe the hon. member was asking whether I have received representations relating to Canada Council grants. The answer

is that I have, indeed. However, the hon. member will know that the allocation of Canada Council grants is undertaken by the Council and is not under my direction. As a matter of course, I do transfer to the Council representations that I receive, for its information.


FINANCE
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wished to address my question to the Minister of Finance, but in his absence perhaps I may direct it to his parliamentary secretary and get an answer from the minister tomorrow. Could the parliamentary secretary confirm the story that is going around financial houses, that members of the office of the Minister of Finance are putting pressure on major life insurance companies across this country to try to persuade Sun Life to stay in Montreal, and in return are offering them an extension of the monopoly for RRSP conversions?


Mr. Ed Lumley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: I am not aware of the rumours alleged by the hon. member.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. It relates to the very severe Storm that Sweph across southwestern Ontario on January 26 of this year, causing general damage amounting to millions of dollars and also causing damage to individual farm properties, sometimes in excess of $200,000 each. Can the minister say what compensation, if any, he is prepared to make to farmers and, indeed, to other property owners for the storm damage?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware that before we even consider giving any aid, we must receive some form of request from the province which has suffered the disaster. I received in my office, I believe yesterday, from the Ontario minister a report in which he asks me to participate in an interest-free loan program in that we share the cost of the interest which would be involved in providing these loans to the farmers.
If I understand it correctly, although I would have to review it to be certain, I think it is for the produce that was lost, not for the buildings, etc., because I am sure the hon. member knows as well as I do that insurance is available for that, and no province or federal government becomes involved in a program when insurance is available in such cases.
March 15, 1978


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, do I take it from the minister's remarks that he is actually saying there will be no compensation forthcoming from the federal government with reference to storm damage? Is that what the minister is saying?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am saying that I received the request from the minister of agriculture for the province of Ontario, I believe yesterday. All he is asking us to do is participate in the interest cost of loans which he is proposing to administer to farmers in hard-hit areas. We are considering that matter at the present time.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the fact that the percentage increase in the CPI, of 8.7 per cent, has surpassed already the percentage indexing allowed to war disability pensioners in January of the past year, and that the recommendations of the standing committee in 1973 were to equate the basic rate of pension with the standard of living, I wonder if the minister is going to do that now by introducing legislation to amend the war disability pensions act to allow for that equation of the veterans with the five lowest categories in the public service.


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite conscious of the question. When a review has taken place, the information will be conveyed to the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works-Mr. Leblanc (Laurier)
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Order Paper Questions

Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table two copies, in both official languages, of a report entitled: "Reassessment of Fundy Tidal Power". It was prepared by the Bay of Fundy Tidal Power Review Board and was submitted to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), to the Premier of Nova Scotia and to the Premier of New Brunswick.

[ Translation]


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Laurier) moved: for leave to introduce a bill entitled "An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (motor vehicle undertakings)".


Some hon. Members:: Explain!


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide that, when the owner of a motor vehicle transport company operates both provincially and interprovincially, part III of the Canada Labour Code applies only to those employees involved in the operation of vehicles used for interprovincial transportation.
At present, this right is unfair for companies and employees involved solely in provincial transportation. They must compete with companies which operate interprovincially and which are not subject to provincial legislation when they operate within the same province as local companies.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 729, 777, 902, 957, 961, 1,096, 1,138, 1,141, 1,164, 1,202, 1,221, 1,261, 1,300 and 1,328.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
3796

March 15, 1978
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Is the government aware that ice dues are charged for the provision of icebreaking services at various Scandinavian and Baltic ports?
2.	Does the government intend to implement ice dues for commercial vessels requiring icebreaking at St. Lawrence River ports and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, for what reason?
3.	Does the government consider that the lack of ice dues at St. Lawrence ports is discriminatory against the Ports of Halifax and Saint John?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: 1. Yes.
2.	(a) Transport Canada is in the process of assessing cost-recovery options (including ice dues) for services offered by the Canadian Coast Guard. Present efforts are directed towards Seaway tolls, pilotage charges and the financial position of ports under the proposed Canadian Ports Commission, (b) N/A.
3.	Transport Canada does not consider that the lack of ice dues at St. Lawrence ports is discriminatory against the ports of Halifax and Saint John. These ports which are not affected by ice in winter months have a natural advantage for shippers over ports located within ice covered waters.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	What is a complete listing of the government's data banks containing personally-identifiable information about individuals in which the Social Insurance Number may be used to access the computerized file and, in each case (a) what is the nature of the information contained in the file (b) on how many individuals is the information kept (c) in what ways, other than by using the Social Insurance Number, can an individual's file be accessed?
2.	What (a) statutes (b) regulations require the use of a Social Insurance Number by an individual to participate in the programme?
3.	As of November 1, 1977 (a) how many individuals had taken out Social Insurance Numbers (b) approximately how many applications for Social Insurance Numbers were waiting to be processed?
4.	How many new Social Insurance Numbers were issued in 1976?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by Treasury Board and Canada Employment and Immigration Commission as follows: I. Presently unknown, but within six months questions on the use of the Social Insurance Number, authority for such use and alternate means of access can be added to an inventory of information banks containing personally-identifiable information about individuals which is being compiled in conjunction with Part IV of Canadian Human Rights Act. (a) as in 1. (b) as in 1. (c) as in 1.
2.	As in 1.
3.	(a) As of November 1, 1977, 19,874,749 Social Insurance Numbers had been issued since the start of the program in 1964. (b) At the close of business on November 1, 1977, the balance of applications on hand in all sections of the Central Index was as follows: S-l applications (for new SIN's or

replacement cards), 22,206; S-5 for record amendments, 4,840. Total: 27,046.
4.	875,784


Mr. Brisco: 1.	Does the government assist the International Air Transport Association and, if so, to what extent and in what form?
2.	Has financial assistance been provided to the Association and, if so, in what amount in the past Five years and during the current year?


Otto Emil Lang: Transport Canada advises as follows: 1. Transport Canada provides assistance to the International Air Transport Association in the following forms: (a) Consultation on Air operations by IATA members while in Canadian airspace, (b) As a result of discussions held under the auspices of international organizations such as ICAO, government officials have cooperated with IATA technical officials to review and recommend courses of action related to specific technical problems.
2.	No.


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1977, how many consumable medicinal products were banned or recommended against use by the Department of National Health and Welfare?


Monique Bégin: Since January 1, 1977, four consumable medicinal products were removed from the Canadian market: two phen-formin products, Animo-Cerv and anti-asthmatic cigarettes. Also effective January 1, 1978, the sale of 97 products containing chloroform as an active ingredient has been prohibited. Manufacturers have been advised of a proposal that a further ten products containing oxyphenisatin and related compounds be removed from sale.


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1976, were studies made for the Department of National Health and Welfare by outside consultants regarding child neglect or abuse?


Hon.   Monique@: Yes. The National Health Research and Development Program has supported studies in this subject area for a total of $24,540 for 1976-77 and for $142,097 for 1977-78. A study carried out by the Tree Foundation of Canada in conjunction with the Challenge for Change program of the National Film Board of Canada from December 1975 to September 1976, concerning a review of all available North American audio-visual material on child abuse, resulted in the Department of National Health and Welfare having purchased for distribution a number of Films and filmstrips dealing with child abuse and neglect. These include copies of five
March 15, 1978

general awareness films plus a CBC documentary, all of which are currently available in all National Film Board offices across Canada. 130 copies of 13 filmstrips intended for use by professional groups for training purposes are being distributed separately. In the first six weeks that the general awareness films were available, 117 bookings were made. The Department will continue to cover the costs of all booking charges associated with the distribution of the films. The Department contracted with the Canadian Home and School and ParentTeaching Federation to write, produce and distribute a pamphlet on child abuse and neglect. This brochure is particularly oriented to schools and will be distributed shortly to all provincial federations who will in turn distribute it to 1,500 parent-teacher associations. The Department underwrote the cost of videotaping, shooting and recording the proceedings of the Second World Conference of the International Society on Family Law, June 1977 at McGill University, which was done by the Tree Foundation of Canada. The National Film Board in conjufiction with Tree is editing and producing two halfhour cassettes which will be added to the child abuse materials for distribution.


Mr. Howie: Since April 1, 1976, what amount did the government grant or spend for research into motion sickness?


Yvon Pinard: The Department of National Defence has no long term program dedicated specifically to research studies into motion sickness. However, some applied studies on motion sickness problems are being carried out and the cost since April 1, 1976 has been $2,400.
In so far as the Medical Research Council is concerned: $192,079.
In so far as the Departments of National Health and Welfare, Transport Canada and the National Research Council are concerned: Nil.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Does the government intend to introduce measures to facilitate the provision of credit for poor risk operators in agriculture?
2.	(a) For each of the past five years, what was the number of defaulters and the total amount involved for the Farm Credit Corporation (b) what was or is expected to be the actual loss of the amount defaulted?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by the Department of Finance and the Farm Credit Corporation as follows: 1. With regard to the Farm Improvement Loans Act, which is administered by the Department of Finance, no such measures are being considered. With regard to the Farm Credit Act, low equity
Order Paper Questions
loans may now be made to those under 35 years of age where there is a reasonable change of success. Studies are now underway to determine what further improvements in legislation might be made.
2. (a) Foreclosures and Arrears under Farm Credit Act, 1972-73 to 1976-77:
	No. of Foreclosures	Arrears on March 31	
Year	During Year	Number of Borrowers	Amount1972-73	151	7,687	$13,960,8111973-74	109	5,238	9,040,1951974-75	79	4,393	7,238,3601975-76	2	5,001	9,429,6721976-77	34	5,852	14,280,435(b)	As of March 31, 1977, the allowance for doubtful accounts was $1,130,000. ESTIMATED POPULATION OF QUEBEC


Mr. Herbert: What was the estimated population of Quebec in (a) December 1975 (b) June 1976 (c) December 1976 (d) June 1977 (e) December 1977?


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports the following: Population estimates for the month of December are not produced. The information has therefore been given for the month of January.
Date	Population
(a)	January 1, 1976	6,211,500(b)	June 1, 1976c	6,234,500(c)	January 1, 1977*	6,265,600(d)	June 1, 1977*	6,283,100(e)	October 1, 1977*	6,283,500
(latest available estimate)
Notes
C = Census counts * Preliminary estimates


Mr. Cossitt: March 15, 1978
Order Paper Questions


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by the Departments of Fisheries and the Environment, Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Supply and Services and the National Research Council as follows: 1. Yes. (a) Yes; (b) Committee has received 181 submissions of ideas, models, drawings and modifications of traps. Several have been tested. Committee hopes to make recommendation by 1979.
2.	No. (a) The purpose of the Committee is to invite ideas for traps and test them to ascertain if they meet standards for biological and mechanical suitability which the Committee has established. If the traps meet those standards, they are then tested in the field. Contracts have been let to establish those standards and to test traps, but not to invent them, (b) See 2. (a).
3.	The Department of Fisheries and the Environment gave impetus to the formation of the Committee. The Department let contracts with the Canadian Standards Association and the University of Guelph to assist the Committee.
4.	(a) Yes, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development contributes an annual amount as follows: 1973-74-$3,750; 1974-75-$14,125; 1975-76-$18,642; 1976-77-$21,450; 1977-78-$22,800; 1978-79-$22,800, (proposed). The N.W.T. Government has made the following contributions: 1973-74-$672; 1974-75-$2,540; 1975-76- $3,350;	1976-77-$3,850;	1977-78-$4,000;	1978-79-
$4,000, (proposed), (b) The departmental contribution, together with contributions from the provinces and territories, is used to finance the F.P.C.H.T. Program, a full report of which was submitted to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, in February 1977. The 1977-78 Program included the following:
Administration: Office furniture; cleaning; press clippings; printing; translation; xerox; office rent; telephone; mail and miscellaneous (staff ads).
Salaries: Co-ordinator; Assistant; Secretary and Honorarium. Other Operations: Inventor awareness; field testing; animal procurement; trap procurement; travel and costs of Scientific and Technical Sub-Committee.
Research: Terminal dive study; trap evaluation; trap development and optimization; lateral impact study and animal approach tests.
5.	The Science Procurement Branch published the following request for proposals in the R&D Bulletin No. 28, dated July 1975: ". .. for the development of a suitable trapping system that meets both performance and humane needs .. .". A contract for the determination of criteria and design of models for the evaluation of humane traps was let on July 14, 1976 to University of Guelph. The contractor's final report was delivered on January 19, 1978 and is under review. Further related work has been undertaken as follows: At the University of Guelph: Research to determine the kinamatic characteristics of animal traps. This work was completed in the summer of 1977 at a cost of $17,612. Research on the effect of side blows delivered to fur bearing species is under way at University of

Guelph and the estimated cost is $9,000. Both these projects are funded by grants from the Federal Provincial Committee of Humane Trapping. At McMaster University: a contract was let by the Federal Provincial Committee of Humane Trapping for humane trap design, modification, development and optimization at an estimated cost of $10,000. This work is in progress.
6.	(a) No. (b) Not known.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Minister of Finance recently suggest that Canadians should keep their dollars at home by holidaying in Canada during the current economic crisis and, if so, was he stating government policy and does this policy apply to all Canadians including the Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet?
2.	Did the Prime Minister travel to or from Colorado during the 1977-78 Parliamentary Christmas Recess by means of government-owned aircraft and, if so (a) what type of aircraft was used and what was the total cost to the taxpayer including transportation, both in the air and waiting time, accommodations and food and drink for the Prime Minister and any person(s) accompanying him (b) what are the names and job designations of all government employees accompanying him and how long did they spend with him, in each case?
3.	What is a list of all points of departure and arrival for any government aircraft used on the trip, including all trips made to and from Canada during the Prime Minister's stay in the United States?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by the Department of Finance, Transport Canada and the Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices as follows: 1. The Minister of Finance has stated that it would help the Canadian economy if Canadians were to travel in Canada rather than outside the country. There are no formal government directives in effect on travel expenditures by Canadians.
2.	Yes. (a) Type of aircraft-see flight details below. Re cost etc.-see reply to Question No. 2,881, page 8266 of Hansard for October 17, 1977. (b) See reply to Question No. 2,881 referred to above.
3.	See flight details below:
Minister	Type of Aircraft	DatesRt. Hon. P.	E. Trudeau JetStar	December 27-28,	1977.Point of Origin	Stop	Destination/TerminationOttawa	Omaha	Colorado Springs


Mr. Marshall: 
Mr. Yewchuk: In 1976 and 1977 were lawsuits brought against the government after the launching of the swine influenza immunization campaign and the subsequent reported cases of Guillain-Barre Syndrom and, if so (a) how many (b) what was the claim in each case (c) what was the total amount paid to claimants?


Hon.   Monique@: No. (a) Not applicable; (b) Not applicable; (c) Not applicable.


Mr. Jones: 1.	What is the cost of the permanent exhibit "The Survival of the Acadians" to be?
2.	Were tenders called for the construction of this display, and if so, give details?
3.	Will persons of the Maritime region be allowed to contribute to this exhibit and if so, what form will their contributions take?
4.	How many persons or organizations have offered assistance to this project and what is the nature of their offers?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1 and 2. The exhibit is still at a preliminary stage of development. Costs have not yet been determined, nor have tenders been called.
3.	It is hoped that interested historical societies, New Brunswick government resource persons, the Memramcook Institute and University of Moncton and any private individuals who so wish, will contribute to this project. Their contribution will provide Parks Canada with the necessary historical information relating to the Acadian story, and may assist in the locating of appropriate artifacts for the exhibit. At this early stage, the form which these anticipated contributions will take cannot be identified with any greater precision.
4.	To date, the Memramcook Institute and officials of the University of Moncton have offered assistance in identifying potential sources for historical information. Further contacts will be made with interested agencies and individuals as work progresses.
1976 STORM IN NOVA SCOTIA


Miss Campbell: Were funds provided by the government through the Emergency Measures Organization for the February 2, 1976 storm in Nova Scotia to (a) municipal corporations (b) private companies (c) private individuals for the Counties of (i) Annapolis (ii) Digby (iii) Yarmouth (iv) Shelburne and, if so, in each case, how much?


Yvon Pinard: During 1976 the Federal Government made an advance payment to the Province of Nova Scotia of $3,000,000. Subsequently, in August 1977 Emergency Plan-
Motions for Papers
ning Canada passed a final claim based on the disaster assistance formula to the Department of Finance for approval and audit. This claim included:
Municipal Corporations (Public Sector)	
City of Halifax	$ 9,289.22
City of Dartmouth	6,399.24
Municipality of Clare	405.00
Town of Lunenburg	1,500.00
Town of Stewiacke	505.06
Town of Kentville	8,881.50
Town of Shelburne	9,366.00
Town of Yarmouth	6,614.00
Town of Lockeport	434.00
Village of Weymouth	99.85
Granville Ferry Water Commission	1,200.00
Yarmouth County Tourist Association	4,565.00
Total	$49,258.87
Private Sector (i) General		
Total value of claims paid		$938,082.37
Number of claims submitted	1,097	
Number of claims paid	176	
Average value of claims paid	$5,330.01	
(ii) Fisheries		
Total value of claims paid		$1,862,613.37
Number of claims submitted	880	
Number of claims paid	816	
Average value of claims paid	$2,282.61	
(c)	Payments to individuals and private companies were made by the province after reviewing their claims. The whole claim is now under the audit procedure and details of individual payments are not available at this stage of the audit.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 61 is acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations relating to confidential documents and authorization by the governmental authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that notice of motion for the production of papers No. 61 be deemed to be adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

March 15, 1978
Farm Income


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 61-Mr. Marshall:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence, minutes of meetings, letters, telegrams and all other pertiment material, between the government and the Province of Newfoundland, having to do with the formulation of a master plan by which future park policies would be determined and having to do particularly with the Gros Morne National Park in the Contituency of Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe.
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Yvon Pinard: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
ALLOTTED DAY S.O. 58-DECLINE IN FARM INCOME Mr. John Wise (Elgin) moved:
-That this House regrets the continuing decline in farm income and urges the government to:
(1)	extend the deferral of capital gains taxation now levied on family farms to include partnerships and incorporated farms;
(2)	promote agricultural exports and reduce Canada's present reliance on imported agricultural products;
(3)	develop marketing programs that will encourage long-term income stability;
(4)	encourage the expansion and improvement of agricultural research to ensure efficient production techniques;
(5)	provide direct food aid and human and financial assistance to Third World countries.
Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will note that pursuant to Standing Order 32(l)(k) and Standing Order 58(10), proceedings upon this motion will expire at the ordinary hour of adjournment this afternoon.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the reason and the purpose of this motion today is another attempt by my colleagues and I to draw to the attention of the government its continuing failure to deal effectively with the serious problems of the agricultural industry in general, and more particularly, to deal with the problem of the continuing decline in farm incomes.
Primary producers will recognize, but the House should be reminded, that the last time the plight of the agricultural industry was debated in the House, it was on the initiative of hon. members of the official opposition. The complete absence
[Mr. Speaker.!
of any government legislation, not only now but for the last number of months, contrasted with our past and present actions, clearly discloses this government's indifference or complete incompetence regarding agricultural problems. As well it reflects our deep concern, and underlines our continuing commitment to the growth and development of a very basic and vital sector of our economy.
Prior to 1976 Canadians could observe, compare and state with considerable accuracy that other countries which had failed or neglected to maintain or develop a strong and viable agricultural industry were countries which found themselves in serious difficulties, both socially and economically. Today, and partially because of what has happened in the primary sector of the industry, and indeed throughout the entire food chain, we need not look beyond our own borders to find a country suffering both socially and economically.
It is obvious that the government would like us to forget the one million unemployed, the shaky state of our economy and the decline in farm income. Particularly the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) would like us to forget that decline. It is incumbent upon us, as members of the opposition, to raise these questions. However, it is incumbent upon the government, a government which has held office for 36 of the last 40 years, to do something about them.
Their record of performance evidenced by their own statistics reflects an unacceptable and shameful performance. Farm income has dropped for the second consecutive year. If present indicators hold true, we can expect a further drop in income levels again this year.
When we compare the 1975 income level with that of 1976, the decline is $500 million. When we compare the income level from 1975 to 1977, a two year period, the decline is $1 billion, and citing the forecasts for 1978 we can expect a further decline of $1.5 billion in the three year period. Over that same period of time, expressed in percentage terms the decline is in excess of 40 per cent. That places Canadian farmers in the same position, as far as income levels are concerned, as they were in six years ago in 1972.
To make matters worse, if we look at what has happened to our input costs, or our expenses, we see increases almost as dramatic as the declines in farm income. Input costs increased by $500,000 between 1976 and 1977. If we compare the estimated increases for the current year with 1976 we might well experience a figure in the neighbourhood of $1 billion. Is it any wonder or mystery that negative profit margins are becoming common place on income tax forms submitted to the income tax department of this government by Canadian farmers?
These conditions have been reflected in the sale of farm machinery. Sales in this area have decreased by 10 per cent on a national basis. In fact, in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba declines in the sales of farm machinery to the extent of 24 per cent and 19 per cent respectively are reported. Farm borrowing has doubled over the last six years from $4 billion to

$8 billion. This figure could well reach some $10 billion by the end of 1978.
Given present conditions it is impossible, I suppose short of having a rich uncle, a rich aunt, or winning a lottery, to enter and succeed in this business of farming. Young farmers now in the business are in serious financial circumstances. Charles Munro, immediate past president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, speaking at their recent convention in Quebec City, made reference to the fact that three quarters of the 4,465 farm credit loans made last year went to farmers under 35 years of age, and these loans averaged $73,000. At an interest rate of 10 per cent these borrowers would need some $61,000 in gross sales to cover expenses. The fact is that only 15 per cent of these borrowers had 1976 gross receipts of $60,000 or more. In 1976 it should be noted that less than half of all census farms had less than $15,000 gross sales.
Western livestock farmers in certain areas are showing their dissatisfaction by demonstrations and, indeed, by withholding their livestock from the market. In Atlantic Canada reports indicate heavy financial losses and people leaving the land in the maritimes in record numbers. The primary sector faced serious difficulties two years ago. No action has been taken during that time and the situation has worsened and must be described today as acute. Farmers cannot and will not continue to be ignored or swept aside by this government. Nor will they continue to be content or satisfied listening to the Minister of Agriculture and his entertaining speeches.
It is unacceptable that this minister has proposed not a single major new piece of legislation relative to the agricultural industry since assuming that portfolio in 1972. Certainly the minister has extended programs and brought forward amendments to a few others, but the fact remains that no new major or significant piece of legislation has been introduced. That in itself is clear and ample evidence of the lack of commitment by this government and this minister to the agricultural industry.
It has been said that the hon. member for Essex-Windsor wanted to be Minister of Agriculture in the worst way. I might suggest that if what has happened to farm income is any indication, then he certainly has achieved what he set out to accomplish. I hope for the good of the industry this minister will not avoid seizing upon this golden opportunity to lay before the House today some meaningful and concrete plans to deal specifically with the contents of our motion today. Surely the minister will want to make a positive response to the motion, and surely he will not want to resort to his usual recital of ongoing government programs, support and subsidy payments to producers. We must remember that when many of these support programs and subsidy payments are triggered into action, that in itself signals Financial difficulties within that particular industry.
Producers deserve and will demand a firm commitment from government that it is prepared, not simply by political statements but rather by action and appropriate legislation, to deal effectively with the industry in order to ensure a return to financial stability. Producers above all are as anxious as any that inflation and stability within our economy be improved
Farm Income
and resolved. Producers are heavy spenders, not because of their human nature but because of the nature of their businesses. They are large purchasers of goods and services and, consequently, are suffering extensively because of the mismanagement of the economy by this government.
Producers want and deserve the assurance that they will have access to a greater share of the domestic market. Import penetration has seriously damaged not only primary producers but the whole food processing chain, food processors and manufacturers. We need action and legislation, not to prohibit international trade but rather to limit it to an acceptable level which will permit and create an ongoing incentive for a healthy industry here at home in Canada.
We as a party are convinced that if we are to save our rapidly disappearing fruit and vegetable industry this government must implement seasonal surcharges and automatic surtaxes on a commodity by commodity basis at appropriately prescribed levels based on historic trade patterns. It is essential that this government bargain vigorously and successfully to restore equity in our tariff rates. These rates have existed for over a quarter of a century.
This government must adopt a firm policy of fair trade before free trade. Producers can and will adapt to changing market conditions, but they should not be expected to compete in any marketplace, particularly the marketplace here at home, against heavily subsidized food products and commodities.
Dairy farmers are still looking for a long term dairy policy, not just in words or printed political statements, but in reality and in practice. We recognize that this policy would obviously have to be changed from time to time, but these changes should be negotiated by the industry with the government and they should be signalled to the industry at least 12 months in advance. The dairy farmers continue to call for a reduction of 10 million to 15 million pounds of cheese imports, yet the present government continues to ignore that request. Cheese imports even today remain at the high level of 50 million pounds.
Perhaps the minister will seek an opportunity to address himself to this question as well this afternoon. I hope he will release the study he referred to when the $13.5 million consumer subsidy was dropped recently. This was a decision taken without any consultation with producers or consumers. If any case could be made for such a move, then common sense would indicate that a phase out approach should be utilized.
Beef producers have gone through three of the worst years in the history of their industry. These people want and deserve more up to date and more accurate market information. They must be commended for taking such action on their own. Since 1976 they have called for a Canadian meat import law, yet even today no such legislation appears on the order paper. The record reveals on numerous occasions our full commitment to that type of legislation. Producers and their respective organizations have sought an extension of capital gains deferral to partnerships and incorporated farms.

March 15, 1978
Farm Income
There is a desperate need to revise the valuation day values, taking into account inflation and other factors which have added artificially to the real production potential value of farm lands. I believe that a once in a lifetime exemption should be available, and it should be available now. Serious consideration should be given to the whole application of capital gains taxation as it relates to farm lands to determine its long term effect and its relationship to, and influence on, farm prices.
We want to know, Mr. Speaker, what efforts are being made in co-operation with commodity organizations to seek out and develop new markets abroad. What effort has the government made to increase the number of personnel trained in and knowledgeable of the agricultural industry and charged with the sole responsibility to promote trade in our embassies and trade offices throughout the world? Perhaps the minister will give a firm commitment to the establishment of an agricultural products export division to work with and assist commodity groups to explore and develop market possibilities abroad.
There still remains, Mr. Speaker, the need to encourage and assist our own marketing boards and marketing commissions so as to place greater emphasis on market development and sales promotion of their own products. We want to know what action has been taken by the government in that regard. Producers want to know what plans the government has to reverse the erosion of responsibility from the Department of Agriculture to other government departments, and producers now under orderly marketing systems want and deserve a clear exemption from the government's latest competition bill. They want this government to take seriously their obligation to contribute far more substantially to research and development funding. Canada's contribution in this regard is nothing more than shameful. No investment can be made today that will pay greater dividends in the future than moneys invested in research and development.
This government continues to ignore the Senate committee report on this subject which recommends an expenditure of 2.5 per cent of the gross national product by 1980. I suppose as we stand here we could look for 1985, but Canada spent less than 1.2 per cent of its gross national product. This is substantially less than comparable expenditures in France, Germany, Japan, Sweden, the U.K. and the U.S. Expenditures in these countries range from 1.7 to 2.4 per cent. In the biological science area the average National Research Council grant was only 6 per cent larger than in 1969 but its purchasing power was 40 per cent less. We are told by qualified people that as little as 4 per cent of total funds are actually available to do research work. The agricultural industry and particularly the primary sector cannot continue to function at the efficiency it has achieved today in the absence of a concerted effort adequately to fund areas of new crop varieties and production methods. This is particularly true in areas such as eastern and western Canada.
One of the fundamental requirements of an efficient food production system is a sound, adequately financed and well co-ordinated research and development capability. We have

that potential, Mr. Speaker. We have the facilities and the resources and we possess an excellent intellectual group of scientifically trained academics as well; but we run the high risk of losing this latter resource if proper and prompt action is not taken. My colleagues will be enlarging upon this and making additional suggestions and recommendations in the very limited time available to us this afternoon, but the fact remains that farm income has fallen, and fallen dramatically, since 1975.
It is evident to all that the programs and policies of this government are undermining the agricultural industry. They are not building the industry, they are not developing the industry, and they are not strengthening the industry. The policies of this government serve neither the producer nor the consumer. They weaken our whole Canadian economy.
Canadian producers have accepted and will continue to accept their responsibilities and rise to the challenges that face them. But the time is limited. What is needed now is a government that recognizes the economic state of the industry today and is prepared to respond to that issue in a manner which ensures not only the survival of the industry, but its expansion and growth for the benefit of all Canadians and, indeed, for others throughout the world.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I would like, first of all, to extend my appreciation to the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) for bringing this motion before the House on an allotted day. Most of the farm community in Canada has been neglected for a long time. A lot of people who live in the cities of our nation when driving through rural areas see a big combine or tractor or a big barn and so on. They do not realize that young farmers, even those who have been in the farm industry for many years, are paying off tremendous mortgages on their farms and paying high prices for their machinery. The countryside may look to the non-farmer as if it is prospering, but if you talk to farmers you will know that they are not prospering in most instances.
The state of our farm economy affects all Canadians, and I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on such an important and, unfortunately, neglected issue. I say neglected because, despite all of the media attention and fuss over Canada's supposed national food policy and the recent food strategy conference here in Ottawa, the government has so far failed to address the real problem confronting farmers today. The government's track record to date has been a classic case of much talk and very little action.
We all know times are tough for farmers across Canada, and indications are the situation is going to get worse. Farm incomes have declined for two years in a row, and the Department of Agriculture predicts net farm income will drop by a further 6 per cent this year. Farm incomes in 1977 were already down 11 per cent from 1976-a year which could be described as one of the darkest for Canadian farmers across this country in recent history. During that year farm incomes plummeted to 20 per cent below 1975 levels.

This morning we received the latest consumer price index released by Statistics Canada. It showed food prices increased 13.4 per cent between February of last year and February of this year. Obviously, there is something wrong with a system that allows prices to increase by over 13 per cent when the producer is receiving as much as 6, 11, and even 20 per cent less for his efforts. This includes not only the farmer but the farmer's wife as well because they very often work closely together in their production.
The blame for declining farm incomes rests squarely with the government in its failure to develop an effective agricultural policy for Canada. Agriculture and food production accounts for more than 40 per cent of our gross national product, and the absence of comprehensive planning in this vital sector threatens both the farmers and consumers. It is time a closer examination was made of Canada's food chain, and particularly the middleman in that chain, to find out why prices are rising while farm incomes are permitted to decline.
More than one farmer has written to me to say he has been forced into bankruptcy. Just last week I received a letter from a farmer in my constituency near St. George, Ontario, stating that "farmers are working themselves into the grave just trying to survive". Indeed, it is becoming very difficult to persuade young people to go into farming, and this is a tragedy. Lirban businessmen would like their sons, or sons-in-law, to go into their industries. Why is it that farmers are finding it increasingly more difficult to attract their sons or sons-in-law, daughters and so on, to carry on with the family farming business? Many are abandoning the farm and heading for the cities. It is little wonder farming today is not a viable business proposition for most who are in it. There are some farmers across this country, of course, who are making some money. But generally speaking, farmers are not making a good profit on their investment and labour when confronted with high interest rates on their mortgages and considering the long hours they put in day after day after day.
I think part of this goes back with the Liberal party. I would suggest it even goes back with the Conservative party. They have taken farmers for granted. They have been able to do this in many cases because both old parties know that most people who were born and raised on a farm and went to a rural school, or to a small district high school, want to stay on the farm. That has been the traditional attitude. In recent years, however, the young people on the farms are taking a different attitude. Obviously the government is not.
I cannot blame young people for wanting to leave the farms today. They are in conflict with themselves. They want to leave the rural life not because they want the good life or the rich life but because they cannot have the rural life with a decent income in return for their labour, their investment and the interest on their mortgage.
Cattle producers have been suffering from depressed prices since 1974, that is three and a half years. I am addressing my remarks to the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, and I hope
Farm Income
he is paying attention. Steer calves sell at 30 per cent below the cost of production and top grade cattle sell at 20 per cent below cost. At the same time beef prices to the consumer have increased by 33 per cent. Consumers need protection, but so do farmers. The price of wheat has also declined in the past few years to the point where it is difficult for farmers to meet the cost of production.
A healthy farm economy is in the interests of all Canadians. Already the farm income slide is affecting other sectors of the economy. Hard-pressed farmers purchased far less machinery in 1977, with the result that hundreds of workers have been laid off. This winter over 500 employees were temporarily laid off for a week at the Massey-Ferguson plant at Brantford, in my riding of Brant. Last month over 200 employees were laid off permanently at Massey-Ferguson in Toronto.
Mismanagement of the economy, and not just the farm economy, is at the root of this serious situation. The slowdown in the farm machinery industry is worsened by heavy imports from the United States and the government's failure to encourage the development of a strong domestic farm industry. Imports now account for more than 85 per cent of all the farm machinery sold to Canadian farmers. The declining value of our dollar promises to make new farm implements so expensive that they will be out of the reach of most farmers.
There are a number of steps that could be taken to aid the agricultural industry in Canada. Perhaps the most important is a re-examination of this government's tariff policies- or, I should probably say, the government's lack of tariff policy. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) seems to take pride in the low level of government support Canada provides for farmers compared to other countries. In a speech to the Canadian Bankers' Association last October-that must have been a jolly affair-he proudly pointed out that in Canada, even adding in all provincial plans, less than 4 per cent of gross government spending goes into agriculture, and that Canadian agriculture has the lowest tariffs in the world. In Canada, the average farm tariff is less than one half of one per cent across the board.
Canadian producers have long been asking for tariff equalization with the United States and other countries. This is a serious problem right across the country, but I am most familiar with the plight of fruit and vegetable growers in southern Ontario and the Niagara peninsula, as well as tobacco farmers and fruit and vegetable growers in my own constituency. I am trying not to be parochial here. I am talking about agriculture right across the country and not in one constituency. These farmers have been demanding a seasonal tariff for their produce to prevent the dumping of fruits and vegetables in their markets. This is easy to understand when you consider that last fall frozen or canned peaches could enter this country for 2% cents per pound, while the tariff on peaches going into the United States was set at 20 per cent. I ask the minister to consider those statistics very carefully.
Lack of government regulations has also affected the beef industry. The minister has been reluctant to upset trade with the United States and other countries, and producers are

March 15, 1978
Farm Income
suffering. I have already noted the depressed prices producers receive for cattle. Part of the reason is the government's decision to raise this year's quota for imported beef another two million pounds over last year. I am going to repeat that, Mr. Speaker. Part of the reason is the government's decision to raise this year's quota for imported beef another two million pounds over last year. The market has been flooded by low grade beef from Australia and New Zealand that depresses prices across the board. The government is beginning to recognize that high tariff walls are necessary to protect and develop some of our more vulnerable manufacturing industries.
The motion moved today is in five parts, Mr. Speaker, and in twenty minutes I cannot address myself to each part although I agree with the motion in general.
We have a very real problem in this country. As I said earlier, people who live in the cities are paying very high prices for food produced in this country while farm incomes are away down and are going to be down again next year.
Let us look at some of the other human aspects of farming today apart from the statistics, which are bad enough and should clinch the argument if anybody from the government side wishes to refute what I have said. Let us consider the problem of the young farmer who takes a mortgage from the local bank. I talked to a tobacco farmer about two years ago who told me-and 1 am sure he was not lying-that the interest alone on his mortgage was $12,000 per year. As we all know, tobacco farmers are not making the money they did in the fifties. This is also true of fruit and vegetable growers. In fact, this is true of farming in general. For a young person to buy out a family farm, he has to get into such tremendous debt spread over so many years, and will receive so little for his labour and investment, that it will take him years to catch up, if in fact, he ever does.
Another problem which is not general across the country but affects fruit and vegetable growers and tobacco producers is labour-hired help. There are arguments on both sides. If a person drawing unemployment insurance knows he is going to be called back to work, for him to go through all the red tape of the UIC after he has a temporary job and then get back on UIC until he is called back, he would rather say to himself: "What is the point in going through all that red tape if I am going to be called back to work in three weeks?" There is something wrong there.
Some farmers in my riding have voiced their criticism to me about our local people-Canadians-young as well as middle-aged. To some extent their criticism is justified. Manpower often sends out people who want to go out for the day, have two square meals and then take off. That is not the general picture. A lot of the young people in my constituency, and I am talking about the fruit and vegetable growers, the tobacco growers and so on, put in a pretty good day's work. But not only do farmers have a problem of weather; they have the problem of acquiring good people at the right time.

In most of these cases I have cited we are talking about planting, which is usually done in late May, and harvesting, which is usually done August through to September. I agree it is difficult for some farmers, particularly the small growers, to keep a man or woman on the payroll from early May to late September or early October. That is one of the reasons it is difficult to employ local farm help.
In view of the facts which I have stated today, why are we cutting down on offshore labour from the Caribbean? We have over one million people registered as being out of work. I know that I am treading on very thin ice here. I know that some of the farmers in the particular fields which I have just referred to prefer offshore labour. I also know that many of them prefer to hire local people, so we have to keep in mind this balance. It seems impossible to hire enough good local people who will work for decent wages. I am not talking about somebody who wants to get away with $2.75 an hour without room and board; I am talking about a lot of farmers who are prepared to pay $3.50 or $4 an hour with room and board or those who are willing to provide meals and transportation back and forth from, say, Brantford to the rural areas. These people are getting fed up with the government's manpower program, the agricultural offshore labour pool, or whatever it is called. They are fed up with the tightening up of the rules and regulations in this regard. On the other hand, I can understand the problem the government faces when it has allowed unemployment to reach one million-the official figure-in this country. I do not think there is any basic dispute if you are talking about the underemployed and people who are off the lists. Taking these into account the total would perhaps be one and a half million Canadians.
1 end on this note, Mr. Speaker. I have worked as hard as I can to assist farmers in my riding, and the minister knows because I have sent him many letters. I am not trying to say that they are a special group. They do not want to be looked upon as a special group in our society; they want a fair share from their labour and their investment. At the same time, if they make a profit and they have money they will spend their money. That will then create jobs in the farm implement business, whether in Massey-Ferguson-and I am not any great lover of the Argus Corporation-or White Farm. I do not care which company it is or what that company produces in the way of machinery or other goods for farmers, it works both ways. If farmers are receiving a decent income then the workers in the plants who produce goods for farmers will also receive a decent income. Not only that, but they will retain their jobs.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to speak on the motion put forward by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise). Since most of the issues he has raised have been mentioned by me at some length in many of the speeches I have delivered during the past year, I would have thought there would have been some effort amongst the more literate members of the opposition to acquaint themselves with the content of the speeches made by myself and representatives of the Department of Agriculture.

Apparently this is not the case. Once again this demonstrates just how much importance is placed on agriculture by those occupying the opposition benches who are supposed to be its critics. If more energy was directed toward finding out what was actually happening and there was less criticism for criticism's sake, perhaps they would start living up to the name of their party by becoming a little more progressive.
As I was in the United States yesterday I was unable to talk to the hon. member for Elgin. Perhaps if I had been here I could have said: "Look, to be really constructive today you can say anything you want and we can give second reading to the farm credit bill and have it sent to the committee." Instead we are today wasting the time of the House of Commons on an opposition day.
Paper legislation does not necessarily make good agricultural policy, good food policy or whatever you want to call it. Spokesmen for both the Conservative and New Democratic parties have indicated, Mr. Speaker, that everything was doom and gloom in the agriculture industry in Canada. I can tell the House, and I am sure a lot of hon. members are aware, that is not the situation in the agriculture industry. There are a lot of people who feel quite good about it.
Let me go down the list and talk about some of the producers that are making a decent net income today in agriculture. Egg producers are making a decent net income; poultry farmers raising broilers and turkeys are receiving a decent net income; pork producers are receiving a decent net income; and fluid milk and industrial milk provides a decent net income. These farmers have never been in a position where they have paid so much income tax in their lives before. They only pay income tax on net income, as they should, and they are happy about doing that.
Let us turn to the horticultural industry and find out what they are doing in that industry. I do not have the note here at the moment, but I will find it. The hon. member for Elgin knows very well that in Ontario there are about 20 some producers of horticultural commodities represented on their marketing board and I would challenge him to name just one of those who is not making a net profit. I say to the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), who spoke on behalf of the New Democratic Party, name one of those people covered under a marketing board or a provincial association of some kind or another who is not making a net income. And that applies across Canada to all who belong to some kind of an agricultural organization.
The poorest group of all at the moment are the potato producers in Canada. They are suffering more than any. They are not in the same position all across Canada. In Alberta and Manitoba they are probably just about breaking even. However, in Ontario, Quebec, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick the potato producers are losing money because they refuse to organize but instead accept that same old dilapidated marketing system they have always had.
Then the hon. member talked about the beef producers. There has been a bigger loss in that industry and he said we did nothing to prevent it. I suggest he look at the record. The
Farm Income
record shows that since August, 1974 we have had import controls almost constantly, with the exception of nine months in 1976. I was a bad fellow because I had import controls. Hon. members will recall that I got into trade wars and so on.
I was told that was bad, that I should not get into a trade war with the United States, that great free trading nation to the south of us. The Canadian cattlemen charged in here with everything but their bulls, saying we must back off on this. Whenever I tried to do anything in cabinet, 29 telegrams were sent to my colleagues urging that I not be allowed to do that.
There is such disunity in the beef production industry today it is amazing that any producers are still active in that business. They did not want government to do anything until they got desperate. Then they made all kinds of requests. 1 can list four and a half pages of what we did in response to what they asked for, such as surcharges, payments and subsidy payments.
I stated at one time that I thought one of the surcharge programs with the United States and other oceanic countries shipping beef meant $100 million to the producers of beef in Canada. The head of the Cattlemen's Association, the managing director or whatever he is called, wrote to me and said, of all things, "Mr. Minister, you are being too conservative." He said it meant a saving of over $200 million in income advantage for the beef producers of Canada.
There are some beef producers in Canada who say they are still not making money. I have seen the books of some of them and they did not make that much in the last year. However, they are few and far between. Those in the cow-calf business are probably the ones who have suffered more than any other group. They have no other production entity to which they can turn. They cannot operate a complete finishing unit. These people were encouraged to get into the cow-calf operations by the provinces, which loaned them millions and millions of dollars. That was because there was going to be a great need for beef for a long time.
The hon. member for Brant stated that we increased the imports of beef into Canada this year. He knows we are a member of the Commonwealth and have trading agreements with its members. We are also a member of, and have signed trading agreements with, GATT.
Beef consumption increased by 4.4 per cent last year. Those countries that belong to the Commonwealth also belong to GATT. They could ask for a 4.4 per cent increase in exports to this country. We did not give it to them. They could ask for compensation from GATT and we would then have to pay that compensation. We would fight it as hard as we could.
Are we going to live in the international trading world or are we going to disappear from it? What do members opposite want us to do? If they want us to break away from the Commonwealth and GATT, let them say so.
The hon. member also talked about farm machinery. I wish to put some facts on the record. Farm implement sales dropped by an estimated 4 per cent in value last year. Quebec, however,

March 15, 1978
Farm Income
bucked the trend with sharply higher purchases. The estimates show a general decline except for Quebec. The separatist premier of that province says that the agricultural situation is very bad, yet they increased their farm machinery purchases by 21 per cent last year.
Let us get the facts straight. Things are not the same all over. In Ontario, the province of the hon. member for Brant, farm machinery sales increased by about 6 per cent. If Mas-sey-Ferguson plants are closing, it is not totally the fault of Canada. There is a general depression in agriculture in all countries of the world, especially those producing surplus food products. We still have more net return to farmers in this country than ever before.
Members opposite talk about how farm income has gone down. We would like to see it up. The hon. member for Elgin knows that those farmers who look after themselves without great masses of government legislation and great reams of paper are more efficient. The hon. member for Elgin was a dairy farmer and he made a good living at it. He told me that himself.


John Wise: That was before you were Minister of Agriculture.


Eugene Whelan: I think he was a better dairy farmer than he is a member of parliament. When he comes to the House, he presents nothing but gloom and doom with regard to agriculture. The people of Elgin sent the hon. member to Ottawa to represent them because they knew he had expertise in agriculture. However, he has not kept up that expertise. He was a better producer of agricultural products than agricultural economics.
Talking about income, the total was 1 per cent ahead of 1976 income and about four tenths of 1 per cent ahead of the previous record of 1975, $10.07 billion. It exceeded the $10 billion mark for the second time in the history of our country. Costs were up, but what caused income to go down was world prices of grain. We export 74 per cent of our production of cereal grain. No other country in the world exports that much. True enough, we are financing the treasuries of countries like Japan, the OPEC countries and the European community.
The hon. member talked about how proud I was when we went to the bankers' meeting. He is damn right I am proud that I do not have to put that much money into the farm economy to make it one of the healthiest and most enviable in the world. It is right here in Canada, put together by ten provinces working together with the federal government.
No one else in the northern hemisphere can brag like I do. Everyone in this country should brag about it. We have one of the most productive and efficient agricultural industries in the world. In the last 30 years we have increased our productivity by about 500 per cent. This is something to which we can point. That is why the Chinese, Russians and those from other socialist countries come to see how we operate. They want to know how we can be so productive. They cannot understand how a country with only 5 per cent of its people in agriculture can produce so much for themselves and so much for the other

people of the world. It is because we have the know-how and the ability.
We still have incentives in our programs to be that productive. We are not telling the Canadian farmers this year to discontinue wheat and grain production, as they are with the supply management system in the United States. I was there yesterday. They are going to come out with $75 an acre payments to keep the land idle. They have all kinds of other programs. When I left Washington this morning, the farmers were there by the thousands. They were in the offices and all over the buildings. The senators and congressmen react to that, especially the senators. Every senator has some rural constituents no matter where he is from, whether it be New York or California. It would not hurt if our members in the House of Commons had more rural constituents. Maybe they would then pay more attention to them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member's colleagues go to the city of Windsor in my constituency, which is 96 per cent urban, and lambaste me because of the price of food. When we came back this morning, I asked him if he had said anything about marketing boards. He replied that he sure had but the media did not report it. I have no way of knowing whether it was an unfair speech or an unfair reporter. This is something I find a bit hard to accept.
The hon. member for Elgin talked about the roll-over tax. I agree with him, it is important. The hon. member for Elgin could have said that this government did something revolutionary, and parliament sanctioned it, when it allowed the transfer of farm property to a son or daughter.


John Wise: That is the family farm.


Eugene Whelan: Yes, the family farm. At lot of farms are incorporated and are now family corporations. No other country has what we have at the present time. If there is an inequity and we can find a way to get around it, we will because we want the family farm to continue.
Many people talk about efficiency. The former chairman of the Food Prices Review Board and other learned and knowledgeable people said maybe we want bigger and more efficient units. Twenty universities in the United States of America- not just one-all came to the conclusion that the efficient family farm is the most important thing in our society in terms of food production. Those universities did not point to the great socialist type of farming, the great co-operative type of farming or anything else. They pointed to the family farm. Twenty universities conducted that survey, and they all said the same thing. We are also strong believers in family farms, marketing boards, programs, etc. These are the kinds of things we want.
With regard to marketing boards, there was a ministers' conference held in Winnipeg last January, and every minister there supported that type of program. Some say there has been
March 15, 1978

no consultation and that we have no programs, but no two groups work closer together than the provincial ministries of agriculture and the federal Department of Agriculture in this confederation of ours. If all federal-provincial relations were conducted with that kind of harmony, I am sure no one would be suggesting that there should be a separatist movement in our country. Programs which have been worked out and upon which we are presently working are worked out in harmony. Stabilization programs and so forth are worked out with our provincial counterparts to ensure the best for this nation, which, as I said earlier, is the envy of the whole world.
With regard to production increases, efficiency and exports, the hon. member talked about the price of food, but he neglected to say that in 1977 alone it was the price of imported food which increased. Some of that food could very well be produced here. There are no restrictions or quotas on hog production in western Canada, but hog production there has decreased by about 50 per cent in a little over a year. Every working day last year we imported $1 million worth of pork. We imported $222 million worth of pork last year. The fact that products are coming in is not the fault of the Canadian farmer. The productivity of the Canadian farmer has increased by 500 per cent in 35 years. No other part of our society can claim that. All I want is for farmers to do some things for themselves, as the vast majority of them have been doing.
Earlier in my presentation I referred to beef farmers who refused to do some of the things other farmers in the dairy business, the horticultural business or the poultry business are willing to do. These other producers have been working together, running their own independent farms and selling their resources through marketing boards, associations and so forth. We should not be using the medieval system of bartering which is still used in the beef industry today. Producers are not saying "My beef animal is worth so much". They are saying "How much will you give me for it?" and bargaining from there, like they did before the time of Christ. Hon. members will remember that Christ threw the moneychangers out of the temple, and it is about time people in the beef industry recognized that they must do the same thing.
The hon. member spoke about Canada's exports. We are in a hurly-burly world when it comes to exports at the present time. Many countries are retrenching. They have rich treasuries. The United States said it would not get into a surplus dairy position, but it is in a surplus dairy position today. The United States said it would not enter markets other dairy producing countries were in, but it is starting to do so.
Needless to say, there was a lengthy discussion about that yesterday. If the Americans do enter those markets, hon. members can be sure we will be asking for compensation. Exports have risen every year since 1969. That includes the very difficult years of 1975 and 1976. Preliminary estimates for 1977 indicate that agricultural exports increased by more than $400 million in 1977. That represents an increase-not a decrease-of more than 11 per cent in one calendar year. That is an enviable record for any country.
Farm Income
There are approximately 24 million people in Canada. Canada is a northern hemisphere country which competes with such economic giants as the United States of America, which has a population of more than 230 million people. Canada competes with the European Economic Community which serves 260 million people. The EEC spends 74 per cent of the $15 billion it spends on its operations on agriculture, and the health of the European agricultural industry is not half as good as the health of the industry in Canada. When the head of the EEC was here the other day he said the EEC spends too much on agriculture, and everyone laughed. I said I agreed that it spends too much and that we have to compete because of its stupidity in the way it manages its agricultural economy.
In Europe there is a surplus of skim milk powder, fat products and so forth to a total of two million tons. About four years ago egg production in Canada decreased by one half of one per cent. A small percentage like that amounts to billions and billions of pounds when it comes to skim milk powder. At the beginning of 1978 there were no unsold surplus dairy products in the Dominion of Canada. The dairy industry in Canada is run by the Canadian Dairy Commission. Somebody said something today about no consultation with regard to taking a $13 million subsidy off skim milk powder. I have just finished reading an article in a great Montreal newspaper which says that skim milk costs 40 cents a quart in supermarkets in Montreal. It should cost that because skim milk is not skim milk powder. Skim milk powder costs $1.06 and produces four quarts of a highly nutritious drink. That amounts to 26.5 cents a quart. That is cheaper than Coke, ginger ale or anything of a similar weight, and these other beverages have no food value whatsoever.
Some say we are bad fellows when we transfer payments, index pensions for veterans and others and index family allowances. We transfer additional new dollars to the provinces to take care of poor people, and then we are condemned.
Some say there is no consultation. The hon. member for Elgin is from a very productive agricultural area. He is a good farmer from way down in southwestern Ontario. I would like to say to him that we did not consult when we put on the subsidy either. The agreement we have with the dairy farmers of Canada is designed to produce a return. If there need be social services in this country, let us not have the agricultural community providing them directly. We are already producing the cheapest food in the world when related to the earning power of our people. About 13.8 per cent of the earnings of Canadians is spent on food. In the United States the figure is 15 per cent. People accuse me of not having a food policy. Some people suggest that we have millions of bureaucrats looking into every can of soup or beans, into every chicken house, into every pig yard and everything else. One could imagine the cost if that was added to the cost of food, as is the case in some socialist countries where 30 per cent, 35 per cent or 40 per cent of their budgets are spent on food production.
I am proud of the system we have in this country, and our desire is to make it even better.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 15, 1978
Farm Income


Eugene Whelan: People from all over the world come to see what we are doing in our country, and those who are not getting the economic return they should are being told that there are mechanisms for them to use. Those mechanisms are provided by the most democratic institution in the world, the parliament of Canada. If producers want to work together, those mechanisms are available. To those who think that that big country to the south of us is getting ready to be a great liberal trader because of the tremendous pressure which is on its government, I can say that that is not the impression I came away with from Washington yesterday. The United States is willing to lower the tariff on soybeans 60 per cent. That reduces the price 36 cents a bushel, leaving 24 cents a bushel. That still stops me or any farmer producing beans in southern Ontario from taking advantage of the market in Ohio and Michigan.
The other day the price went up to $7. To buy $7 beans in the U.S., you have to add 84 cents because of our devalued money. Did the trade pay our own producers that here in Canada? No, I can tell hon. members they did not do that. They cheated them out of over 90 cents a bushel. When they were buying American beans for nearly $7 in U.S. funds, they were paying $6.65 in Canadian funds for beans in Canada. If I had the same advantage as the buyer or processor had to go to Ohio, Michigan or Chicago to buy or sell my beans over there, I would be in a much better position because I could have loaded up with duty free fertilizer from Ohio or potash from Saskatchewan and brought it back in my big truck-if I had a big truck. I do not have a big truck because I am Minister of Agriculture.
I am just pointing out our disadvantages, and the advantages which the processors have over us. The United States does not intend to wipe out the 60 cents a bushel soybean tariff because the law only allows them to go down to 60 per cent. They cannot lower it below 60 per cent because the law does not allow it. Can you imagine a brave senator or congressman giving the administration the right to wipe out 100 per cent of the tariff? I cannot imagine that after yesterday. I could not imagine it before when I criticized the U.S. ambassador for running around and talking about liberalized trade. Tom Enders knows what their laws are, he knows how far they can go, and he knows they cannot go as far as we can because we are the freest agricultural trading nation in the world. We have been successful at that.
The hon. member for Brant referred to 1 per cent. I think it shows that industry is protected about 14 per cent and agriculture about 6.5 per cent or 7 per cent. We do not protect with tariffs any of the products that come into Canada that are high in price. I am talking about such products as coffee, spices and all these other products we import into Canada. We do not protect them with any significant tariff, and practically all of them are duty free. Many other countries do not do that. They look at that as revenue with which to offset some of their other costs of production. We have import controls on many

products, and many people in western Canada think they are free traders. I do not know.
I see here the hon. member who used to be head of the grain commission in Canada, a very knowledgeable person. He knows there have not been free traders since 1935 when R. B. Bennett imposed the Wheat Board on the people of Canada because of the horrible system of marketing grain in western Canada. I cannot even bring a bushel of wheat into Canada- and I approve of the system-to do research as Minister of Agriculture unless I obtain a permit. That applies to any of the grains under the Canadian Wheat Board. No matter what the world price might be, whether it is cheap or expensive-and not many people will want to bring it in if it is expensive-you cannot bring those grains into Canada under that system.
With regard to the Canadian Dairy Commission, opposition members say we have done nothing. We had no quotas on cheese before the Minister of Agriculture placed a 50 million pound quota on special cheeses coming into Canada. All the dairy producers in the dairy processing industry heralded that as a breakthrough. It might be of interest to the hon. member for Elgin and his party to know that the 50 million pound quota is not being filled. Cheese consumption has gone up in Canada in two years by about 18 per cent. That 18 per cent is ail domestically produced cheese. Am I supposed to go out and pound people's heads and say, "Get into cheese production"?
When the House checks what we have done in the dairy industry they will find that we have increased production of condensed milk by 38 per cent in one year. Why did we do that? That was done under the transfer of fat program. When you have condensed milk on the world market, you do not have butter or skim milk powder; you just take some of the moisture out of milk. It can be added back or used in that form. It is in little cans that can be easily used in thousands of different places in the world. It is in a much better form than skim milk powder. We know that butter cannot be used in many countries, so why produce a product that will be financing the treasuries of other countries?
Advertising has been mentioned. The hon. member knows that the Dairy Commission has received $4 million. We can give an example of what the marketing boards can do. We can go to Alberta which has some of the strictest provincial marketing boards that I have ever seen. Last year, with the cheap price of beef-there was never a time when the consumer got more beef for an hour's wages-a phenomenal thing took place in Alberta, which has the most expensive poultry in all of Canada. Perhaps it is slightly more expensive in British Columbia, but the producers in Alberta get the best return. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that consumption of broiler chickens increased in Alberta 10 per cent when the national average was only 2.3 per cent? What does that tell you? The producers themselves sold the chicken.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I regret to interrupt the minister, but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
March 15, 1978


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I will not take up much more time because this is an opposition day, and I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate.
When we talk about trade, I think we should have some symposia on this subject. We are developing marketing programs and working harder in that area than any other nation in the world. I am often criticized for travelling, but when I travel abroad it is generally because a group of associations have come to the Government of Canada and said: "We think the minister could have some impact on such countries as Brazil to sell our livestock, or on the Balkans to sell our poultry, breeding stock or livestock, or some of the farm machinery we make here." As the hon. member for Brant said, and I agree with him, we should have something like the auto pact with respect to farm machinery, although his leader criticized it the other day. I think we could make some improvements to it because we can see some failings in the auto pact. But if we had not had the auto pact, we would be in the same position with regard to auto parts as we are with farm machinery, which comes in duty free. That is something that many people do not know. Even many farmers think that farm machinery has a tariff on it. We can bring machinery parts in duty free while an American farmer cannot do so. I think the duty is 7 per cent on parts bought here and taken back to the United States.
Another way to discourage our know-how and spirit of entrepreneurship is to try to create a parts system for machinery in Canada. This is just impossible and is not warranted because one has to pay duty to supply the North American market.
The motion reads in part:
-encourage the expansion and improvement of agricultural research to ensure efficient production techniques;
I have never heard so much talk about research and what is happening to it, yet I have not heard one hon. member, one of the scientists, point out to me one research area that is suffering. We have done some of the greatest research in agriculture. There are no in-house research projects for which I am responsible that are suffering or that are going to suffer, because I am the one who makes the decision for any contracting out. Universities will go to some members in the House and say to them: "We must have agricultural research". That is contracting out. Make sure you let your constituents know that you made representations to the Minister of Agriculture and he responds to your request by giving a grant to a university to do agricultural research.
Provincial ministers have also said they do not want any more contracting out. They are proud of our CDA research group, the greatest in the world. We signed an agreement yesterday to share expertise and research with the United States. Thus we will share the research, not duplicate it. We think that is the best way of going about it. Instead of their doing research and us doing the same kind of research, which would be a complete duplication, we could have a shared program.
Farm Income
I should like to refer to direct food aid. Recently I made our pledge to the United Nations; it was approximately two weeks ago. Once again Canada is in the forefront of food aid and food aid development of every description. We are not ashamed of anything. 1 am not ashamed when I suggest some kind of cartel to sell our food on the world market in order to receive a decent price for it from countries such as Japan, the European Economic Community and the OPEC countries. These countries are stockpiling our food at below the cost of production. Then people, including hon. members on both sides of the House, ask us to use stablization programs to make sure our producers stay in business. They are still pointing out the great economic strides being made by countries like Japan. That indicates how powerful these countries are. The very system we operate under is based on stabilizing our commodities to stay in business. Then they are thrown on the world market. We pound one another on the head. What does all this economic nonsense add up to? Should we subsidize the treasuries of those countries? Should our funds be used in such a manner?
As I have indicated, we spend the least of any country in the world percentagewise. The budget of my department only amounts to 2 per cent of total federal expenditures. When all provincial and federal expenditures across Canada are added, one will find approximately 4 per cent goes to agriculture. We have a healthy, productive agricultural entity. The organization we have allows farmers to look after themselves. People say that the bureaucracy is running these agricultural entities which I am talking about, those people who have net incomes. They are not run by public service bureaucracy, they are run by the producers themselves. In some instances even consumers are on the board. They are running one of the most efficient ships in the world.
I think I would be remiss if I did not end up with a four letter word: eggs. What other product went down in price 3.4 per cent last year and still gives a very fair return to the producers? They receive a net profit for their investment, for the total cost of operation, for their managerial ability, etc. Some people have indicated that it is wrong for farmers to make a constant, steady income. They are efficient producers. I have added the word "efficient" because generally people do not. Never has there been a time in our history when an hour's wage would buy so many eggs as it does now. An hour's wage buys approximately eight dozen eggs.
When I was a young man, I remember working in a factory. I received 55 cents an hour for my work. At that time a dozen eggs cost 45 cents, a pound of beef cost 50 cents and a pound of butter cost 46 cents. It almost took an hour's wage to buy one pound of those products. Never before in our lives has an hour's wage bought so much. Our export policy, agricultural policy, food policy, or whatever one wants to call that humble-jumble, is the best in the world.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to take part in the debate on the motion proposed by the

March 15, 1978
Farm Income
hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise), I cannot help but think Canadian farmers are looking very closely at what we say about their declining incomes. After having heard what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) said today, I feel somewhat inadequate. When it comes to bragging, I do not hold a candle to that minister. Sometimes I think perhaps he has missed his calling and should be travelling the world in order to inform them of how great things are in the Canadian farming industry. He is excellent at telling our farmers that they have never had it so good, but he forgot to deal with the motion entirely. He forgot to explain how he intends to deal with farm incomes which have dropped approximately 40 per cent in the last two years.
No one on this side of the House is saying that we are not proud of our farmers. No one is indicating that they are not efficient, nor among the best in the world. We agree with the Minister of Agriculture when he indicates that.


Mr. Oberle:: They have to be good to withstand this mess.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: As my hon. colleague has so ably stated, they must be excellent farmers in order to continue to produce under the conditions they have faced over the last number of years. One must consider inflation, the cost of inputs and the lack of policy. As the hon. member for Elgin indicated, no bills have been put before the House dealing with the problem of net farm incomes. Farmers who are facing the 1978 crop season are doing so wondering just where their incomes will go this year.
Comparisons were brought out today concerning farm cash receipts. They show that receipts for January 1978 over 1977 are down .9 per cent. This is the most recent figure. Net farm income in Canada dropped 11 per cent from 1976 to 1977. Agriculture Canada forecasts for 1978 indicate a further decline of 6.1 per cent. All the bragging about the greatness of this industry will not help farmers balance their books at the end of 1978.
The problem of decreasing farm incomes has not been dealt with. Any farmer can attest to this when he commences his operations this spring. Almost all farm input costs are up. Seed, labour rates, chemicals, fertilizer, the entire gamut, have risen in cost.
I should like to put on the record certain statistics. The gross income for 1976 over 1975 is $33,000 compared to $31,000. Net farm incomes dropped from $12,900 to $1 1,933 for 1976 over 1975. From 1972 to 1977, the costs have risen 9 per cent over a decrease in income of 1 per cent.
I should like to refer to some individual statistics to indicate what is happening to farmer input costs in Canada today. His total input costs in 1977 over 1976- and this is based on 1961 equalling 100 per cent-went from 232.2 per cent in 1976 to 247.2 per cent in 1977. Mixed fertilizers are up three points, and straight fertilizers are up 3.4 per cent. Land and farm buildings have increased from 285 per cent in 1976 to 297 per cent in 1977. Farm machinery and motor vehicles have increased from 195 per cent in 1976 to 210 per cent in 1977. The same is true with regard to feed, electricity, farm labour

and petro-chemical products. All have risen in cost from 1976 to 1977. One could go back to 1961 to show the ever-increasing cost on a percentage basis.
In many cases farmers have had to increase the debt loads they are carrying. If one looks at the total estimated farm credit in millions of dollars over the last number of years, and puts it on a per farm basis, the trend is shown. Perhaps this is not indicative of what has happened, because only farms consisting of more that 50 acres have been included. In 1974 the total credit on all farms was $6,904 million. In 1975 it increased to $8,170 million. In 1976 it went up to $9,536 million. I am sure the 1977 statistics would show a similar increase if they were available.
I should like to refer to average interest rates. Since farmers are required to borrow more money, interest rates have increased as well. In 1974 the average interest rate was 8.8 per cent for borrowed capital. In 1975 it increased to 9.2 per cent. In 1976 it increased to 9.6 per cent. That is another input cost a farmer has to pay in order to continue to meet his balance of payments, or deficit as we like to talk about it in this country. On a per farm basis again, the credit that each farmer on the average has to pay in his operation in 1976 was up from $20,938 in 1975 to $25,158, an increase on the average farm of almost $5,000. These statistics show every individual case over the last five years, and we could go beyond that if we wanted to use these statistics. They show that farm input costs have increased at a very rapid rate.
The minister referred to farm machinery. The cost of a self-propelled combine jumped 89.7 per cent in the years 1973 to 1977. Let us compare the increase in the cost of a tractor with the increase in the cost of an automobile during the same period of time. If the individual consumer had to pay the same percentage increase for his automobile, he would scream to high heaven. During that same period of lime the cost of an automobile increased by 24 per cent, yet the cost of a tractor went up by 64 per cent, and for a combine the increase was 89 per cent. It is no wonder farmers are asking why they are consistently having to pay more through input costs than other members of society.
Consumers are always talking about constant dollars based on 1961 statistics. I thought it might be of interest if we did the same in respect of farm commodities. Using the 1961 index base as 100, the cost in relation to a bushel of barley was 217 per cent higher in 1975. If we take the price of a bushel of barley in 1971 as being 75 per cent and work that back to 1930, that bushel of barley would have been worth $1.32. The same bushel of barley based on 1961 dollars would be worth $1.02 in 1975. To produce that bushel of barley in 1930, on the 1961 index of 100 it would cost 41.7 cents. To produce it in 1975 would cost $2.17. This shows that a farmer producing a bushel of barley today has a cost five times greater than in 1930 but is getting less for the same bushel of barley. It costs twice as much as it did in 1961 to produce, but the farmer is getting only 20 cents more per bushel than in 1961.
March 15, 1978

One can relate these statistics to hogs and cattle, and in all cases in constant dollars farmers are in worse shape today than they were during the years of the depression.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on!


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Members can well ask how the farmer has been able to exist under these conditions. The only reason is that he has become more efficient. Small farmers have been driven off the farms by these cost increases resulting from the inefficiency of our system in providing farmers a fair return on production.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for St. Catharines is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Parent:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite indicated that small farmers are being driven off the land. That is a false statement, because they are not. 1 happen to be a small farmer. My family still farms effectively and very efficiently, and they are making a good living.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member may have a very valid point of argument, but it is certainly not a point of order.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, all I can say in response to that interjection is that the hon. member should look again at the statistics. Today the number of people on farms is less than 6 per cent of the population. Not many years ago, probably just before 1968, some 17 per cent of the people of Canada were living on farms.
Let us have a look at what the consumer has to pay for his food today. Canadians are paying the lowest percentage of their disposable income on food. In 1976 Canadians spent only 13.8 per cent of their disposable income on food. This compares very favourably with other countries; 15 per cent by the Americans, 19.2 per cent by the French, 21 per cent by the British and 26 per cent by the Italians. As Canadians we spend proportionately less for our food than the people of most other nations, and this is at a time when our farmers are incurring higher and higher production costs.
Members of this party placed a motion before the House giving specific suggestions on how to increase the income of farmers. We also suggested that the Minister of Agriculture look very seriously at ways of decreasing input costs as well as the price of their commodities. Action is needed now if we are to improve the agricultural income picture and alleviate the constraints which are stifling growth within the agricultural sector.
Before dealing with some specific areas where attention is needed, it should be underlined, as it was underlined by the hon. member for Elgin, that a healthier national economy would definitely improve the income position of farmers and the agricultural sector of Canada. While this is a simple and somewhat obvious conclusion, it needs to be stated. We sometimes forget that the best producers in the country are also consumers who are confronted with the same increases in the
Farm Income
cost of living as others and, therefore, need the same increases in their disposable incomes as those in urban climates.
Where are the prime areas where we would like to see action? First, we would like to see action in the field of taxation. Let us allow our farmers to keep more of their earnings, and I suppose this idea could be extended to all people in the country. We feel that one of the areas which should specifically be designated is the area of capital gains. We realize that the capital gains structure for family farms is excellent. However, the people who are left out are the corporate farmers. Many farmers were persuaded by government policy in 1971, when the capital gains tax was first brought in, to incorporate their operations. A large percentage of those corporate farms are in fact family farms. We have suggested over and over again that this method of capital gains should be extended to the corporate farm.
At the same time a large percentage of our farmers in Canada are over the age of 55, and many of them will soon be seeking retirement. If they sell their property now, because land prices from 1971 to 1978 have increased so rapidly a great percentage of the sale would go to capital gains. Many of these farmers would move into the cities for their retirement where a house would cost approximately $60,000 to $70,000. They might retire with, say, $140,000. A home in most towns, and I am only familiar with Alberta, will cost that farmer between $65,000 and $70,000. That comes off the $140,000. By the time he pays $30,000 or $40,000 in capital gains tax he has very little money to place in the bank for retirement. We are suggesting that every farmer be allowed a once-in-a-lifetime capital gains tax-free sale.
In order to combat the problem of price and, subsequently, income fluctuation, attention should be given to a more coherent stabilization policy. We now have the Western Grain Stabilization Act, and we have the Agricultural Stabilization Act. Many of us in western Canada feel there should be regional differences built into those stabilization acts. In the beef industry we find that consistently producers in eastern Canada are getting $4 to $5 more per hundred than we are in western Canada. At the same time the average is based on beef right across the country. Certainly, regional differences in our stabilization plan should be built in.
The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton) and myself have both proposed that individual stabilization plans should be built into the farmer's operation. There are a number of ways that this could work. The provincial department of agriculture in Alberta had a team of consultants examine the feasibility of such an income averaging scheme. Their suggestion was that the farmers be allowed to open a bank account with a minimum deposit term of one year and a maximum deposit term of seven years, and that the deposit be a minimum of $1,000. The farmers would have to be in the age group of 18 to 70, and only income from farm operations could be deposited into the fund. After examining the plan the management consultants concluded that income

March 15, 1978
Farm Income
averaging trust accounts were indeed feasible and, if implemented, would help stabilize the rural economy and the prices of farm supplies.
As everyone realizes, there are cycles in the agricultural commodity phases. A farmer in a high cycle would be able to put part of his income in a tax-free account and withdraw that money when his net income was low. It could be further expanded to allow-as in the western grain stabilization fund-for fluctuations of government money at a time when the whole region is in a low income position.
Taxation and stabilization methods can do only part of the job. At present we are lagging behind the United States in agricultural productivity. Some of our traditional export markets for farm products are being eroded. It seems to me that one of the major reasons for this sluggishness is in the federal government's almost exclusive emphasis on price stability as achieved through supply management schemes. What we are suggesting is that the government place more emphasis on the marketing end of the marketing board and much less emphasis on the supply end of the supply management board.
Surely as everyone realizes, farmers like to produce everything that they are capable of producing; but when told that they have to live under quotas and that their input costs are guaranteed, a percentage of them could become sluggish and inefficient in their operations. We are stating that the Department of Agriculture should have a policy in marketing boards emphasizing the marketing end and de-emphasizing the supply management end of it. As well, it should increase the number-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I have to inform him that his allotted time has expired. Nevertheless, he may continue if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members. I will be very brief because others of my colleagues would like to address the House on this matter.
The last area that I would like to cover very quickly is renewable energy, and this goes along with the research end of the department. I think it is imperative that one of the areas that farmers can save money in terms of their input costs is in the field of energy. The department should be encouraging by way of research areas of renewable energy such as biomass and solar energy. This is an area I would like to see emphasized as much as possible in the future.
We have put forward an excellent motion. We have extended to the minister five areas which he should consider so as to increase the net income of farmers across this country. I urge the members of this House to support this motion.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased that the official opposition has chosen such an important matter as agriculture to conclude this

important series of opposition days before Easter. I hope this Lenten period will be beneficial to all Canadian farmers, not only in Quebec but throughout Canada.
Agriculture is the most important industry, since it provides every human being with the necessary food to ensure his survival. One may be educated, have all kinds of degrees and great knowledge, but the fact is that a man must feed himself each day to recuperate and start again the next day. And it is with food coming from the agricultural sector that most human beings can recuperate from day to day. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, farming is the most important profession on earth, but unfortunately that sector has found and is still finding it very difficult to have its rights recognized, to obtain a fair income equivalent to that of workers in other sectors of economic activity.
Mr. Speaker, I remember having to go one day to a specialist in a hospital. Of course, those people who dispense their science to the sick have the right to be paid for their services. That is absolutely normal. I asked him for a bill. In those days, there was no hospital insurance, and you had to pay your own hospital expenses so I said to my specialist: For the love of God, let me have a bill and I will pay you. He pulled out of his drawer, a book containing a list of fees.
So, I told my good friend to spare himself the trouble of reading the list, or even of showing it to me because I was unable, at that time to show him my own book with the list of the rates 1 could charge those who availed themselves of my services: I had no such book. So then, I said to my specialist: "make me out a bill so I can pay you." He insisted on telling me what his fee was. On hearing it, I understood that at the going rate, some years ago, even at $2 an hour, it would take me 250 hours of work to pay him for his own four hours of work. As we both had the same number of hours in a day, and in a year, I told him: "I shall have to live to a ripe old age to be able to pay you, and if the other professionals with whom I deal charge the same rate, I shall never live long enough to pay all of you."
But he understood that the work of the farmer is just as important as that of any other person, in any other profession, because I had said to him: "Your work is essential because you repair bodies; but, on the other hand, I feel that my work is also just as important because the bodies that you heal, before they become ill, I have to feed them."
So, Mr. Speaker, I feel it is good that we should pause a moment today to think upon the part the farmer plays in our society. The farming community, Mr. Speaker, have rights, and I wholeheartedly agree that in the past few years we have progressed tremendously far. I recall, Mr. Speaker, that in hard times, during the depression, from 1930 to 1940, many farmers had incurred indebtedness after the first world war, during the inflation years, when people were buying land at extremely high prices and when farm products were selling at very good prices.
March 15, 1978

This easy period was followed by a decline in prices, while obligations remained the same; the farmers who had committed themselves at that time, were deep in debt, but had no money to pay. It was at that time, between 1930 and 1935, that the Conservative government of Prime Minister Bennett introduced a piece of legislation in this House which was passed by Parliament and was known as the Farmers Creditors Arrangement Act. Under this Act, creditors were required to accept reductions of monies owed them as well as agreements with borrowers so that those farmers could keep their farms, in order, in the years following, to continue their operations, and eventually pay off their debts.
Mr. Speaker, I was forced during these years-and I am not ashamed to say so-to turn with all the other people who were in the same situation, to wards the so-called "back to the land" movement. They got rid of the unemployed in cities by sending them to the so-called settlers' parishes. They were expatriated and left in misery. Today, we see abandoned churches and houses in many parishes which were built with enormous sacrifice and miseries during these years. As far as I am concerned, I was among the lucky ones. I was a farmer and I am not ashamed of it because Canada was precisely built during these first years, these first parishes, these first towns by people named "settlers". This word means that they settled, reclaimed land for cultivation, cut down trees, built farms to expand our national heritage.
I thank the Providence, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to have this forum today to explain the colonization to those who do not understand anything to farm workers, to those who are the real builders of this country. It is time, Mr. Speaker, that we did some colonization in the minds and the brains of those who control finance in this country, who think only in terms of profits, stockpiling wealth and forget that there are people who deserve to be paid and to live. Mr. Speaker, I think that today's motion is a good one. Earlier I listened very attentively to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). I did not have the opportunity to hear his whole speech because I was held up outside the House in an important committee. I had to be excused to come and take part in this debate.
Mr. Speaker, in all honesty I would like to make my contribution and second the efforts of all those parliamentarians, on either side of the House, who really want to ensure the survival of our agricultural sector.
Mr. Speaker, I recognize that in the last few years giant steps have been made in the dairy industry. But, on the other hand, just today I received representations from milk producers who have not had the opportunity in the last few months to deliver their production and get paid for it. That is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker.
Farm Income
Imagine, for example, if public servants of this Parliament-and there are thousands of them-would be forced at a given moment to work without getting paid every second week. Today is Wednesday, and you should have seen the number of public servants going into banks to cash their pay cheques, which I hope they earned well. On the other hand, you would have seen the number of people in front of the office of the Treasury Board to claim their pay cheques if they had been denied them today. That is the same feeling experienced by farm producers and milk producers. Those people must capitalize heavily.
Mr. Speaker, it can be boring to quote statistics, but I think that it is necessary from time to time. In 1975, the average capital investment for farms was $135,000. This is a lot of money, and to be able to stay on the farm, especially in dairy production, you must invest even more money. I would like to quote some figures because I believe that it is necessary to see in what direction we are going. In 1850, and some may say that this is old history and that they do not care to hear about it, but we do care about our history. This week, the Prime Minister of Canada quoted whole pages of our history during a visit to Western Canada. I think that he was right and that it is unfortunate that our young people do not know the history and the origins of their country better.
Yesterday, we had in Ottawa students from all provinces of Canada. I was able like many others, for instance, like the hon. member for Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata (Mr. Gendron) to meet these young people from Riviere-du-Loup and to see that they were very interested in this institution and in our proceedings. They visited the galleries and many of them were quite surprised to see that the French-speaking and English-speaking parliamentarians were able to meet, to exchange views, because they have been taught that we should hate each other and were not allowed to meet. It is therefore essential that our young people learn about our history, Mr. Speaker. This is why I want to quote some true figures to see if there is really nothing to be done to save our agriculture, which can not only provide food for the Canadian people, but also, because of the richness of our soil, produce a certain amount of food to ease the misery and hunger of human beings in other countries.
In 1850, the Canadian farmer provided for the needs of four people. He needed all of his time to do so. In 1960, the farmer could provide for the needs of 28 people. In 1976, which is not very long ago, the farmer could provide for the needs of 55 people. According to current estimates, the population of Canada will increase from 22.5 millions to 27 millions in 1990, if we stop allowing abortions, of course. We can therefore conclude that the farmer will then have to feed even more people. However, it is important to note that in 1930, the Canadian labour force amounted to four million people, of whom $1.3 million, or 33 per cent, were farmers.
But in 1965, the work force had risen to 9.3 million, of which 0.48 million or 5 per cent only were in farming. There-

March 15, 1978
Farm Income
fore, food requirements will increase in coming years, which means that if we really want our farmers to be able to produce enough to feed all Canadians, they will have to invest more, to produce more through higher mechanization, which means higher expenditures. So production costs will increase. Something has to be done. More stability will have to be ensured to young farmers.
I live in a rural area and I must speak to these problems. I meet these people every weekend. I get letters and phone calls and as lately as today, I was asked: "What are you going to do about our quotas? Are you going to do something?" Mr. Speaker, we did fool ourselves. As early as 1955, when I was an active farmer living off the land, I was fighting against a product called margarine that was invading the market. We were asking the government to protect us, to protect our dairy industry against margarine. We were told there was no danger, it was a low-quality product, it was not dangerous, it could never replace butter, and so forth. Well, Mr. Speaker, behind that were big corportions, a powerful organization capable of taking over the market for that product, and today, Mr. Speaker, I am not blaming the consumers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Lambert (Beliechasse):: Thank you. Mr. Speaker. My, such generosity today, how amazing! I thank you and 1 shall not take advantage of it.
I simply want to say this: we are now paying for our nearsightedness: this product has invaded the market, it now replaces the dairy product. As for the minister, who is listening to me very closely from his seat, I am convinced that deep down he knows that if this year, when the next dairy year is announced, and I hope he will announce the policy very soon and there will be improvements instead of condemnations, the consumption of dairy products has decreased, it is precisely because more dairy produce substitutes are consumed, and today, that is a well-established fact on the market, prices have gone up. Margarine is just as expensive as butter. So what should we do? I should like to propose something, Mr. Speaker. It is nothing new, it was done under a minority government and gave concrete results. Under a minority government, there was a discount policy for the consumption of whole milk. It does not sound like much, a nickel a quart, but when you add up all the quarts, millions of dollars have been paid in discounts to Canadian families for the consumption of whole milk.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister why we could not return to that policy because it was a human policy and it would be beneficial to families with several children. I understand that are converting to the metric system. Today it is called a litre. It is eight ounces less than a quart, so at 5 cents that would represent a substantial discount for families. So as not to overburden the neighbour, he may not have any children but in the present system we must still pay for the discount the other one is getting, since we have a higher gross national product and there is a lack of income available to families to be able to increase production made by Canadians and for Canadians, that is where the discount mechanism comes in. This discount mechanism could be paid by new credit, not by chartered bank borrowings, not by taxes on individuals, but by credit created and minted by the Bank of Canada and made available to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Canadian Dairy Commission.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) were telling us not long ago that the purchasing power had to be increased to stimulate consumption and restore balance in this country. I share their view but with different means. Instead of increasing the purchasing power of people who really need it by taking it out of the pockets of those who do not really have enough of it, let us rather increase the purchasing power of those families with new credit made available by the Bank of Canada. I will never give up on that because I am so convinced, Mr. Speaker, that this must be the instrument to bring about the increase in the money supply in this country based on industry and work. This seems to me to be so logical. Why go and borrow water from the neighbour's well when we have a good well full of good water? Why pay someone something to be able to use it when we have what we need at home and without hurting the other fellow?
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that is elementary logic, and that is why I say, in closing, that in the interest of Canadians, agriculture must be protected, our farmers must be encouraged to remain on the land and continue to work and produce the food required to meet people's needs; but, in return, let us try to ensure them a stable income, a decent worker's wage. If we adopt such policies, Mr. Speaker, we can be sure that generations to come will be grateful to those who, today, have the courage to grab the bull by the horns and straighten out our economic system by protecting the basic industry, the most essential in our country, namely, agriculture, and in the case of Quebec, the dairy industry.


Mr. Yves Caron (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: First of all, I should like to tell the hon. member for Beliechasse (Mr. Lambert) that we, on the government side, share his concern for Canadian agriculture and that, together with the Department of Agriculture, we are constant-


ly striving to improve the situation of agriculture in Canada generally, but more specifically in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House today lists five areas of concern in agriculture, and I suggest that in his remarks a while ago, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) clearly indicated that he is well aware of them. I should like to mention the efforts the Department of Agriculture has been making to sell our surplus abroad, with particular emphasis on the work the Minister of Agriculture recently carried out in a number of countries. Canada is one of the major food producing countries in the world and must, because of this, assume a large burden of responsibility for the millions of starving human beings all over the world.
The malnutrition problem can be solved only by increasing the food production of developing countries. We must however expect food assistance in the form of donations from wealthy countries to continue to be necessary for a long time. Canadian food assistance is sent multilaterally and through certain nongovernment organizations. Before 1974, most of this assistance was given bilaterally, that is from country to country. In 1976, Canada sent directly to the poorest countries $125 million worth of food products. More than 20 countries have benefit-ted from this assistance in the last five years.
Canada sends most of its food assistance through the United Nations World Food Program which includes more than 100 donating or receiving countries. Canadian shipments are made up mostly of wheat surplus, wheat flour, powdered skim milk, which is often mentioned in relation with our dairy policy, cheese, fish, canned beef, beans and egg powder. From 1973, when the World Food Program was created, to 1976, the total contribution of Canada in funds and in food products amounted to $320 million, including $50 million in funds. UNICEF and other UN organizations also benefit from this type of assistance. Finally, part of our food assistance is distributed through non-government organizations.
Important conferences on this subject have been held in the last few weeks. The Minister of Agriculture represented our country at these conferences. At the 19th FAO Conference held in Rome on November 16, 1977, the Minister of Agriculture noted that the commitment of Canada to the World Food Program for the fiscal year 1977-78 amounted to 400,000 tons of grain, which is part of our commitment of one million ton for the current year, in addition to $13 million worth of other food products and $10 million in funds.
Canada also announced his intention, subject to parliamentary approval, to contribute $7.5 million for 500,000 tons of the emergency world food reserve. Our country also pays $33 million to the International Farm Development Fund because we believe it is important to invest in international farming development. In spite of the enormous quantity of food products transported from one continent to another, most human beings depend on the food produced in their own country or near their own town or village. This is why Canada strongly
Farm Income
supports increased food production in underdeveloped countries. The Canadian aim is to devote 33 per cent of its bilateral funds to agricultural development projects for 1977 to 1982.
This sector would thus be the major beneficiary of our bilateral aid program. Right now almost 300 agricultural projects are already under way or are being planned and, for all practical purposes, Canadian assistance in various sectors is over $1 billion a year.
At the meeting of the OECD agriculture committee held in Paris on February 9 and 10 last, the Minister of Agriculture of Canada, as deputy chairman of the committee, pointed out that the food strategy which is being set up in Canada will be beneficial for Canadian farming as well as for our world food assistance. The aims suggested for the food strategy are as follows: to give consumers permanent access to high quality food at reasonable prices; second, to assure a decent agricultural income enabling farmers to enjoy an acceptable standard of living; third, to produce for export purposes the foodstuff for which the country enjoys a worldwide competitive position; fourth, to provide food assistance to needy countries.
On that occasion, he pointed out that it was no longer sufficient to assess the qualify of our food aid programs and that we should also consider the whole food supply management at the international level. Finally, at the United Nations and FAO Conference on the contributions to the World Food Program held in New York City on February 21 last, the minister reported that the Canadian government had allowed $95 million for each of the years 1979 and 1980. The two year plan therefore grants $170 million in food and $20 million in cash. That aid reflects the concern of Canada over the world food situation. Our contribution to the developing countries covers therefore three main aspects: aid under the form of food, whether wheat, skim powder or cheese which are surplus products in Canada and represent several tens of millions of dollars in technical aid.
So, Canada has tried over the years 70 to draw closer its ties with its neighbours of Latin America. One of the first steps in this direction is a bilateral technical aid program in Latin America, through the Canadian International Development Agency. This aid is aimed at three sectors: agriculture, education and community development. Another way for Canada to have closer ties is to increase its participation in regional institutions and organizations, such as the Inter-American Institute of Agricultural Sciences. Also, the department has appointed an official whose function will be to explain our agricultural research programs to the international organizations concerned.
Agriculture Canada is aware of its responsibilities in the face of the world food situation, and it is our farmers who are producing the foodstuff that Canada gives to developing countries. It is the officials of this department, be they agronomists, veterinarians or researchers, who support them, and the Department of Agriculture attends all international confer-

March 15, 1978
Farm Income
ences on world food supply. It does its share to help underdeveloped countries or countries with insufficent food supply, and we can say that our current program is indeed very generous. The department wishes to remain active in this field.
Before resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker, because time is running out and one of my colleagues also wants to speak on this opposition motion, I would like to reassure the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) concerning the dairy policy. He voiced his concern over the soon to be announced new dairy policy. I must reassure him because this government has always endeavoured to have the most viable dairy policy for milk producers in Quebec and in Canada.
I must assure him that a special committee of government members-an agriculture sub-committee-has been working for three months to produce if not the best, at least a very good dairy policy for every industrial milk producer in Canada. We certainly share the concerns of producer federations over reduced quotas, but we are aiming for the maintenance in 1978-79 of quotas issued in 1977-78, under a farm policy being developed be the sub-committee on agriculture and hon. members from this side of the House.


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) for introducing this motion today. I think it is very timely and appropriate that this House should discuss the problems and the plight of the farm producers of Canada. The hon. member spoke about declining farm income in various sectors. We then heard from other hon. members, including the minister. I commend the minister for his efforts and his devotion to the cause of the Canadian farmer.
Hon. members opposite like to criticize the minister at times, but I think in their hearts they know that this Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has carried the cause of the farmer to every corner of this country and to every sector. He has done so at all times in a fearless, forthright manner. While hon. members opposite might at times disagree with him, I am sure they do not deny that fact and the effectiveness of the job he has done for the food producers of this country. The minister's efforts are not well known by many people, even people in rural communities who perhaps should have a better appreciation of farm producers' problems.
Farm production has become so complex that a great part of our population does not really understand some of the problems faced by farmers. I am happy to have in my possession a letter from which I will read one paragraph, as follows:
I need not tell you the high regard and esteem in which you are held by all associated with this Council.
This is a copy of a letter addressed to the minister.
As you indicated in your address, all of our members may not be Liberals, but let me assure that all accept you as a true friend and the best spokesman for horticultural producers we have known.

That is signed by the secretary-treasurer of the Canadian Horticultural Council, and I think it is typical of the feelings of many farm groups in this country.
I realize that my time is very short. Having said what I have said with respect to the minister, let me say that I happened to see a clipping from a western Canadian newspaper over the weekend. It was a release by the deputy minister quoting a report of a task force on beef production. I only wish that some of the people conducting these studies who are working for the minister were as up to date as the minister is. According to this report, it costs 35 cents a pound to produce beef in this country today.
Somewhere along the line a report has been buried. That might have applied 15, 18 or 20 years ago, but it certainly does not apply today. I was amazed at that report, and I have not yet had an opportunity to find out where it came from or how it became public. I hope nobody in the minister's department believes that. I know the minister does not believe it. He knows that the situation is different from that. I only hope some of the officials he has working for him are more aware of the facts than that newspaper clipping serves to indicate.
An hon. member opposite mentioned capital gains legislation. I certainly agree with the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) that there have been two major improvements for the farmer, but there is room for more. The initial rollover rights which apply now to the family farm-and have, I suppose, since the beginning of that legislation-could be expanded. I am sure the hon. member for Wetaskiwin is well aware that we have provided for an exchange of property to apply not only to the farmer but also to the small businessman. That was a major improvement.
We can certainly look forward to the extension of that rollover provision and other provisions relating to capital gains for the incorporated farm, which has over the years become the trend, according to tax advisers and others, for many farmers. Tax people recommended that, farmers picked it up and today they must leave their land outside their operating company. It seems to me that the law should be changed in that respect.
Perhaps we could look at another change, a change in the valuation day, December 31, 1971. Perhaps we could move that date forward and suggest an average of other dates to improve that figure to the benefit of the taxpayer. Perhaps we could provide some kind of indexation which would adjust the value of a particular farm. Another option might be a once-in-a-lifetime exemption for capital gains, whether for a farmer or a small businessman.
Precedents have been set with the former gift tax provisions under the Income Tax Act and other provincial legislation. That is an avenue which should be explored more fully. As a matter of fact, it is a resolution which was recently approved at the national Liberal convention, and I am sure there is no disagreement in principle on either side of the House with
March 15, 1978

provisions of that kind to improve the tax situation of the farmer.
In conclusion, let me say a few words regarding what hon. members opposite said concerning the lack of a farm policy. We amended the Agricultural Stabilization Act a couple of years ago to include production costs. I can recall many hon. members opposite decrying the fact that we are even looking at that. They certainly did not want to do anything which could be construed as stabilizing, putting in a floor price or in any way supporting the incomes of producers. We are very concerned about that. Many of them fought every inch of the way as we worked for years to implement the western grain income stabilization act. I am very happy-it must be because an election is coming or something-that my hon. friends opposite are suddenly realizing that we should seek new ways to bring about greater stability in the incomes of farm and food producers in this country.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the time and of my commitments to hon. members opposite, I will now conclude my remarks.


Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the minister I was reminded of the story of the new reverend who went to the south west corner of Saskatchewan in the ranching country and on his first Sunday out there waited outside the church. Finally, one rancher showed up. As there were no more, they went inside, sang the hymn, preached the sermon and took the collection. Then the reverend went to the back of the church and met the rancher as he was leaving. He shook his hand, thought for a minute and said to the rancher: "Say, if you went out to feed your cattle and only one animal showed up, would you still feed it?" The rancher thought for a while and said: "Yes, I reckon I would, but I sure wouldn't give it the full load." Well, we sure got the whole load from the minister today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: The minister has been described as a bull who carries his own china shop. It is an apt description. Some time ago he told us to pray. Today he spoke about Christ. I have here the March issue of Farm Light & Power which contains an article headlined: "Farmers repeating Bible story"-written by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). It recounts the Old Testament story of the Egyptian famine. The minister writes:
This is how I reconstruct that story:
... Joseph was appointed manager of the organization and bought up all the grain produced each year. But he instructed each farmer to hold back enough grain for seeding the next year.
So, for seven years the farmers planted their own grain, including all the weed seeds and diseased seeds. The weeds and diseases multiplied. After seven years, Joseph brought about the famine he had predicted.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I read a different message into that story.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: The minister is always talking about levelling out the boom and bust cycles
Farm Income
in agriculture. This is what concerns us, because he has worked hard at it but so far has only managed to level out the boom periods. Today he compared the government to a ship. All I can say is that if this is the correct analogy, then farmers are certainly getting ready to take to the lifeboats.
With regard to the Farm Credit Corporation amendments, all I can say is: Bring them in, we will go to work on them.
The minister brags about marketing boards. My view from western Canada is that without exception they tend to reduce the number of producers. I grant you, Mr. Speaker, that the money is there, but the family farms are not, and that is the fastest way I know to depopulate our rural areas.
The minister spoke about the declining world price of grain responsible for the farm income slide. It is interesting to note right now that the top grade grain asking price in Vancouver is $4.30 a bushel. And still his colleague, that economic virgin from Saskatoon, has the temerity to tell farmers that they will be receiving nothing above the $2.75 initial price which they have already received. There is over $1.50 a bushel difference between what the farmer has received and will receive for the rest of the crop year and what the grain is selling for at present. Is it any wonder that my party is asking to have the Auditor General take a look at the accounts of the Canadian Wheat Board?
About a week ago some 14 of my colleagues and I went up to Saskatoon to meet with Mr. Justice Hall and have a talk with him about the recommendations contained in the Hall report. We were aware that so far only six of the 92 recommendations have been implemented, five others have been partially acted upon, but no action taken on the rest. We were disturbed to find that neither the government nor the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) had ever contacted the chief architect of the Hall commission. Our main concern was that the piecemeal approach of this government to implement the report was jeopardizing the whole concept of Judge Hall's report, which was to try to improve the economic situation on the prairies and rationalize our primary grain handling system.
Another concern was that the prairie rail action committee set up by the Minister of Transport, instead of the prairie rail authority recommended by the commission, was just a stall which would put us right back where we were before the commission was established, back in the hands of the eastern controlled Canadian Transport Commission. We are concerned that the railways are receiving far too much taxpayers' money without having to account in any way for how that money is being spent.
We were also disturbed at the fact that there is no government policy to assist the prairie livestock feeding industry or the oilseed crushers by offsetting the low statutory rates on grain.
Our policy on the Hall report is very plain and it has been stated before. First, we believe that the low Crow statutory rate for the grain producers must stay; that the government must pick up the difference between the Crow rate and the compensatory rate; that a subsidy is required to remove the

March 15, 1978
Farm Income
current freight rate distortion on livestock, meat products and oilseed products-this would cost this year some $30 million- and that the railroads must be responsible for maintaining and upgrading their prairie rail network with no further subsidy from taxpayers.
At present, the railroads have the best of both worlds- subsidy plus grants to be spent as they wish. So far as I am aware, not one cent of the subsidy has been spent on branch lines. Certainly they have upgraded the mainlines. I was surprised at the last Wheat Board area meeting in Swift Current a couple of weeks ago to find that although the hopper cars, some 6,000 to 8,000 of them, are a complete gift to the railways, if they are involved in a wreck the railways are not even required to replace the wrecked cars. Yet they are responsible for maintenance. So what happens if the cars are damaged? Rather than fix them, they scrap them. This is incredible.
We tend to be a little nervous about the low statutory rates on grain but what do our good neighbours to the south do? Over $1 billion a year is spent by the U.S. corps of army engineers on their toll-free waterways. This makes the assistance that western Canada receives look pretty small.
I have a couple of interesting news releases put out by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Transport. It is not much wonder they are putting out this sort of news release when you take a look at some of the editorials in the western papers. I have one here called the Free Press Report on Farming of February, which states in the editorial:
If anybody in this country gave a damn about Canada's future as a grain exporter, the present situation at the west coast would be a national scandal . ..
The scandalous part is that after a few years of reasonable grain prices and massive amounts of study and discussion, Canada isn't any better equipped to move grain through west coast ports than it was in 1972.
All Canada has been able to do since the last transportation tie-up (besides offering incentives for more storage) has been to provide work for huge numbers of civil servants and numerous trips, at taxpayers' expense, to balmy Vancouver.
What do farmers have to do to preserve their reputation as reliable suppliers of grain and oil seeds?
This time Canada has no excuse-no serious labour problems or natural catastrophe has caused the backlog.
Our customers have seen this before, and they are getting sick of it.
It continues:
It's a problem that will only be solved with concrete, steel and long term investment.
The government has indicated that it will spend money on its terminal at Prince Rupert. This is at a time when the terminal is not being used to capacity and has not been for years. Also it is at a time when the government of Canada owns a terminal in the port of Vancouver which has not been used for the last 15 years.
I should like to refer to a newspaper article entitled: "Whelan promotes cartel". The Minister of Agriculture referred to this today. In part the article reads as follows:

Food-producing countries should organize themselves as oil-producing nations have to force the industrial powers to pay higher food prices, Agriculture Minister Eugene Whelan said last week.
Certainly I would like to issue a word of caution on this question. Historically any scheme to build reserve stocks has tended to depress prices, even though administered pricing is involved. No buyer is likely to panic and pay the high prices we received a few years ago, as long as reserve stocks are available.
It has been fashionable in this country to think that our political rights guarantee equality in all things. This has come to mean equality not only at the starting line but at the finishing line as well. I just do not believe it. We should all have equality at the starting line and while the race is on. We should have the freedom to run that race as best we can. Finally, we should have the freedom to receive the rewards of that effort.
There is a great reservoir of energy and new ideas waiting to be tapped in Canada, but there is a feeling of hopelessness throughout the entire land. We need a change in policy, attitudes and outlook. We need a new Canada with a new government.


Some hon. Members:: 
Mr. MacGuigan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to request the unanimous consent of the House to revert to Presenting Reports from Standing or Special Committees in order to present a committee report.
March 15, 1978


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) will receive the unanimous consent of the House in order to revert to the reception of committee reports for the tabling of a report.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in both official languages.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wise:
That this Houses regrets the continuing decline in farm income and urges the government to:
(1)	extend the deferral of capital gains taxation now levied on family farms to include partnerships and incorporated farms;
(2)	promote agricultural exports and reduce Canada's present reliance on imported agricultural products;
(3)	develop marketing programs that will encourage long-term income stability;
(4)	encourage the expansion and improvement of agricultural research to ensure efficient production techniques;
(5)	provide direct food aid and human and financial assistance to Third World countries.
Mr. Speaker:: It being 5.45 o'clock p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 58(10) and the order made on Monday, March 13, 1978, to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of all Business of Supply now before the House, including the bill based on Supplementary Estimates (B) and first reading of the bill based on interim supply.
Interim Supply


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES
Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: That supplementary estimates (B) 1977-78, laid upon the Table, Wednesday, March 1, 1978, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Bud Cullen (for President of the Treasury Board)
thereupon moved that Bill C-30, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1978, be read the first time and be printed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 58(10) the question is upon the motion of Mr. Cullen (for Mr. Andras), seconded by Mr. Whelan, that Bill C-30 be now read the second time and be referred to Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Cullen (for President of the Treasury Board) thereupon moved that Bill C-30, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1978, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Turner in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. House in committee of the whole on Bill C-30, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1978.
Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: the third reading of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
3820

March 15, 1978
Interim Supply


INTERIM SUPPLY
Mr. Speaker:: The motion is by Mr. Cullen, for Mr. Andras, seconded by Mr. Whelan, that this House do concur in interim supply as follows. I would hope that these two pages of rather detailed figures have been made available for examination by hon. members and I may dispense with the reading of the motion, and that it will be printed as having been read.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: That a sum not exceeding $5,657,022,492.00 being the aggregate of:
(a)	three-twelfths of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1979, laid before the House of Commons on February 22, 1978, $5,188,330,365.50;
(b)	an additional eight-twelfths of the total amount of Energy, Mines and Resources Item L65, External Affairs Item LI 5, Indian Affairs and Northern Development Items L40 and L45, Transport Item 90, Treasury Board Items 20 and 35 and Urban Affairs Item 20 (Schedule A) of the said Estimates, $64,618,666.67;
(c)	an additional six-twelfths of the total amount of Secretary of State Item 70 and Treasury Board Item 10 (Schedule B) of the said Estimates, $75,050,000.00;
(d)	an additional five-twelfths of the total amount of Treasury Board Item 5 (Schedule C) of the said Estimates, $83,333,333.33;
(e)	an additional four-twelfths of the total amount of Finance Item 5 (Schedule D) of the said Estimates, $45,666,666.67;
(f)	an additional three-twelfths of the total amount of Communications Item 1 and Secretary of State Item 45 (Schedule E) of the said Estimates, $28,786,500.00;
(g)	an additional two-twelfths of the total amount of Energy, Mines and Resources Item 10 and External Affairs Item 5 (Schedule F) of the said Estimates, $97,250,500.00;
(h)	an additional one-twelfth of the total amount of Energy, Mines and Resources Item 20, Finance Item 1, Indian Affairs and Northern Development Item 5, Privy Council Item 1, Supply and Services Items 1 and 15 and Transport Item 20 (Schedule G) of the said Estimates, $73,986,459.83;
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1979.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: that Bill C-31, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1979, be now read a first time and be printed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: Shall I call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5:53 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, March 16, 1978